Real World Philospohy

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by spoon:
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.

...

By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics.

The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along.

Originally posted by spoon:
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.

Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.

Originally posted by spoon:
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?

I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds.

Originally posted by spoon:

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.

When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.

True, one could also apply this to the Bible...

Originally posted by spoon:
How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.

Originally posted by spoon:
Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation?

[Bad accent]Ya's pay's yer money and ya's makes yer choice.[/Bad accent] You can't be objectively certain this side of doomsday, true - but that could be said about anything, really. You do your best to read it yourself and see which one is the best fit.

Originally posted by spoon:
Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway).

Originally posted by spoon:
Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes.

The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't.

Originally posted by spoon:
Other models are welcome, but few make the cut.

I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased.

Originally posted by spoon:
Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Not fleshed out well enough to debate properly, anyway

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

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.
...

---

Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed.

Originally posted by spoon:
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.

In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory.

Originally posted by spoon:

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.

---

Since when has everyone been entierly rational? I missed that memo.

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

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?

---

Sure, it's called "DavidG's code of ethics" You want details on everything I think is right and wrong and why? Well maybe If I got a few weeks to spare.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

*a less-sick Narf charges back into the ring. and first, i'm going to pick on Fyron.*

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.

my own belief is that every action is either right or wrong; however, that's my assumption. you are assuming that something cannot harm someone without being wrong. what about surgury, which harms and may KILL the person surgury is being performed upon, but is nessasary, perhaps even for the continued survival of that person. you need some if modifier's.

ere 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.

so, then, a twenty-four hour lockdown to search for a murdurous person or people is immoral? i'm not saying it couldn't be argued, just wondering if you've thought of contingency's or principle's to cover them.

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

at the risk of being redundant, they do.

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.

which could easily justify actions i would call wrong if they could be said to stabilize society.

Spoon
And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...

creationism is a semi-science, the only science that comes into play is the science that concludes that it might have happened. actual beleif in creationism generally comes from or with beleif in god. do you want to hear my arguement that dinosaur's where, in fact, our pre-mortal spirits figuring out what traites worked best for survival? (i wonder how many people can guess my religeon now...)

Spoon
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.

so, if a burning bush that isn't consumed told you something that contradicted your own feeling's, would you completly ignore it? or would that depend on how deep your feelings on that matter where?

Jack
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.

the media is liberal.

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.

interpretation of the bible. something like 2500 christian sects, i've heard.

that's page 1

[Will]

"See the cat? See the cradle?"

[Fyron]

Note that my post explicitly stated that those were the basics of such a system of morality...

the media is liberal.

In general, yes. But, there are conservative portions of the media...

[ November 21, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

page 2.

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

punishment in the afterlife is appropraite and you can't wiggle out of it on a technicality.

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.

occasionally, i wonder what reading the original, un-edited Version would reveal.

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.

in the meantime, i, for one, am not going to worry about wether my left foot is connected to my left leg, because i know it is. why question a basic assumption without competing facts to question it on? i'm not saying it's wrong to look for competing facts, just that anti-theorizing without them isn't something i'm interested in.

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

he. he. he.

Spoon
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.

and my responce to them? look down.

Spoon
Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.

so, a theory is better than a religeos beleif? what if god told you your religeos beleif? yeah, i know i said that before. but it's appropriate here, to.

Spoon
Religion tries to explain Why, and does a poor job.

i would say that an un-aided human does a poor job of explaining why.

Deccan
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?

science is machinery, and people in machinery would most likely be ground up unless the machinery was constructed very carefully. with more care than would be required by a referendum process.

Deccan
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.

and where back to the difference between people and windmills, which didn't seem to be understood very well the Last time i tried to explain it.

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.

any science that tries to insist religeon is make believe is make believe, because science can't say.

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
[QB]The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along.

I'd love to see any proof of this. Especially since you can't say anything is superior evolutionarily without considering enviroment. Evolution does not require any specific origin, BTW, just one that allows suficient time between Start and Now.

Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.

Errr..uh-huh.

I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds.

Again, do you have anything to back this up? The earliest I've seen for any kind of proto-evolution that even partially resembles the modern Version is Lamarck (SP), which was the same century as Darwin.

When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.

What it means is that the people supporting it either way were applying the theory incorrectly. If I remember right, most of the "social darwinists" were not scientists and quite possibly had a distorted view of what the idea was all about. It's pretty easy to do.

You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?

That is the perspective a lot of non-belivers get, certainly. And how long kind of depends on which sect you're measuring from, hmm?

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.

Which also means that if the all-knowing judge is an *******, you're screwed. At least our legal system has more than one. Certain Christian extremeist positions- or I'd hope they're extremeist- present a picture of a God I'd like to spit in the face of. The Old Testament doesn't do such a nice job either. Wonderful idea, killing off everyone because even a majority pissed you off.

There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway).

If you take it as literal Truth you now have some pesky problems. Like, oh, the text directly contradicting itself.

The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't.

