Reason vs. Morality

[dilloduck]

Did you miss the part about the Constitution, We the People and the BoR?

how about secular Mexicans- ?? Aren't secular morals universal ??

I think we are having a problem with terminology. Is this what you are trying to say?

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secular Humanism

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3]

It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world union of more than one hundred Humanist, rationalist, irreligious, atheistic, Bright, secular, Ethical Culture, and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries. The "Happy Human" is the official symbol of the IHEU as well as being regarded as a universally recognised symbol for those who call themselves Humanists. Secular humanist organizations are found in all parts of the world. Those who call themselves humanists are estimated to number between four and five million people worldwide.

In America, the ethical movement was propounded by Felix Adler, who established the New York Society for Ethical Culture in 1877.[19] By 1886, similar societies had sprouted up in Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis.[20]

These societies all adopted the same statement of principles:

The belief that morality is independent of theology;
The affirmation that new moral problems have arisen in modern industrial society which have not been adequately dealt with by the world's religions;
The duty to engage in philanthropy in the advancement of morality;
The belief that self-reform should go in lock step with social reform;
The establishment of republican rather than monarchical governance of Ethical societies
The agreement that educating the young is the most important aim.
In effect, the movement responded to the religious crisis of the time by replacing theology with unadulterated morality. It aimed to "disentangle moral ideas from religious doctrines, metaphysical systems, and ethical theories, and to make them an independent force in personal life and social relations."[20] Adler was also particularly critical of the religious emphasis on creed, believing it to be the source of sectarian bigotry. He therefore attempted to provide a universal fellowship devoid of ritual and ceremony, for those who would otherwise be divided by creeds. For the same reasons the movement also adopted a neutral position on religious beliefs, advocating neither atheism nor theism, agnosticism nor deism.[20]

The first ethical society along these lines in Britain was founded in 1886. By 1896 the four London societies formed the Union of Ethical Societies, and between 1905 and 1910 there were over fifty societies in Great Britain, seventeen of which were affiliated with the Union.

International Humanist and Ethical Union[edit]
In 2002, the IHEU General Assembly unanimously adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 which represents the official defining statement of World Humanism.[24]

All member organisations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union are required by bylaw 5.1[25] to accept the Minimum Statement on Humanism:

“ Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. ”
To promote and unify "Humanist" identity, prominent members of the IHEU have endorsed the following statements on Humanist identity:[3]

All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should always use the one word Humanism as the name of Humanism: no added adjective, and the initial letter capital (by life stance orthography);
All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should use a clear, recognizable and uniform symbol on their publications and elsewhere: our Humanist symbol the "Happy Human";
All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should seek to establish recognition of the fact that Humanism is a life stance.
Council for Secular Humanism[edit]
According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "secular humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[7]

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.[26]
Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
A Secular Humanist Declaration was issued in 1980 by the Council for Secular Humanism's predecessor, CODESH. It lays out ten ideals: Free inquiry as opposed to censorship and imposition of belief; separation of church and state; the ideal of freedom from religious control and from jingoistic government control; ethics based on critical intelligence rather than that deduced from religious belief; moral education; religious skepticism; reason; a belief in science and technology as the best way of understanding the world; evolution; and education as the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies.[27]

ya now we're getting somewhere

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I partially agree...one's morality/religious beliefs inform one's choices and priorities for government. Freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Without such the participation of such consciences, we leave a void which is filled by those who make a religion of the Secular State.

We definitely do agree...in part!

For those with religious beliefs they ultimately reach the same choices and priorities as those without. This is not the thread for the topic of freedom "FROM" religion so I won't go there.

There is no void of conscience for those without religion. They come to their choices and priorities via reasoning out the alternatives but ultimately they arrive at a consensus that is the current secular government We the People have today. It embraces the best of both while keeping in check the worst of both. (Yes, both secularism and religion have a worst side as well as a good side. The FF knew this and accounted for it in the BoR.)

Peace
DT

Make the case for secular morals----on what foundation do they lie and what is it that they seek to accomplish ? just obedience ?

Obedience is something that stems from religion. Here is the foundation for secular morals.

According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "secular humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[7]

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.[26]

Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Which of the above do you have a problem with?

 

[dilloduck]

We definitely do agree...in part!

For those with religious beliefs they ultimately reach the same choices and priorities as those without. This is not the thread for the topic of freedom "FROM" religion so I won't go there.

