|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science. Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run. Show nested quote +
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either. Show nested quote +
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that. Show nested quote +
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god? Show nested quote +
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions  Show nested quote +
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms).
In a world without life, "good" and "bad" has no meaning. Killing every sentient creature is of course not a good thing even though it avoids suffering. Morality should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, not to kill all creatures. I really don't know if a discussion about morality is worthwhile when I have to point such things out. Is everyone trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me as much as possible?
The approach to use the level of possible experience as a factor for moral reasoning is scientific insofar as we can do experiments to (roughly) determine the level of possible experience. We don't care if we break a piece of wood because to our knowledge, no pain has been inflicted. But is it moral to use very young human embryos for stem-cell research? Science, not with gut feeling tells us about the level of possible pain and suffering the embryo can experience.
Science doesn't tell us why we do physics or biology or chemistry. It is not unscientific to have a science for morality either. When we agree that morals should avoid unnecessary suffering and that the experience of suffering is caused by states of the physical world and how neurons interact, we already have some established science we can use. Plus we can develop it further.
Of course I cannot offer a worked-out, proven body of morality-science right now. I argue for the use of the scientific method.
|
On December 30 2012 08:15 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science. Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god?
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms). In a world without life, "good" and "bad" has no meaning. Killing every sentient creature is of course not a good thing even though it avoids suffering. Morality should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, not to kill all creatures. I really don't know if a discussion about morality is worthwhile when I have to point such things out. Is everyone trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me as much as possible? The approach to use the level of possible experience as a factor for moral reasoning is scientific insofar as we can do experiments to (roughly) determine the level of possible experience. We don't care if we break a piece of wood because to our knowledge, no pain has been inflicted. But is it moral to use very young human embryos for stem-cell research? Science, not with gut feeling tells us about the level of possible pain and suffering the embryo can experience. Science doesn't tell us why we do physics or biology or chemistry. It is not unscientific to have a science for morality either. When we agree that morals should avoid unnecessary suffering and that the experience of suffering is caused by states of the physical world and how neurons interact, we already have some established science we can use. Plus we can develop it further. Of course I cannot offer a worked-out, proven body of morality-science right now. I argue for the use of the scientific method.
It’s not that he’s misinterpreting your position. He’s simply exploring some implications of your position that you take to be misinterpretative (because you seem to be unaware of the ethical corners that your “avoid unnecessary suffering” axiom can paint you into).
He’s also right that you ought to drop the claim that a “science” of morality is possible.
Because in fact what you’ve been describing all along is not a way that science can discover what is moral. What you’ve been describing is a way that scientific methods can be used (in certain very specific circumstances) to evaluate certain very specific moral claims* provided that everyone already agrees on the definition of morality, which for you is the pyrite rule: avoid unnecessary suffering.*
You see science cannot generate, prove, or disprove such a statement. And that’s not something that should come as a shock to anyone who is familiar with how science works.
So what you’re saying is, “Provided that our model of morality is correct, scientific methods can be used to determine whether certain actions are moral or immoral.” Fine. You’ve described a severely limited and purely hypothetical role for science in moral questions.
But the model of morality that you’ve provided is neither scientific, nor logical, nor universally accepted, nor commonsense. The model itself needs to be argued. And you need to be able to go beyond such tenuous statements like “unnecessary suffering is bad because that’s how we use the word bad” if you want those arguments to be taken seriously.
Welcome to philosophy 101. For the time being, there is no lab component to this class.
*For the sake of argument, I am going to ignore the (I think intractable) difficulties of coming up with an operational definition of “suffering,” as well as the essential impossibility of determining what is “unnecessary” and what is “necessary,” a delineation that inheres at least as much ideological complexity as determining what is “good” and what is “bad.”
|
Psshhhh, I demand a HULKAMANIA philosophy lab!
|
On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:
[…] (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god) […]
Math doesn't. Well, at least not necessarily. Obviously you can apply parts of it to reality (and may count that as a connection), but it is not dependent on anything real.
On topic: This seems like a strong violation of non-discrimination laws. I am fairly certain that, were a law like this put into effect in Germany, it would be attacked before the Bundesverfassungsgericht, our supreme court (or literal: "federal constitutional court").
