.com.unity Forums - Real World Philospohy

Page 3 of 5

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Real World Philospohy (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=10706)

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003 09:59 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Well South Park is a show of political satire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Oh really, I did not realize that. I thought is was a kids show. Hummmm, I guess all those adult jokes and humor should have tipped me off. Guess I will have to forbid the kiddies from watching it. Heaven knows we don't want our childrens mind to be poluted by such evil as this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

General Woundwort

November 10th, 2003 10:49 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They had that on South Park 2 weeks ago... Cartman formed a christian rock band and just copied a bunch of love songs, inserting God or Jesus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ouch. Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in that... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

deccan

November 10th, 2003 11:21 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:
For the second part, that's the very reason why Christianity has taken such a beating in Western society. Their 'hows' have consistently been proven wrong, starting with Copernicus. They should drop them altogether and stick to the 'whys'. The Catholic Church, incidentally, tends to evade certain scientific questions with religious implications. For example, "Will sentient aliens have souls like we do ?" "Um, let's wait until we know if there are sentient aliens first." The anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, are just setting themselves up for a fall.

Once you go down this route, why choose religions at all? Personally I'd advise people to study history, philosophy and be well read generally, to travel and visit different cultures if possible, and sample as much of the fine arts as you can.

deccan

November 10th, 2003 12:51 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
One of my favorite quotes from Nietzche goes something like "If you were to prove God to me, I would believe in Him all the less." Hardly sounds like a detached observer to me.

In defense of Nietzsche, I think he might have meant "believe" in a different sense. One can say believe as in "believe in the existence of", or believe as in "have trust in". I think the statement refers to the latter sense of believe.

General Woundwort

November 10th, 2003 01:18 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by deccan:
In defense of Nietzsche, I think he might have meant "believe" in a different sense. One can say believe as in "believe in the existence of", or believe as in "have trust in". I think the statement refers to the latter sense of believe.

Possibly, but this is also the fellow who said "If there is a God, how could I bear not to be one?" Also, his whole argument was similar to what is seen here - religion was a human construct which allowed the 'slave' caste to gain the upper hand over the 'masters'. Even the very existence of God would undermine his whole project.

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2003 01:20 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
That's because science has a great track record at solving problems. You call it a "faith statement", I call it betting with the odds on favorite.

They have a great track record for stuff that can be locally checked, and repeatedly done (physics, electronics, chemestry, et cetera). On things that happened in the distant past, science has a track record of primarily agreeing with popular politics of the day and place.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does."

Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:

2) An as-yet unrecognized force to overpower the super-gravity at such an event, such as "dark energy"
- "dark energy" is a cop-out; it's an unobserved something (reason for the "dark" in the name) thrown in as a correction factor to fix the problem; it's only thought to exist because the universe hasn't collapsed in on itself over the timeframe the universe is thought to have been around. This energy is unobserved; it is required to make certain models work, so it is assumed. Few suggest that there may be a more fundamental flaw in the model. Such a force is also an act of faith.

Isn't that the way physics works? The theoretician makes some theory which has some unobservable element. Then the applied physicists design experiments to attempt to observe those elements thus proving the theory.
<hr /></blockquote>To an extent - but you can't properly experiment on the universe to test things.

Also (this is just nit-picking on language use, feel free to ignore): Technically, no theory is ever "proven by" observation or experimentation - only "supported by" or "contradicted by".

Quote:

Thus implying there may be no better theory.<hr /></blockquote>Not when there is a loosly organized power structure which pretty much controls what gets funding/equipment access for research and publishing space in credited journals that has much work invested in specific theories. Anything too terribly contradictory to those theories gets quietly suppressed; papers/textbooks don't get published (they don't fit with what the review board "knows" is right, so they are deemed "wrong" and left unpublished), grants aren't granted (again, they don't fit with what the review board "knows" is right, so it is deemed a waste of money to research), with the net effect being that there are extreme difficulties involved in researching anything which might threaten the status quo, which in turn means it is neigh impossible to flesh out any potentially better theory to the point where they can be tested against each other (not that one can properly test anything about the distant past in any event).