There is no void of conscience for those without religion. They come to their choices and priorities via reasoning out the alternatives but ultimately they arrive at a consensus that is the current secular government We the People have today. It embraces the best of both while keeping in check the worst of both. (Yes, both secularism and religion have a worst side as well as a good side. The FF knew this and accounted for it in the BoR.)

Peace
DT

Make the case for secular morals----on what foundation do they lie and what is it that they seek to accomplish ? just obedience ?

Obedience is something that stems from religion. Here is the foundation for secular morals.

According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "secular humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[7]

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.[26]

Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Which of the above do you have a problem with?

none other than they are so vague that they have no meaning ----Who is the decider of "fair" and "Just" ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

The usual from a lying sack of sewage: "Ignoring the factual errors in the OP..."

Go for it, you dunce.

No point now, because you just conceded them by resorting to mindless insults. But I am not in the least surprised that someone who professes to uphold religious morality lashes out with puerile insults.

The primary objective of your OP has been exposed as utterly fallacious and you cannot even rise to the challenge of defending your position. Looks like you conceded that without so much as a whimper.

"No point now, because you just conceded them by resorting to mindless insults."

1. That means, as I said, you are a lying sack of sewage.

You pretend that you know something....but when pressed to support your slander, you do what every lying sack of sewage does.


Of course, there really is no penalty, as you have no reputation to lose.



2. "...mindless insults."

Wrong again, halfhead.

I'm very careful of how I express my insults because I want to put as much vituperation in them as possible.

 

[Unkotare]

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

The usual from a lying sack of sewage: "Ignoring the factual errors in the OP..."

Go for it, you dunce.

No point now, because you just conceded them by resorting to mindless insults.

= you can't. You tuck your tail between your legs any further you're gonna hurt yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Unless, according to Obama, you're a business owner.

This is about reason and morality, not politics.

I understand the temptation but if we go down this path we lose sight of what we are trying to determine.

Peace
DT

Scuze moi, but you're the one who brought up Secular Government, the very nature of which Is Political.

Point taken!

I was trying to stay out of current politics and stick only to the concepts of Secular Government as opposed to Theocratic Government.

Yes, we have an imperfect implementation of a Secular Government but the alternatives proposed by the OP were a Theocracy or Communism (although she didn't use those actual terms.)

What we have today was best described by Churchill as "Democracy is the worst form of government until you consider the alternatives".

We the People of today inherited a Secular Government from the FF who were well aware of the dangers of the alternatives. What we have is imperfect but that doesn't mean we cannot live by the Preamble; We the People, in order to form a more perfect union...

We just haven't reached it yet.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Agreed, as long as we are talking about Negative Rights - the rights to be Left Alone.

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right, is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

The right to vote is positive as is the right to free speech and bear arms. None of them are infringements on the rights of others. I am a staunch upholder of the rights to all of the above and the other rights in the Constitution. I would be surprised to discover that you don't share in upholding those rights for me as I would for you.

Or perhaps you are thinking of something else when you use the term "positive rights". If so then I would be happy to hear what it is that you are getting at.

Wrong. Positive rights are rights provided by The State. Negative rights entail limitations on the power of government to interfere with the individual.

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that definition.

In which case I am at a loss to understand your position;

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right [Positive rights are rights provided by The State], is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

How is exercising my free speech right an infringement of your right to free speech? (Replace free speech with privacy, bear arms, voting, habeas corpus, etc, etc.)

 

[dilloduck]

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

My rationale is that I don't want to be a victim of murder. If there are no murders in my society I don't have to worry about me or my family becoming victims.

I also think my right to live outweighs your right to go around killing people.

So the reasoning is that if there is a law against murder, I will be safer ?

 

[peach174]

I'm not talking rights here. I'm asking the purpose for secular morals.
One answer was is "to avoid chaos"
Do you have another ?

Please define "secular morals".

that's sorta what I'm asking for.......it's commonly said the religion isn't the only way to be moral--I'm trying to determine the nature of the secular way of behaving properly.

There has never been any civilizations though out mankind's history without some sort of higher authority.
They all had God or Gods.
Ancient man found out that it is needed, in order to keep their social groups from becoming lawless.
Without that people worship themselves and become selfish.
When ever man becomes selfish you have murder, thief's, drunkards and druggies. Those things become their Gods.
Look at any drug user, they worship that drug above anything else. They don't care about their kids or family or anything other than the next fix.
Many turn to drugs because they don't have any higher authority and feel lost and hopeless.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Make the case for secular morals----on what foundation do they lie and what is it that they seek to accomplish ? just obedience ?

