Real World Philospohy

[spoon]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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...

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...

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?

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...

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

theses

[Fyron]

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

[Bill Door]

[quote]Originally posted by Jack Simth:

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]

Real World Philosophy -

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

[spoon]

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]

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.

[Erax]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.