Sure, that is the peer review system, and it does filter a fair amount of bull - but an amount of bull still makes it through, and it is functionally impossible to determine how much non-bull it also filters, and difficult to tell exactly how much bull successfully masquerades as non-bull.

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
if like religion a large majority had different theories then you would have to question it much more.

As compared to the current state of the larger scientific community where any creditable voice that dissents too much or too loudly on certain topics is discredited and left out of the conversation?
If you were in, say, one of the early North American puritan settlements, and those voicing different beliefs were exiled, you'd almost never hear an argument (much less a coherent, well-reasoned one) against that particular settlement's belief system, regardless of how reasonable or outlandish that particular belief system was. By your implied theory count method of the reasonableness of questioning something, it would not be reasonable to question that belief system under such circumstances, and hence unreasonable to construct an alternative.

[ November 10, 2003, 23:20: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

November 11th, 2003 01:34 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".

Not very well. Your statement had a totally different effect than what Spoon proposed...

spoon

November 11th, 2003 01:58 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
They have a great track record for stuff that can be locally checked, and repeatedly done (physics, electronics, chemestry, et cetera). On things that happened in the distant past, science has a track record of primarily agreeing with popular politics of the day and place.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does."

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".

Just wanted to make sure your straw man was properly stuffed...

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2003 04:20 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
They have a great track record for stuff that can be locally checked, and repeatedly done (physics, electronics, chemestry, et cetera). On things that happened in the distant past, science has a track record of primarily agreeing with popular politics of the day and place.

That is simply untrue. Science has a track record of proposing theories that are uncheckable at the time, and then prove out to be true when the means to check them becomes available. And when those theories don't match the observed data, they are modified or replaced with better ones. Popular politics does not even figure into it, except to create a degree of inertia for new ideas to overcome before they are taken seriously.
<hr /></blockquote>On repeatable, locally checkable stuff (a few decades of tech lag doesn't preclude the currently unspecified definition of local I'm using), they do have a good track record. I'm not contradicting orbital mechanics, relativity, or quantum theory here; I'm referring to extrapolations into the distant past. For those, the ones considered credible do pretty much correspond to the politicical winds; one example:

Quote:

From http://www.evolution-facts.org/3evlch29b.htm
LYSENKO�Trofim D. Lysenko (1893-1976) rose to power in the 1930s in the U.S.S.R. by convincing the government he could create a State Science that combined Darwinian evolutionary theory with Marxist theory. With *Stalin's hearty backing, Lysenko became responsible for the death of thousands. Many of the best Russian scientists were put to death.

Long after Lamarckian inheritance had been abandoned elsewhere, Russia retained this belief. Refusing to accept that each generation must be educated anew, Marxism felt that Marxist revolution principles would enter the genes and transform society into thorough-going Communism! Under Lysenko's dominance of Soviet science, "Mendelist" genetics was a forbidden doctrine, a bourgeois heresy. Lysenko was finally ousted in 1965 when his theories produced agricultural disaster for the nation. (He claimed to be able to change winter wheat into spring wheat through temperature change, and wheat into rye in one generation.)

The russian regeme needed a quick change theory, and so accepted the guy on the spot - it wasn't until he caused a famine with his experimentation, and hence his theories became politically untenable, that he was finally thrown out.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does."

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".

Just wanted to make sure your straw man was properly stuffed... <hr /></blockquote>Not exactly a straw man, as the clauses I didn't include weren't in the post I had been half-refering to when I listed the faith statement earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator Fyron (Member # 1794) on March 17, 2003 08:15 in a long-dead thread

[...]
Once all of the evidence can be taken into account, the theory will be adjusted to fit.
[...]

