superstition defeats science

[Professur]

From stem cell research to the rights of converted muslims smooth as silk. Damn I love this place.

 

[chcr]

Well, we all learned the multiplication table at school. But that would not make the multiplication table a mere human convention. Mathematics are real truths whether or not one is taught them.

And if the arabs had arbitrarily decided 2X2=vermillion thousands of years ago? The times tables is arithmetic, not mathematics, BTW. Both, however, are agreed upon human conventions for describing quantifiable relationships.

Truth is a philosphical construct. Ask two "truthful" eyewitnesses to describe an event. When the descriptions are different, how do you decide which one is tellng the "truth."

You are measuring morales by a standard the moment you say one set of morales are better than anothers. Therfore, you are comparing both with a real Right - actually admitting there is one.

I'm not measuring morals at all (morales is something else). "Morals" are not quantifiable. I'm simply pointing out that having been raised in this society I prefer this society's morals. I didn't say they were better. It never ceases to amaze me how people can read something and still have no clear idea of what it said. I do believe that you think the way you interpreted it is the "truth" however.

Throughout history there have a difference in moralities, but there was never a total difference.

Sorry, is that supposed to make sense?

 

[2minkey]

In the Middle East, or in Canada. Big difference.

which goes, exactly, to your earlier point on context.

i can't even begin to get upset about "traditional" islamic stuffs. fuckers.

but ya know, one of my old girlfriends, a cosmo girl from istanbul that i loved watching eat bacon, wasn't cool with all that fundamentialist intolerance, either. i think she mighta moved to canada....

 

[2minkey]

And if the arabs had arbitrarily decided 2X2=vermillion thousands of years ago? The times tables is arithmetic, not mathematics, BTW. Both, however, are agreed upon human conventions for describing quantifiable relationships.

Truth is a philosphical construct. Ask two "truthful" eyewitnesses to describe an event. When the descriptions are different, how do you decide which one is tellng the "truth."


I'm not measuring morals at all (morales is something else). "Morals" are not quantifiable. I'm simply pointing out that having been raised in this society I prefer this society's morals. I didn't say they were better. It never ceases to amaze me how people can read something and still have no clear idea of what it said. I do believe that you think the way you interpreted it is the "truth" however.


Sorry, is that supposed to make sense?

great post.

from now on, i think i will simply listen to what you have to say, and make winky-like posts about hot chicks. because that shit is a universal truth.

 

[chcr]

great post.

from now on, i think i will simply listen to what you have to say, and make winky-like posts about hot chicks. because that shit is a universal truth.

No, truth is subjective. It's universal reality though.

 

[2minkey]

but if rose mcgowan is wearing a striped outfit.... it's all good.

 

[paul_valaru]

No, truth is subjective. It's universal reality though.

truth-y-ness

 

[Gotholic]

And if the arabs had arbitrarily decided 2X2=vermillion thousands of years ago? The times tables is arithmetic, not mathematics, BTW. Both, however, are agreed upon human conventions for describing quantifiable relationships.

Truth is a philosphical construct. Ask two "truthful" eyewitnesses to describe an event. When the descriptions are different, how do you decide which one is tellng the "truth."

That "witnesses" example is different than math er...arthimatic. No one could make 2+2=5 or 2x2=1,000,000. Well, maybe in Bizarro world.

I'm not measuring morals at all (morales is something else). "Morals" are not quantifiable. I'm simply pointing out that having been raised in this society I prefer this society's morals. I didn't say they were better. It never ceases to amaze me how people can read something and still have no clear idea of what it said. I do believe that you think the way you interpreted it is the "truth" however.

Ah, "morales", my mistake...

Well, you did say they were better:

See, you continually misunderstand what I'm saying. Do I think ours are better? Of course I do, just like you do. If you (or anyone else) had been raised in a society with different moral values, you would hold those rather than the ones you hold now.

But wait, I can see your point at first glance, but upon further thought, you lose me. Are you saying that since you grew up with the moralites you have now, that is the reason you still think they are "better" or "prefer" them? Are you telling me you never onced questioned them? You were never exposed to different sets of moralities to judge which ones were the best - to the best of your knowledge?