Legalising discrimination should be a no-go for the government/legislature of any country supporting the concept of human rights. What is the status on this in the UK? Do you suppose that there may be legal action against this?
|
On December 30 2012 10:48 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 08:15 [F_]aths wrote:On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science. Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god?
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms). In a world without life, "good" and "bad" has no meaning. Killing every sentient creature is of course not a good thing even though it avoids suffering. Morality should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, not to kill all creatures. I really don't know if a discussion about morality is worthwhile when I have to point such things out. Is everyone trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me as much as possible? The approach to use the level of possible experience as a factor for moral reasoning is scientific insofar as we can do experiments to (roughly) determine the level of possible experience. We don't care if we break a piece of wood because to our knowledge, no pain has been inflicted. But is it moral to use very young human embryos for stem-cell research? Science, not with gut feeling tells us about the level of possible pain and suffering the embryo can experience. Science doesn't tell us why we do physics or biology or chemistry. It is not unscientific to have a science for morality either. When we agree that morals should avoid unnecessary suffering and that the experience of suffering is caused by states of the physical world and how neurons interact, we already have some established science we can use. Plus we can develop it further. Of course I cannot offer a worked-out, proven body of morality-science right now. I argue for the use of the scientific method. It’s not that he’s misinterpreting your position. He’s simply exploring some implications of your position that you take to be misinterpretative (because you seem to be unaware of the ethical corners that your “avoid unnecessary suffering” axiom can paint you into). He’s also right that you ought to drop the claim that a “science” of morality is possible. Because in fact what you’ve been describing all along is not a way that science can discover what is moral. What you’ve been describing is a way that scientific methods can be used (in certain very specific circumstances) to evaluate certain very specific moral claims* provided that everyone already agrees on the definition of morality, which for you is the pyrite rule: avoid unnecessary suffering.* You see science cannot generate, prove, or disprove such a statement. And that’s not something that should come as a shock to anyone who is familiar with how science works. So what you’re saying is, “Provided that our model of morality is correct, scientific methods can be used to determine whether certain actions are moral or immoral.” Fine. You’ve described a severely limited and purely hypothetical role for science in moral questions. But the model of morality that you’ve provided is neither scientific, nor logical, nor universally accepted, nor commonsense. The model itself needs to be argued. And you need to be able to go beyond such tenuous statements like “unnecessary suffering is bad because that’s how we use the word bad” if you want those arguments to be taken seriously. Welcome to philosophy 101. For the time being, there is no lab component to this class. *For the sake of argument, I am going to ignore the (I think intractable) difficulties of coming up with an operational definition of “suffering,” as well as the essential impossibility of determining what is “unnecessary” and what is “necessary,” a delineation that inheres at least as much ideological complexity as determining what is “good” and what is “bad.”
While science as of yet has not been able to prove that morals should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, I don't see a reason why science in principle cannot ever give a reason why – in the sense of how – we should have morals. But we don't need that to begin to develop a science of morality. Again, Physics doesn't answer the question why we do Physics. Biology does it neither.
(The concept of "why" in the sense "who had the intent to do so" is useful in everyday life, but not in science. There are meanings of "why" which cannot be answered by science, but that doesn't mean that we cannot explain the world. It is possible to ask questions which have no answer.)
The concept of suffering is of course a complicated one. Which better way do we have to get into it than science? Science revealed that the emotion of being outcast is neurological similar to physical pain. We know that neurology and neurophysiology is very young and many discoveries will probably be overthrown by new ones, or get much more refined, so we cannot use our current understanding of how the brain works to give a complete picture of suffering. Of course, even if we ever have a complete understanding of how the brain works and therefore the knowledge why we create a concept of morality in the first place, a good morality will probably still leave some questions unanswered. But that is no argument versus morality as a science. We do Physics even though each discovery raises new questions.
If we have a certain amount of money to spend and if we want to maximize the good we can do, we cannot afford very large science studies because they cost money, too. But in principle, scientifically approached studies can inform our actions. I see a moral implication there, that we ought to aim to spend our donations wisely.