Obedience is something that stems from religion. Here is the foundation for secular morals.

According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "secular humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[7]

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.[26]

Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Which of the above do you have a problem with?

none other than they are so vague that they have no meaning ----Who is the decider of "fair" and "Just" ?

We the People. Justice is a right that each of us must uphold for each other. For you to fail to obtain justice means that my own right to justice is in jeopardy. The concept of Secular Government is that We the People make these decisions for ourselves.

No, we don't always get it right! But we keep on trying to get it right. The Constitution was flawed when written 200+ years ago but it is better today because we keep on trying to improve it. The process actually works, albeit imperfectly.

 

[boedicca]

The right to vote is positive as is the right to free speech and bear arms. None of them are infringements on the rights of others. I am a staunch upholder of the rights to all of the above and the other rights in the Constitution. I would be surprised to discover that you don't share in upholding those rights for me as I would for you.

Or perhaps you are thinking of something else when you use the term "positive rights". If so then I would be happy to hear what it is that you are getting at.

Wrong. Positive rights are rights provided by The State. Negative rights entail limitations on the power of government to interfere with the individual.

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that definition.

In which case I am at a loss to understand your position;

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right [Positive rights are rights provided by The State], is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

How is exercising my free speech right an infringement of your right to free speech? (Replace free speech with privacy, bear arms, voting, habeas corpus, etc, etc.)

Freedom of speech is a Negative Right...the state is prevented from Limiting your Free Speech. Same thing with the others. The State doesn't GIVE you your rights to free speech, to bear arms, etc....if it did, then it could easily take away those rights.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit government power over an individual's inalienable-intrinsic-God-given rights. Such rights are inherent to the individual separate and apart from any government construct. The purpose of our form of government was to protect those rights from abuse by others, including the state.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The usual from a lying sack of sewage: "Ignoring the factual errors in the OP..."

Go for it, you dunce.

No point now, because you just conceded them by resorting to mindless insults. But I am not in the least surprised that someone who professes to uphold religious morality lashes out with puerile insults.

The primary objective of your OP has been exposed as utterly fallacious and you cannot even rise to the challenge of defending your position. Looks like you conceded that without so much as a whimper.

"No point now, because you just conceded them by resorting to mindless insults."

1. That means, as I said, you are a lying sack of sewage.

You pretend that you know something....but when pressed to support your slander, you do what every lying sack of sewage does.


Of course, there really is no penalty, as you have no reputation to lose.



2. "...mindless insults."

Wrong again, halfhead.

I'm very careful of how I express my insults because I want to put as much vituperation in them as possible.

Thank you again for proving me correct about your religious agenda and that your OP is fallacious. Have a nice day.

 

[dilloduck]

Obedience is something that stems from religion. Here is the foundation for secular morals.



Which of the above do you have a problem with?

none other than they are so vague that they have no meaning ----Who is the decider of "fair" and "Just" ?

We the People. Justice is a right that each of us must uphold for each other. For you to fail to obtain justice means that my own right to justice is in jeopardy. The concept of Secular Government is that We the People make these decisions for ourselves.

No, we don't always get it right! But we keep on trying to get it right. The Constitution was flawed when written 200+ years ago but it is better today because we keep on trying to improve it. The process actually works, albeit imperfectly.

If you insist on limiting this to America I'll have to disagree----judges decided what is fair and just.

 

[alang1216]

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

My rationale is that I don't want to be a victim of murder. If there are no murders in my society I don't have to worry about me or my family becoming victims.

I also think my right to live outweighs your right to go around killing people.

So the reasoning is that if there is a law against murder, I will be safer ?

That is my reasoning, yes. Like if there are speed limits on the highway and penalties for speeders the highways should be safer. People might still do 65 in a 55 zone but they'll only rarely be doing 105.

 

[Steven_R]

a. "... Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist (he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology[41]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views." Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sternberg wasn't pilloried for giving Meyer a platform, he was pilloried for sidestepping the peer review process for the journal he edited. He published Meyer's paper without having it send to reviewers to examine. His career was wrecked because of his own actions, if you can call it wrecked considering he didn't lose his privileges anywhere and was asked to step down from his editorial position, a positional he had already announced his resignation from.