There were no clauses in there about "likely", nor replacement, as your Version would have it include.

deccan

November 11th, 2003 04:24 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Possibly, but this is also the fellow who said "If there is a God, how could I bear not to be one?" Also, his whole argument was similar to what is seen here - religion was a human construct which allowed the 'slave' caste to gain the upper hand over the 'masters'. Even the very existence of God would undermine his whole project.

Few people would probably try to argue that Nietzsche doesn't contradict himself on various points at different times in his life. Nietzsche even kept diaries of private writings that differ markedly from his published writings and have academics scratching their heads ever since over which Version represented the true Nietzsche, if there ever was one.

I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.

Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.

So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one.

spoon

November 11th, 2003 05:38 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I'm referring to extrapolations into the distant past. For those, the ones considered credible do pretty much correspond to the politicical winds

So what are the political winds behind evolution and the big bang? The example you cited seemed more anecdotal than anything else. The fact that a dictator was pushing a doctrine doesn't discredit science, it discredits the dictator.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not exactly a straw man, as the clauses I didn't include weren't in the post I had been half-refering to when I listed the faith statement earlier:
...

Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But with the qualifiaction in there, you agree with the statement, or no?

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2003 07:08 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
So what are the political winds behind evolution and the big bang? The example you cited seemed more anecdotal than anything else. The fact that a dictator was pushing a doctrine doesn't discredit science, it discredits the dictator.

That particular one is a relatively recent, specific case where actual documents fairly clearly lay out what happened. For other such cases, it isn't usually laid out in documents from the time, but it is possible to make reasonable inferences based on things they were immediately used to justify, that had been happening beforehand anyway. Whether or not those inferences are accurate is a different matter, but a correlation is there.

For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification: they aren't evolved as much as we are; they are naturally stupid. As such, they could be considered less than human; animals for test subjects:

Quote:

copied from A web page (Am I legally allowed to do this? There doesn't appear to be any note on the site about it one way or the other....)
Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes:

"A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen".

Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as "Australian animals". It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens". He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. "Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens."

"A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas."

For more modern political reasons, consider what a lack of a Creator would mean:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them). Those running sleazy megacorps are free to make sleazy practices, as they won't really suffer for it any time soon and it helps them personally in the short run. Those in office can do the same. There's no real accountability. Strong incentive for anyone thirsting for power, and most of those in power anymore thirst for it to some degree.

The Big Bang is possibly a consequence of those in power needing lots of time for evolution, combined with the observation of a near universal redshift of distant stellar objects and Einstien's theory of relativity, which predicted that objects moving away from each other would cause a redshift. Putting those together, it becomes reasonably clear that the universe is expanding (unless another reason for the redshift is postulated, as some do). Well, if it is expanding, and it has been around long enough, then unless the expansion is a recent phenomina things must have come from a point. Getting out of that point required some driving force, and hence the Big Bang theory was born.

There's lots of problems with BB theory and evolutionary theory as a method of describing how we got where we are today, but those are usually either not brought up, quietly kept out of journals usually considered credible, dismissed as minor, or brushed off with "the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going" with the implication being that all will be answered if it is just given enough time.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

But with the qualifiaction in there, you agree with the statement, or no?

For the stuff that can be tested locally (chemistry, physics, electronics, et cetera), sure they do, as I've mentioned a number of times.

For stuff about the distant past, which by definition usually involves unrepeatable, happened once phenomina, they tend to argue details, mechanisms, order, specific path, and the like, but they don't dispute the basic thesises (that doesn't look right; what's the plural of thesis?); at least, not in the standard set of journals usually considered credible. Those that do don't usually get research grants or published in the journals usually considered credible.

DavidG

November 11th, 2003 01:36 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them).

WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

deccan

November 11th, 2003 01:42 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.

I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.

But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story.

General Woundwort

November 11th, 2003 03:38 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by deccan:
I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.

There's a lot of truth to this. Nietzsche would probably have disparaged the very idea of trying to formulate rational trends in his writings. But there are those who have followed him, in spirit if not exactly to the letter (Foucault comes to mind immediately), and I believe that the conclusions they draw from him are well-founded in his texts

Quote:

Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.

