Real World Philospohy

[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.

[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.

[Jack Simth]

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....

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)

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

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

theses

---

Good to know.

Other's Posts later, as I have time.

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

[spoon]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

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

Easy does it, buckeroo

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.

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!

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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!

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

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.