I commented on ‘your beliefs 2 years ago’ recently without realising these changes in your beliefs. I am re-posting what I wrote on your previous beliefs – some of which have not changed. Please forgive if I don’t know much about philosophy because I am actually more into science. Thanks.

Wow….regarding your ‘core beliefs’, I am totally against most of your beliefs! It’s surprising that I agree with you on many things regarding Russia and international politics!

“We are atheists” vs I am a theist.

“secular worldview” vs religious worldview(however, Government should be secular and there should be separation of state from religion).

“We support the goals of the feminist movement” – while the feminist movement was right in exposing abuse of the female gender by the male gender in the past, I oppose their almost militant methods of ‘emasculating’ the male gender while ‘masculinizing’ the female gender. Human beings, biologically-speaking, are sexually dichotomous. Male and female are complementary and although they are equal in many areas, they are non-equal but complementary in others. Inequality is not inferiority but complementary.

With regards to “female economic participation” – I think employers are not keen to take in females because they think about , perhaps presumed ‘lack of productivity’ in pregnant female workforce and covering their maternity expenses(including sick leave). It’s more of minimal costs with maximal profits consideration rather than thinking females are inferior intellectually – at least in our modern world. It’s a problem of this perception that leads to the ‘gender discrimination’.

“LGBT rights” – they already have rights to be who they want to be. I construe such relations , excluding my religious beliefs, as biological dead-ends and hence not acceptable. They have the freedom to choose that lifestyle but I disagree that they should be militant about it(“Gay Pride”) nor should they insist that others who oppose or disagree with them ‘accept’ them via legal ramifications. I don’t agree with anti-LGBT who are violent towards them but I oppose same-sex marriage because it legalizes such unions. My view: their choice to carry on with the relationship but NO legal recognition.
(Some biologists have supposedly ‘proved’ that homosexuality is ‘biological’ – my refutation is : 1.)cancer, ischaemic heart disease, essential hypertension are ‘biological’ yet we try to reverse them; 2.)nature does have errors – and I view homosexuality observed in nature as biochemical/physiological errors 3.)Extrapolating animal ethology into human behaviour is inaccurate because humans have the ability to make choices which are combinations of rational/emotional/physiological/etc. The outcome of the choice depends on which conflicting ‘impulses’ triumph.

“It is obvious that global warming is both real and anthropic.”
There is no obvious proof. Being a person who loves science – especially ‘hard science’, I consider climate science to be ‘soft science’ with too many wildly differing models which end up with wildly different conclusions of ‘earth’s future climate’. Global warming is unproven to be anthropic and though it may be real, there is no proof that its worsening will be a sustained one.

“We are against censorship.” You feed the mind rubbish, you’ll have rubbish thoughts. Humans are by nature evil. But you can teach humans to learn how to do evil things(‘method of evil’). I am not for strict censorship but mild forms of censorship are necessary at times.

“supports a gradual decriminalization of all drugs”.
I cannot agree with you on this.
“Drugs” should be licensed and administered by medical professionals only. “Recreational” use of these drugs should not be allowed. Alcohol and tobacco are bad for health and should be campaigned against. These both should be characterized as ‘drugs’ and comparing them with marijuana, LSD and esctasy is logical. More teneous is comparing these substances to ‘fat, sugar and salts’ – these substances are physiologically needed for health : excessive amounts is the problem, not the substance itself. Campaign against bad, unhealthy diet rather than putting these substances on the same pedestal as ‘recreational drugs’. Marijuana, LSD, esctacy and many ‘recreational drugs’ are not physiologically needed in healthy human beings. Substances not physiologically needed but with potentially adverse ‘side effects’ should be under the care of health professionals only(who know the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these substances). Apart from the ‘positive’effects of ‘fun’, these ‘drugs’ are associated with serious adverse effects on the user and ultimately on society(the psycho-social negative effects and healthcare costs). Adverse effects of cannabinoids(long term use) : pulmonary tree abnormalities, laryngitis, rhinitis, chronic obstructive airway disease(ie emphysema, chronic bronchitis), ECG abnormalities, low sperm count, ovulation failure and cognitive impairments among others. LSD – acute episodes can lead to erratic behaviour that may lead to injury/death. Esctacy – sympathomimetic effects in moderate use; if intoxicated: sweating, tachycardia(fast heart rate), high BP. mydriasis(pupils enlarged), hyperactivity and acute brain syndrome(confusion/disorientation). Long term use of esctacy can lead to ‘tolerance’ which include – paranoia, stereotypism, tactile hallucination(eg of insect infestation), psychosis with persecutory hallucination which can lead to aggression. Withdrawal symptoms – depression(with suicide ideation), hyperphagia(abnormally eating a lot) and hypersomnia(excessive sleeping). And of course these ‘recreational’ drugs have the problem of dependency. The use of these ‘drugs’ should be regulated only in pathophysiology(ie in illness state) and not to be used as ‘recreation’ in otherwise ‘healthy’ individuals.