Again, there's a lot of truth here. Nietzsche was not an idiot - far from it. But, speaking as a rationalist, that's exactly where his arguments fall to the ground. The anthropological proofs of his "slave-caste" origins of religion are - to put it charitably - thin.

Quote:

So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one.

Which is why I am very grateful to my teachers for not just telling me about Nietzsche - but actually having me read him for myself.

General Woundwort

November 11th, 2003 03:43 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.

DavidG

November 11th, 2003 04:10 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.

I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Sure standards of what is right or wrong vary sure, but my point is it IS possible to know what is right or wrong without religion. And it is not even hard to figure out why these things are wrong. Would I be pissed if John Doe stole my car? Yea. So would it be wrong for me to steal his? Yea.
The implication that all athiests don't know it is wrong to rape or murder and don't know why is just ridiculous.

Andr�s

November 11th, 2003 04:47 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.

Erax	November 11th, 2003 04:50 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

It is possible to develop morality without religion, but it is definitely harder. It is much easier to do it by instilling supernatural fear in people, but that does not mean that this is the only way.

The main incentive for behaving morally is that everyone profits from it. Supposing everyone in my immediate area began to behave morally tomorrow, there would be huge savings - less taxes, less insurance, no expense with private security services, and so on.

Fyron

November 11th, 2003 06:35 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work.

He was bound to do something like that sooner or later. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Wildly misquoting an old argument out of context that has nothing to do with the current debate is certainly not good work.

spoon

November 11th, 2003 07:04 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That particular one is a relatively recent, specific case where actual documents fairly clearly lay out what happened.

Yes, but the example you cited wasn't accepted by scientists worldwide, just by the ones who would get shot for not following the party line...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification.


Again, you example isn't about science per se, but about people mis-using science for political reasons. The science of evolution is sound, reliable, and as close to proven as you can come in a theory. The fact that people were drawing fallacious social inferences from it, as the racists you mention did, does not make the science bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes: ..."

This is a great example of immoral behavior. It, unfortunately, has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of science.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

For more modern political reasons, consider what a lack of a Creator would mean:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it


Just for clarification, you need both a Creator and a Creator that provides these rules. I take it you mean a Christian God, since not all the gods were so forthcoming with imperatives as He.

In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught

 Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Well, if it is expanding, and it has been around long enough, then unless the expansion is a recent phenomina things must have come from a point. Getting out of that point required some driving force, and hence the Big Bang theory was born.

 You see conspiracy, I see deduction...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

There's lots of problems with BB theory and evolutionary theory as a method of describing how we got where we are today, but those are usually either not brought up, quietly kept out of journals usually considered credible, dismissed as minor


Not so. The problems with the Big Bang model are well documented, and are currently being researched and studied and speculated on. The reason that the model is accepted today is because it does such a great job in explaining other factors...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
or brushed off with "the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going" with the implication being that all will be answered if it is just given enough time.

 which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
For stuff about the distant past, which by definition usually involves unrepeatable, happened once phenomina, they tend to argue details, mechanisms, order, specific path, and the like, but they don't dispute the basic thesises, at least, not in the standard set of journals usually considered credible. Those that do don't usually get research grants or published in the journals.


That's mainly because, in the case of evolution and the Big Bang, the vast majority of the details and mechanisms seem to support the theory. There is a lot of money in Christianity, if someone had an idea that would overturn the thinking on evolution, I don't think they'd have a hard time getting money for it...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
(what's the plural of thesis?)

theses

Fyron

November 11th, 2003 07:22 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

[ November 11, 2003, 17:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Bill Door

November 11th, 2003 09:23 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

[quote]Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
[qb]For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification: they aren't evolved as much as we are; they are naturally stupid.