Which makes sense, simply because if you change extremely basic assumptions what you have is a different model. Since we've already agreed that didn't happen, what you do have is details.

And again it doesn't trend toward improvement. It trends towards reproductive success in a given habitat. A species that is superbly adapted to an enviroment can be wiped out easily if the enviroment changes. A species may trend DOWN in intelligence, speed, or other featues because they aren't helping survival and individuals without them do better.

It is often described as improvement because it's simpler and in most cases good enough.

I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased.

I suppose this is why you had no response to the "the alternatives are flawed" comment above?

Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed.

If there is a discrepency between theory and observations, the model needs to be adjusted.

Also, Newtonian physics utterly -fails- under certain conditions, that's why relativity was developed. This doesn't make the Newtonian model useless, or inaccurate in the other conditions. More likely to be those, yes. But sometimes a model is useful because it is wrong..

There's a simple model which predicts what will happen if a species is under no evolutionary pressures at all. In the real world, this fails repeatedly. Its still useful to test if the population is undergoing evolution though.

In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory.

Continusing the analogy, if that document also has numerous points that have been proven false, then its a pretty good idea to keep the foot theory until its proven wrong by a better source.

One of the biggest flaws in the Bible being the truth is why didn't God introduce it to all people, at the same time?

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from.

So you're relyng on faith alone, and calling the best-guess model which is based on real-world observation EVIL? Excuse me?

If you're thinking of the racism argument, try again, because your Bible was used to support slavery, and occaisonally genocide. Score, if evolution did in fact support racism (which I kind of doubt), equal. And one is still based in reality, the other not.

Will you be denouncing physics because it can be used to design weapons, next?

[ November 21, 2003, 01:51: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

page 3. i have a lot to catch up on.

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...)

my own beleif, backed up by personal experience, is that you will pay for those crimes before you are forgiven.

Andres
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.

my own beleif and, i think, the beleif of my religeon, is that i'm free to think whatever i want until God says what the answer is. yes, that answer can come from the established heirarchy, but that sam heirarchy tells my to pray to see if what their saying comes from God.

page 4.
page 5

Atrocities, i wouldn't give away my pain. i learned to much from it, and i'm going to learn even more as i work through it. without the pain i've had in my life, i suspect i'd be shallow and always want things my way.

Debating about religion is highly over rated IMHO. But believe what you want, tis the only true freedom any of us truly have.

as well as the freedom to act and thus, choose our consequences.

Fyron
Invented, created, concocted, came up with, thought up, dreamed up, use whatever term you want. Good evidence is the fact that noone begins their life with any set religious views; everyone has to be spoon fed them to have them.

free will. requires we be born that way.

It is a pretty safe assertation that they all had to evolve from somewhere... and "the word of God" is not a good point, as EVERY non-animistic religion (with some form of deity...) can say that (not God, but whatever deity(ies) they worship).

so, every single scientist in the world is wrong, because they all say science backs them up. and, yes, you can check to see if God backs something up. pray.

Erax
For the record Narf, I don't think you are 'imposing' your views on anyone. You definitely have them and you defend them whenever necessary, yet you do not criticize anyone who disagrees with you (and you keep your good humor too). I admire your behavior.

thanks. i was talking about some people in general, not anyone here in particular. personally, i beleive that it's best to build up your own beleifs and not critisize anyone elses, because that way, your beleif wins on content. and, on a review, i did say something in a manner i shouldn't have.

Spoon - see above. and stop blaming God for your personal tragedy's. most of mine are my fault or another human's. the rest are accidents.

that was an arrogant statement, and i apologize for the assumption.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

oh, wonderfull. someone posted, and now i have even more stuff to debat. i like debating, as long as where not going in circles. that's a cat or dog thing.

Pheonix-D
Wonderful idea, killing off everyone because even a majority pissed you off.

first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?

If you take it as literal Truth you now have some pesky problems. Like, oh, the text directly contradicting itself.

i beleive the bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.

One of the biggest flaws in the Bible being the truth is why didn't God introduce it to all people, at the same time?

well, just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean God can't. i beleive that God thinks about several factors when deciding what to reveal and that God reveal's what He knows they should know.

[Phoenix-D]

first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?

1. Maybe.
2. No.
3. No. Especially odd given that he's purpordly setting moral laws based on his code, but doesn't bother to give concrete proof of his presence to everyone. (not even his code- just existance at all, period)

i beleive the bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.

I belive that might be a cop out, since neither of us knows the original Languages. Point taken, but I think the problems would still be there.

well, just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean God can't. i beleive that God thinks about several factors when deciding what to reveal and that God reveal's what He knows they should know.

Which doesn't mean that in the absance of those reasons I won't think its a really stupid idea, especially if you follow the "follow these teachings or go to vicious hell" school. Rather unfair to stack the deck like that; to me it sounds like someone pointing a gun at your head and saying "Answer me yes or no. Four." Its a crapshoot, with everything at stake, and you don't even understand the game..

There may be a valid reason to drive a car through a wall, but my first thought is always going to be "Ok, how they'd screw up?"