Intelligent design and academic freedom - RationalWiki

You're fulla beans.

The willfully blind, i.e., you, will continue to accept that pap.


The 'peer-review' nonsense has been blown out of the water.

Keep bowing to the orthodoxy.

Sternberg was the editor of a peer-reviewed scientific journal and allowed a paper to be published without being reviewed. He lost his job because he made a decision to not abide by the standard of the journal. He's not a victim of anything other than his own bad decision.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wrong. Positive rights are rights provided by The State. Negative rights entail limitations on the power of government to interfere with the individual.

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that definition.

In which case I am at a loss to understand your position;

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right [Positive rights are rights provided by The State], is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

How is exercising my free speech right an infringement of your right to free speech? (Replace free speech with privacy, bear arms, voting, habeas corpus, etc, etc.)

Freedom of speech is a Negative Right...the state is prevented from Limiting your Free Speech. Same thing with the others. The State doesn't GIVE you your rights to free speech, to bear arms, etc....if it did, then it could easily take away those rights.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit government power over an individual's inalienable-intrinsic-God-given rights. Such rights are inherent to the individual separate and apart from any government construct. The purpose of our form of government was to protect those rights from abuse by others, including the state.

That is the opposite of what I understood you to mean but no matter. We can take it from here.

Let's take this point;

The State doesn't GIVE you your rights to free speech, to bear arms, etc....if it did, then it could easily take away those rights.

Censorship is the means by which the state can deprive you of your free speech rights. In many nations today censorship is the rule of law by the state. In Theocratic states censorship is such that your life can be in jeopardy for exercising your right to free speech and criticizing the government.

So yes, the state can deprive you of your right to free speech, voting, bear arms, etc irrespective of how inalienable it might be in principle.

The Constitution and the BoR specifically placed prohibitions on the state taking away your rights but that hasn't and doesn't stop the state from doing it. Censorship during WW2 was the norm as was incarceration of Japanese Americans. Today your right to privacy is infringed by the Patriot Act.

So the abuse of our rights by the state is ongoing and that is why We the People have to be vigilante about defending and upholding our individual rights.

 

[boedicca]

Just because the State seeks to acrete power by infringing on one's rights doesn't turn those rights into Positive ones.

 

[Derideo_Te]

none other than they are so vague that they have no meaning ----Who is the decider of "fair" and "Just" ?

We the People. Justice is a right that each of us must uphold for each other. For you to fail to obtain justice means that my own right to justice is in jeopardy. The concept of Secular Government is that We the People make these decisions for ourselves.

No, we don't always get it right! But we keep on trying to get it right. The Constitution was flawed when written 200+ years ago but it is better today because we keep on trying to improve it. The process actually works, albeit imperfectly.

If you insist on limiting this to America I'll have to disagree----judges decided what is fair and just.

I have no problem expanding We the People to encompass everyone in the world.

Judges don't decide what is "fair and just". They make unjust and unfair decisions that can be overturned by We the People via the legislative process. It is called checks and balances.

And before you go there, not everyone in the world has a Constitutional Secular Government with specified rights. But in principle that would be preferable to the alternatives out there today.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just because the State seeks to acrete power by infringing on one's rights doesn't turn those rights into Positive ones.

Agreed. But the state can and does take away rights if We the People allow it to happen which was the point I was addressing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sternberg wasn't pilloried for giving Meyer a platform, he was pilloried for sidestepping the peer review process for the journal he edited. He published Meyer's paper without having it send to reviewers to examine. His career was wrecked because of his own actions, if you can call it wrecked considering he didn't lose his privileges anywhere and was asked to step down from his editorial position, a positional he had already announced his resignation from.

Intelligent design and academic freedom - RationalWiki

You're fulla beans.

The willfully blind, i.e., you, will continue to accept that pap.


The 'peer-review' nonsense has been blown out of the water.

Keep bowing to the orthodoxy.

Sternberg was the editor of a peer-reviewed scientific journal and allowed a paper to be published without being reviewed. He lost his job because he made a decision to not abide by the standard of the journal. He's not a victim of anything other than his own bad decision.

"... peer-reviewed scientific journal..."

You are more than gullible.

What kind of dunce attributes super-human ethics to any group based on their title....

Oh..you.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ?peer review ring? - The Washington Post



Wise up.

Grow up.