Anyone saying that reveals their bias on the subject. They are stating that they are not as highly evolved. Why are they not as highly evolved? Maybe because the person holds the belief that "white is better"?
There is no scientific evedence that any sub-division of humanity is less well adapted to their original environment.

As for God being the source of all morality, just look at the 10 commandments (from the King James Version):
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Why is 'Thou shalt not kill' number 6? does that mean that its less important than the ones before?

Also, the (supposed to be the same) 10 commandments again:
1. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
That any better?

Wardad

November 11th, 2003 09:48 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Real World Philosophy -

"Sc--w them, or don't."
- Good looking blond friend -

spoon

November 12th, 2003 03:52 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:

I stand by my previous statement; science will tell us how humanity came to be and religion why.

Only problem with this is that it seems to put religion in the same cart as science. Difference being that science actually tells us something tangible, whereas religion is mostly make believe.

Erax	November 12th, 2003 04:42 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, but you understood the opposite of what I meant, they are two separate carts. There is a lot in religion - creation myths and so on - that used to take the place of science back when there was no science as such. That part has been taking a beating from science for the Last 470 years (starting with Copernicus). But there is another part of religion that deals with moral codes, with choice and consequence, and that part cannot be substituted by science.

Another common mistake is to assume that science explains why things happen. But in fact, it only explains how they happen. Science does not attempt to answer the Big Question - "why are we here ?", unless you choose the ultimate nihilistic answer - "for no reason at all, it's all random".

I'm sorry if most of this is unclear, I didn't get much sleep Last night. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Erax	November 13th, 2003 02:13 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Christian denominations have different takes on evolution theory. Some are openly against it, some are nominally against it but do not actively pursue the subject and others just avoid talking about it.

I stand by my previous statement; science will tell us how humanity came to be and religion why.

deccan

November 13th, 2003 11:46 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:

But there is another part of religion that deals with moral codes, with choice and consequence, and that part cannot be substituted by science.

Not by science per se, but what about philosophical systems informed by science? Or are you going to say that these systems then become religions of a kind? And of course, traditional religion indisputably deals with "moral codes, with choice and consequence", but does it deal with it well?

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:

Another common mistake is to assume that science explains why things happen. But in fact, it only explains how they happen. Science does not attempt to answer the Big Question - "why are we here ?", unless you choose the ultimate nihilistic answer - "for no reason at all, it's all random".

My individual, personal and highly subjective opinion:

That IS my personal answer to that question. I do not believe that there is any ultimate reason for my existence. I exist, as a physical construct, due to a long chain of physical effects, that is itself due to the mechanical inevitability of physical cause-and-effect, devoid of ultimate reason or meaning.

I do have personal emotions, reasons for doing the things that I do, for wanting to live, for valuing things in the way I do, in the closed, finite context of myself. But I agree that "existence precedes essence". That I have those emotions, reasons, values and meanings is subsequent and consequent upon my physical existence, not the other way around.

Does it bother me that my emotions, reasons, values and meanings are finite and consequent of physical effects? Not often. Most of the time, I find great joy and satisfaction in doing the things that I like, playing computer games, reading, watching intelligent movies, walking my dogs, playing with children etc., and musings of whether such interests and actions are meaningful in any ultimate sense seem unreal, contrived and immaterial.

On rare occasions, particularly when I am sick, lonely or depressed by some personal tragedy, the fear of my "finite-ness" grows to nightmarish proportions. I worry whether or not my life is worth living and flirt with the idea of suicide. But these moments are brief and pass quickly.

Even at the lowest depths of the abyss, I have only to ask myself some simple questions in order to return to a semblance of sanity. These include:

Do I believe that being immortal gives my emotions, actions and values any more meaning than it already does? No. Would the existence of a God who sets down iron laws of absolute meanings and values make me happier? No, it would only make me more depressed and make me want to tear that God down. Would killing myself resolve any questions? No, but it will make me miss out on new games to play, new holidays to come, new books that I will enjoy etc.