Surely, you must have come to some point in your life where you thought for yourself and decided that the moralities you were brought up with were the right ones or the "better" ones or the most "preferable" ones - just like you decided against the Catholic beliefs you were brought up with.

Really now, a man with your intelligence (and I mean that with the utmost respect) will not succumb to moralites drilled in to him and not think for himself. It is an intellectual blunder to say that you believe in what you believe simply because you were brought up that way - like a mindless robot believing in whatever he is programed to.

Speaking for myself, I was brought up to believe it was alright to have sex outside of marriage, most blacks are no good, masturbation is perfectly alright, certain forms of stealing were alright, and so on. Do I still hold these sense of behaviors as right? Of course not.

I was also brought up to believe in God, but at some point in my life I did question it and came to my own conclusions.

Throughout history there have a difference in moralities, but there was never a total difference.

Sorry, is that supposed to make sense?

Let me explain...

There has not been a country where their morality was totaly different (though there may be some differences) from anothers.

Men were never admired for running away in battle, felt proud in back-stabbing all those who were kind, nor always putting himself first no matter who it is. Societies may have a difference in how many wives you can have but they always agreed that you can not have any woman that you desire.

Let me give you a quote from C.S. Lewis to further explain the objective morality standpoint:

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation my say treaties don't matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature - what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one?

 

[chcr]

There are a lot of things I could say but, frankly, you're boring me. Bizarro World? C.S. Lewis? I suggest you stop taking your arguments from fictional works and try looking at the real world around you. I'm certainly unlikely to take you seriously.

There has not been a country where their morality was totaly different (though there may be some differences) from anothers.

Still one of the most foolish things I have ever read. Clearly you have learned nothing at all from history and have little or no idea of what's going on in the world around you.

You know what? Never mind.

 

[Gotholic]

There are a lot of things I could say but, frankly, you're boring me. Bizarro World? C.S. Lewis? I suggest you stop taking your arguments from fictional works and try looking at the real world around you. I'm certainly unlikely to take you seriously.

There has not been a country where their morality was totaly different (though there may be some differences) from anothers.

Still one of the most foolish things I have ever read. Clearly you have learned nothing at all from history and have little or no idea of what's going on in the world around you.

You know what? Never mind.

C.S. Lewis very much wrote about the real world.

There is a really short book that is only 128 pages that will explain why there hasn't been a total difference. It is called The Abolition of Man.

 

[chcr]

C.S. Lewis wrote very much about how he perceived the real world. I don't agree with his premises so I'm unlikely to agree with his conclusions. It helps me understand your confusion though.

In some current societies it is incumbent on a father to stone his daughter to death for having premarital sex. It is the only moral choice he has under the circumstances. You're right, how could I be so blind? Not so different at all.

Have it your own way though, I don't really care.

 

[Gotholic]

C.S. Lewis wrote very much about how he perceived the real world. I don't agree with his premises so I'm unlikely to agree with his conclusions. It helps me understand your confusion though.

The Abolition of Man gives evidence that there is an objective morality throughout various civilizations. He gave facts - not just his opinion.

In some current societies it is incumbent on a father to stone his daughter to death for having premarital sex. It is the only moral choice he has under the circumstances. You're right, how could I be so blind? Not so different at all.

Have it your own way though, I don't really care.

You are selectively picking which kind of morals are wrong. But if you look at most societies you will find more similarities amongst them all.

The example of the father killing his daughter is a difference that is wrong. I'm sure you agree too. But why would you believe that part of that kind of morals in that society is wrong? Because you grew up believing it so? If morality is merely subjective then nothing is really right or really wrong.

You can't say a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what a straight line is.

 

[paul_valaru]

But if you look at most societies you will find more similarities amongst them all.

well past and present, MOST societies promote the treatment of women as possetions, or at least second class citizens, so by your arguement that would make it Moral.

Morality is subjective.

 

[Gotholic]

well past and present, MOST societies promote the treatment of women as possetions, or at least second class citizens, so by your arguement that would make it Moral.

Morality is subjective.

You're miscontruing my comment. I did not say all similarities make a universal truth in morality. Back when most people believed the earth was flat that did not make it true. When it was discovered that it was a sphere it was not a "new" truth but an "old" one since the earth was always a sphere.