Some of my disagrements with your views. Thanks.

Sino-tibetan.

Erm, anyhow, I’ve added a link to this post at the bottom of About Me.

Congratulations on your epiphany. I respect this kind of realism in a “social progressive.” Perhaps in another couple of years you will abandon melioristic fantasies entirely.

“From economic centrism, of the Krugmanite variety, to Green Communism. From atheism to pantheism.”

Don’t you need to remove that link on your About Me page to your manifesto about “non-ideological atheism”?

-As for left/ right, this is something I may write about a bit more. I’ve become more socially conservative with age but also more ‘left wing’ in being sceptical of the free market in its own terms: it’s claims to create full employment, to be self-regulating and to be inherently more efficient.

How far this has seeped into my views, I don’t know: I support renationalising Britain’s railways and manufacturing. But I still think there is a place for a strong private sector.

I still feel very queasy about ‘left wing’ culture, which seems horribly smug, consensual and self-aggrandising. Incidentally, not strongly nationalisation, and I think this is a sign of how it has eroded into a kind of cult where people try to find they agree on everything (for something of a disclaimer, there is also an ‘interesting left’ as I see it, and I like to think I am a part of it, but it is marginal). Maybe we share something in that we are agnostic about the ethical superiority of socialism over capitalism, but think that socialism has a structural superiority over capitalism.

-‘Global capitalism, however thickly sugar-coated with socialism / welfarism’

Does this mean you are beginning to accept my formulation of neo-liberal welfarism

Being British I think plays some role to my dislike of neo-liberalism. We have little manufacturing, weak unions, privatised (though subsidised) transport and Mrs T is regarded as a semi-divine being. Yet we also have exhaustive CCTV, strict gun-laws and a large government database. And a large unemployed (unemployable?) sector.

-Disagree re abortion, but then we’ve already had a bit of a stalemate over that.

-However, I find ‘animal’ rights more interesting. I am against factory farming and vivisection, but I believe as a Christian that humans have dominion over animals. I find it difficult to understand the atheist position on animal rights, and in some ways I’d have thought materialism renders the word ‘animal’ meaningless. Actually, I think that stalemate is the normal outcome of bioethics questions, so we’ll probably have to leave it at that.

-Da Russophile supports a gradual decriminalization of all drugs.
Not certain about all drugs, but generally I agree and think that the ‘war on drugs’ has an unjustifiable human and economic cost.

-About social policy, it depends on whether abortion is counted, but aside from that, politically I am socially liberal. I don’t see it as being for the state to go into people’s bedrooms or arrest cannabis addicts. But I also think that churches can play a valuable social role in society. But here it gets complex. I don’t want to be sectarian, but I am not an apologist for all Christian denominations either.

Just a few thoughts.

http://www.murderingmouth.com/2010/01/26/values-statement-2010

I’ve had a similar evolution, but more gradually (i.e. over many years), and more on pragmatic grounds than on philosophical ones. I still think human rights are fine things and that democracy is better than dictatorship; I’m just very skeptical of the notion that they can be imposed from outside. History shows that such attempts often do more harm than good, and wind up exhausting and compromising both the imposer and the imposee.