That such episodes, rare as they are, occur at all, is in itself, of course disturbing. But as a physicalist, and someone who is sympathetic to the ideas of the evolutionary psychologists, I realize, understand and accept that my brain is not a perfect engine of rational thought. I know that it is riddled with hacks, short-cuts, inefficiencies and inconsistencies due to reasons of evolutionary history. Knowing this helps me understand and deal with these episodes better when they occur.

[ November 13, 2003, 09:51: Message edited by: deccan ]

spoon

November 13th, 2003 07:22 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:
Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, but you understood the opposite of what I meant, they are two separate carts.

No, your phrasing was fine, my metaphor was off. By "the same cart" I meant that your definition seems to make them equivalent in their ability to answer their respective questions. I'm saying they aren't. Or, to rephrase your statement:
Science tries to explain How, and does a good job.
Religion tries to explain Why, and does a poor job.

Also, I'm with Deccan here, religion in this sense is really just a subset of philosophy.

[ November 13, 2003, 17:22: Message edited by: spoon ]

Jack Simth

November 13th, 2003 08:39 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Door:
Anyone saying that reveals their bias on the subject. They are stating that they are not as highly evolved. Why are they not as highly evolved? Maybe because the person holds the belief that "white is better"?

Well, yes, I didn't say it was right - I said it was a simple, straightforward justification for racisim - a seemingly reasonable way to continue the bias.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Door:

There is no scientific evedence that any sub-division of humanity is less well adapted to their original environment.
Interesting that you added the clause. But consider: When europeans encountered the natives of what are now Austrailia, North America, South America, and Africa, very few of them had writing, iron working, steam engines, et cetera. This suggested they were short in the brains department - and then they didn't check for the very important distinction between ignorant and unintelligent. Later, it was also noted that after generations of racial slavery, most still couldn't speak English except with a very thick accent - and nobody seriously considered the possibility that they couldn't speak straight because few straight to them, and those that started to had a tendancy to be punished for not knowing their place.

There was much scientific evidence - it just needed a little more looking to refute, and few was seriously interested in refuting it.

Oh, and I did forget to mention that they considered things like dark skin to protect from the sun, long legs to run better, smaller bodies for sqeezing through places, et cetera, as sideways, not up.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Door:

As for God being the source of all morality, just look at the 10 commandments (from the King James Version):

...

Why is 'Thou shalt not kill' number 6? does that mean that its less important than the ones before?

Also, the (supposed to be the same) 10 commandments again:
...
That any better?

From where and where in King James - or is that supposed to be New King James (the King James Version was the first known serious attempt at an English translation, done by commitee (primarily be sectioning it up), with a note from the comittee that they were trying to avoid disputes and wanting people to look more at the spirit of the thing rather than the exact precision - it's not exactly reasonable to expect consistency on word choice and labeling under such circumstances)? The second looks as though you are referencing the wrong section as the ten commandments, mixing with several ceremonials which, while still commanded by God, are not part of the Ten Commandments.

Jack Simth

November 13th, 2003 09:17 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

Yes, but the example you cited wasn't accepted by scientists worldwide[/quote]... and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs....

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
, just by the ones who would get shot for not following the party line...

... and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded, to a similar effect overall (barring the personal perspective of 'but they got killed!' - either way, they still suddenly have very little impact on the community anymore)

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Again, you example isn't about science per se, but about people mis-using science for political reasons. The science of evolution is sound, reliable, and as close to proven as you can come in a theory. The fact that people were drawing fallacious social inferences from it, as the racists you mention did, does not make the science bad.

Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it (which is what you seem to be responding to it as).

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
This is a great example of immoral behavior. It, unfortunately, has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of science.

Again, not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it (which is what you seem to be responding to it as).

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Just for clarification, you need both a Creator and a Creator that provides these rules. I take it you mean a Christian God, since not all the gods were so forthcoming with imperatives as He.

Not all, but most have their lists of imperitives, and most do have their Version of "be good," however "good" is defined for them.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted).

