Andrew Clunn
Recent Activity
Andrew Clunn commented on Does increased longevity necessitate population control? on May 13, 2008, 7:34 PM
You point out that the population of the United States is increasing due to immigration. You also say that nations need to achieve some aspect of modern society in order to stabilize population. However, if large groups of people immigrate from a less industrialized nation with values encouraging large families to more modern nations, this would upset that balance. You even mention that the United States%u2019 population is not declining due to immigration. Add in that these new families now consume the resources associated with citizens of modern nations (substantially higher) and you've added much more to the problem. Saying it will sort itself out ignores the pervasive problem of immigrants having large families both in the form of Turkish and other middle-eastern immigrants in Europe and Mexican immigrants in the United States. This problem may "work itself out" but it will be in the form of densely populated slums forming in the coastal regions, resulting in much more massive losses of life from natural disasters, as well as increased starvation in poorer countries as the demand and price of food continuously climbs.
Andrew Clunn commented on Is secularism fundamentalism at heart? on January 20, 2008, 1:33 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. Secular morality is a very different sort of thing, as it has no unifying text or doctrine, it varies greatly from one region or individual to another. It seems the only two unifying things about it are an innate sense sense of superiority to faith based morality, and a qualification standard based upon either the consequences or the intent of an action, and placing no moral implications upon actions themselves.There is a growing view that secular morality is under attack by religious institution. In the political sense then (at least in the United States, to which I will speak of as that is where I am from) secular morality tends to stem from constitutional purity, or the supposed reverence that should be paid to the fundamentals of the legal system.I will point out however, that cases where constitutionality was swept aside for the proliferation of secularly moral judgments (such as the perjury and legislation from the bench behind Roe vs. Wade) are rarely questioned by self-described secular or even agnostic individuals. There are of course many people of faith who go against the very values of their faith to the ends of spreading it. Hypocrisy exists on both sides, it's merely that the secular humanist is somehow unable or unwilling to admit that their belief system has all the fundamentals of a religion, the only thing missing is God.
Andrew Clunn commented on Is Individualism fading? on January 17, 2008, 9:30 PM
Individualism is dying, and good riddance. There's more to be learned by listening to the wisdom of others than in self-discovery anyways. Who needs to have a different opinion? I don't.
Andrew Clunn commented on Is it ok to treat someone badly because of their beliefs? on January 17, 2008, 9:22 PM
In most situations no, however two instances where I think it would be acceptable, maybe even important that you do, come to mind.The first is during the education of children. To publicly demean another human being or treat them callously is normally wrong. However, if a lack of any negative response would indicate to a child that is present that the actions of an individual (that in accordance with their beliefs are fine, but not in yours) are in fact permissible, then using public humiliation or a sharp scolding towards a wrong-doer are important in showing the child what should and should not be acceptable behavior. This of course is meant to apply to your children, and you shouldn't be attempting to turn theirs against them.The second is in a controlled situation where the known consequences of being harsh or cruel to an individual is for that person's own good. This is a rather morally gray area, however there are some situations where it is fact necessary to be "cruel to be kind" (to be completely clich
Andrew Clunn commented on Sam Harris Says Religion Can be a Force for Good on June 6, 2008, 1:07 AM
This fails to address the issue of qualifying morality without religion. He speaks of moral behavior being respecting your fellow human beings as the only real potential benefit of religion. Even if he is correct, where is the structure of morality present in atheism? This view of brash and brazened disrespect for traditional values and views without the offer of an alternative, to keep people from selfishness and individualism to the point of social degradation, seems too close to nihilism. He may have an answer, but it is not evident at all in this video.And please people, do not use the stereotypes floating around the atheist community about people of faith being idiots, it only serves to prove stereotypes within the faith community about atheists being elitist pricks.