True morals can be better understood but the truth never changes. Are woman really lesser humans than men? Are blacks really lesser human than whites? Back then most people agreed about such things but that didn't make it true. We now have a better understanding of those kind of truths - that all men are equal.

You say morality and "truth" is subjective not just for you and me, but for everyone - which makes it a universal truth. That kind of reasoning is really just self-defeating.

 

[paul_valaru]

Morality is subjective.

It is wrong to kill!!

In some societies human sacrifice was an honor.

There is no universal truth, the universe is subjective to the beholder.

 

[chcr]

You are selectively picking which kind of morals are wrong.

I picked one at random that proves your contention to be false.

But if you look at most societies you will find more similarities amongst them all.

I have and I don't. There are certain instinctive commonalities but in the reasoned stuff they vary wildly.

Re C.S. Lewis, I see you set a lot of stock by what he says, but I've always found his non-fiction work to be typical apologistic crap. He doesn't (IMO, of course) report facts, he takes facts and draws unwarranted conclusions based on his own biases.

BTW, saying truth is subjective is not a "universal truth." You don't think it's "true."

 

[MrBishop]

A quick backtrack if you will.
Current population growth rate is 1.3% growth per annum. (that's replacement+ 1.3%)...

the main issues with our population growth isn't going to be energy, it's going to be arable land, trees, and animal/insect extinctions.

If you want to see how deforestation affects civilizations, read about Easter Island or perhaps Casa Grand in Arizona. it'll also give you some idea about how trees protect from soil erosion and water loss.

For insect issues, you can read all about which insects help with decomposition, refreshing soil, cross-polination etc... ditto for animals.

Too many people discount 'nature' in the human survival equation. Learn from the past folx.

 

[Professur]

c'mon. people are moving back to New Orleans. That's not 400 years ago, on the other side of the world. That's recent memory. Noone learns from the past

 

[chcr]

c'mon. people are moving back to New Orleans. That's not 400 years ago, on the other side of the world. That's recent memory. Noone learns from the past

Nor have they ever, nor are they likely to at any future date...

 

[Gotholic]

Morality is subjective.

It is wrong to kill!!

In some societies human sacrifice was an honor.

You're oversimplifying that it is wrong to kill. It has always been accepted that you cannot kill anyone unlawfully or unduly. There was a "just" reason to kill a human to appease the gods and bring rain or what not. Also, you bring up another point on being unselfish. It has always been agreed that you should not constantly put yourself before others. To volunteer for a human sacrifice was considered a selfless act.

There is no universal truth, the universe is subjective to the beholder.

Your statement is self-contradicting. What you are claiming is a truth in itself. You are saying that your view of morality is right and mine is wrong. It is the equivalent as saying, "the truth is, there is no truth".

I picked one at random that proves your contention to be false.

No, you made an assumption and then proved that assumption false. I never said man is bound and forced to obey objective morals. Men ought to though. You and I are both constantly going against objective morals to some degree as is everyone else. Though some are going against it further than others.

Showing examples of cultures going against the standard does not negate the standard.

By the way, notice that those cultures give their own "valid" reason to kill someone such as fornication. Although cultures have disagreed on when and how you can kill someone, they always agreed that you cannot kill whomever you please without a valid reason.

I have and I don't. There are certain instinctive commonalities but in the reasoned stuff they vary wildly.

Here is a list straight from The Abolition of Man that show some of the similarities. As you can see, they do not vary wildly.

Re C.S. Lewis, I see you set a lot of stock by what he says, but I've always found his non-fiction work to be typical apologistic crap. He doesn't (IMO, of course) report facts, he takes facts and draws unwarranted conclusions based on his own biases.

BTW, saying truth is subjective is not a "universal truth." You don't think it's "true."

A truth is true regardless of independent thought. I could say that blacks are less human than whites, but that doesn't make the truth that blacks are as human as you and I a subjective one. A nation can declare that blacks are only three-fifths a person (such as the US did), but that does not negate the fact that blacks are equal just like everyone else. You can treat them as less human all you want but that does not make them less human.

The same can be said of God. God either exists or God does not exist. He cannot exist just for me and not for you. One of us is in the wrong.