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.

Besides, any secular system ultimately relies on most people wanting to follow the rules, as any enforcement system (barring things like field executions) can be overwhelmed by a sufficient number of rule breakers. The US seems to be having a touch of that problem at the moment.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)

With most, there is a catch to that - God wants a repentant heart. Someone confessing primarily to avoid consequences is not likely to get forgiveness. Also, the Bible is actually very clear on temporal consequences as well as the ultimate variety, and the ultimate variety is usually the only sort God forgives when someone repents.

Also, not all interpertations are correct.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
You see conspiracy, I see deduction...

There's a pretty big string of if's on that, several of which are pretty far from proven.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Not so. The problems with the Big Bang model are well documented, and are currently being researched and studied and speculated on. The reason that the model is accepted today is because it does such a great job in explaining other factors...

Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time? As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

Also, it puts them in the interesting position of not needing to properly defend their position, as any problems are part of the "being evaluated" segment. I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

That's mainly because, in the case of evolution and the Big Bang, the vast majority of the details and mechanisms seem to support the theory.

Not really. There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree....

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
There is a lot of money in Christianity, if someone had an idea that would overturn the thinking on evolution, I don't think they'd have a hard time getting money for it...

Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile. It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity.

Quote:

theses <hr /></blockquote>Good to know.

Other's Posts later, as I have time.

[ November 20, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

spoon

November 13th, 2003 11:08 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs....

Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
...and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded.


By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics. If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it.

 You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spoon:
In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted).


How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.

Easy does it, buckeroo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Also, not all interpertations are correct.

Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time?

 Don't you hate that!

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models.


Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes. Other models are welcome, but few make the cut. Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time..

And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree....

Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile.

Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity.

True for secular scientific endeavors as well. Too bad. (I don't mean that facetiously, it really is too bad).

Jack Simth

November 20th, 2003 11:13 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

That was not my intent, but I do see how someone could come to that conclusion as being my intent.

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. One major catch comes when people strongly disagree on an the right/wrong of an action based on those assumptions one an issue they consider very important. Lacking a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the matter, one of the following will eventually result:
1) Suppression of one side
2) Mutual isolation (usually only possible where there is already a geographic separation)
3) Unpleasantness (of one sort or another) until either one side is reduced to the point where (1) or (2) is feasable, or things reach the point where stopping it becomes more important than the triggering issue to enough interested parties.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

Jack Simth

November 20th, 2003 11:19 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by deccan:
Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.

I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.

But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story.

Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.

At least, that's the Version I read in one piece of creationist literature, anyway.

Fyron

November 20th, 2003 11:24 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. One major catch comes when people strongly disagree on an the right/wrong of an action based on those assumptions one an issue they consider very important. Lacking a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the matter, one of the following will eventually result:
1) Suppression of one side
2) Mutual isolation (usually only possible where there is already a geographic separation)
3) Unpleasantness (of one sort or another) until either one side is reduced to the point where (1) or (2) is feasable, or things reach the point where stopping it becomes more important than the triggering issue to enough interested parties.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

[ November 20, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

November 20th, 2003 11:54 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.

I did specify "strongly disagree" - which you quoted! - but it doesn't require an "absolute extreme" to get such things - one modern in progress example would be the abortion issue - one side views it as murder, the other as women's rights with their own bodies (broad generalizations there - there are many shades between; but that is the "standard" characterization of the two sides). Not everyone involved feels strongly enough about it to resort to violence, but enough do that violence ensues. As far as I know, it has yet to run full course.

Also, those three options I listed have differeng shades of degree (the reason I used unpleasantness, rather than violence in the original) - mutual isolation might be a matter of "what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business" - usually the case with adultery, for example; suppression might be a matter of illegalizing the activity and letting the police deal with it - the case with pot usage in the US, for example.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

Fyron

November 21st, 2003 12:15 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

I can't name one, as that would be silly... but here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions. They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

spoon

November 21st, 2003 12:40 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions.

This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

spoon

November 21st, 2003 12:44 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before.

And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003 01:00 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Fyron: The possibility you site is not, in and of itself, an assumption, but your method of getting there and analyisis of it has underlying "feels-right" assumptions:

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Assumes other people are fundamentally important (and presupposes some assumed definition of person); without that assumption, harming another would be no more wrong than killing a potato plant to eat the potatos.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Same basic underlying assumption as the Last, with an addition of freedom being a feature it is fundamentally right for others to have. Moreover, there is an additional underlying assumption of what freedoms are(n't) to be included on the list - I doubt very much, for example, that you would include the freedom to take things from people in there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.

Sure they do - the "feel-right" assumptions simply aren't stated in them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

Ah, but to go from your "source data" to the conclusions above requires a "feels-right" assumption: personal consequences are fundamentally important in ethical considerations. Also, without the other underlying assumptions I listed earlier for your conclusions, you can only arrive at a "for the most part" conclusion from the data and "personal consequences are important" assumption; specific cases may very well be otherwise. E.g., under social stability is important because of personal consequences, a buisness mogul might find it acceptable to murder someone to prevent certain business pratices of his from coming to light, if such a happenstance would financially crush the mogul - the risk of the mogul getting harmed from the societal instibility generated by the murder being considerably less than the highly-probably consequences of letting the person bring those practices to light, with ensuing loss of the mogul's financial standing.

Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Fyron

November 21st, 2003 01:03 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself.

spoon

November 21st, 2003 01:13 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part.

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003 01:21 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003 01:28 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself.

A flat contradiction; interesting. Can you say why a single thing I listed as being an underlying assumption isn't an assumtpion (without replacing it with a different assumption (implicitly or explicitly), of course)?

Alternately, can you say why they are truly unrelated (again, without adding a different assumption somewhere)?

If not, why the flat-out contradiction? If so, please do.

spoon

November 21st, 2003 01:29 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part. <hr /></blockquote>Well, yes. I did use "Every". I thought that was clear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>This line makes it seem like you are saying your particular belief system operates differently:

Quote:

It appears to me that you are saying a belief in God means that your moral assumptions don't rely on a "feels-right" assumption.
But I am glad to hear that you don't actually believe that. Though it does, I suppose, beg the question as to why you brought it up to begin with.

Fyron

November 21st, 2003 01:40 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
A flat contradiction; interesting. Can you say why a single thing I listed as being an underlying assumption isn't an assumtpion (without replacing it with a different assumption (implicitly or explicitly), of course)?

Alternately, can you say why they are truly unrelated (again, without adding a different assumption somewhere)?

If not, why the flat-out contradiction? If so, please do.

A flat contradiction for something that is just flat wrong. Going into minute details would be a waste of time.

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003 02:01 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
A flat contradiction for something that is just flat wrong. Going into minute details would be a waste of time.

Do you realize that you are essentially relying on your own authority in the matter, presuming that other people will just automatically assume your statements are correct? Do you have any idea how that makes you look to someone that recognizes the tactic?

Fyron

November 21st, 2003 02:34 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

No I'm not. I am dismissing the topic as pointless to discuss further at this juncture. You wanted moral systems that did not rely on "feels-good" assumptions, and I delivered. Do with them what you will.

Phoenix-D

November 21st, 2003 02:40 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No I'm not. I am dismissing the topic as pointless to discuss further at this juncture. You wanted moral systems that did not rely on "feels-good" assumptions, and I delivered. Do with them what you will.

You -said- you delivered, he's taking issue with that. Fyron, you haven't proved a thing..

Fyron

November 21st, 2003 02:47 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Of course I didn't "prove" anything. Neither did Jack. He just asserted a bunch of things and expects everyone to take his statements on authority. I did not set out to prove anything here because this topic is not worth the time to discuss it at this juncture. Enough said.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Page 3 of 5

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page