A philosophy class can discuss some topics, but not explore the world while sitting in an armchair. We need to go out and measure the world. Even for morality, I guess.
|
On December 30 2012 20:09 Naeth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:
[…] (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god) […] Math doesn't. Well, at least not necessarily. Obviously you can apply parts of it to reality (and may count that as a connection), but it is not dependent on anything real.
I am not convinced by this. The concept of math rules exist in our brain as concepts. Those things are represented by certain states of neurons. There is a connection to the physical world. Does logic or math exist without a reality? I have seen no proof for this. The concept of math exists in our brain and therefore in the real world, but math itself? Does it exist?
Similar, I don't view morality as beyond or above or independent of the real world.
|
On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me
|
I feel like all of these arguments about how science can't determine our moral values are a bit absurd. Its true we can't quantify exactly what suffering is (changes based on the person), and at the moment it is difficult to ascertain what is necessary and unnecessary following from whatever definition (of suffering) we choose.
But at some point you will have some axiomatic truth - such as no one wants to experience negative emotion (defined a bit later on) for the sake of experiencing it, or that everyone is drawn to positive feelings and their associated events. We can infer from this basic rule that the only reason people feel negative emotions on purpose is because they feel they will have more positive emotions to outweigh that later on. I feel like this is general enough, and basic enough, that everyone can agree on it, for obvious reasons that everyone is intimately aware of through their personal experiences.
Here we don't need to examine precisely what suffering entails as part of some universal definition that applies to everyone...all we need to know is that there is general range of negative emotions that people want to avoid feeling (we can even list a few basic ones: fear, pain (emotional and physical), depression, anxiety, etc.). The degree to which people feel these emotions, and under what circumstances they arise, will vary based on the person.
Now science does the rest of the work. What brain states are associated with what negative emotions? Within people's general lives, what events cause those brain states to arise? What events cause those brain states to disappear, and cause positive brain states to take their place (i.e. brain states pertaining to a sense of awe, satisfaction, laughter, or relaxation, etc.).
Now we have a means for maximizing the brain state we're looking for. Of course it can be more detailed. Say a person is experiencing a negative brain state because they want long-term satisfaction and but are only experiencing temporary, positive brain states from buying various products. Over time, by measuring the effect certain stimuli have on the brain, a solution will be devised that will eliminate this brain state (pertaining to long-term dissatisfaction). This solution may take the form of a mate, or some personal accomplishment, etc.. And of course this will all vary from person to person. So if people determine what their brain structure is, they can determine what they should look for to stimulate those positive emotions.
Within the details of this examination lies your system of "morality", which can be discovered retrospectively.
It may be overwhelmingly complicated, but that's irrelevant. Only science can give meaningful, detailed answers. We don't need any reasoning or evaluation on why we should have a particular system of morals. All that matters is that we experience as much positive emotion as possible; this is the only meaningful end goal of all philosophical speculation on a system of ethics anyway. It also doesn't have to be a general system of what *all* people should do to be happy - it can be as particular or as general as is required based on what scientific investigation finds to be the case. Maybe we all experience positive emotion through very similar if not identical means...so be it. If not then we will know that too.
If the question is "why should we try to feel positive emotions?", I have nothing to say. But it is such an absurd, dumbfounding question that I wouldn't worry about not having an answer. At some point you can't, or shouldn't need to, question things any further. You just have to accept basic, axiomatic truths, just like in mathematics where concepts are simply defined to be what they are in order to progress (e.g. defining a field).
The only meaningful criticism of this position is that it is unrealistic at this time, which is true. That is why we have had philosophers who have been trying to argue through reason rather than through scientific determinism what the ideal system should be. But the future undeniably belongs to science...it might sound bleak and robotic, but at least we'll be happy. Unless we find that mystery is part of what creates happiness. In any case, it will still be worth it.
Anyway please be gentle if I made some serious errors .
|
On January 02 2013 08:28 radscorpion9 wrote:
We don't need any reasoning or evaluation on why we should have a particular system of morals. All that matters is that we experience as much positive emotion as possible; this is the only meaningful end goal of all philosophical speculation on a system of ethics anyway.
begging the question
edit:
"quid faceret eruditio since dilectione? inflaret. quid, abseque eruditione dilectio? erraret." st bernard
"what would learning do without love? it would puff up. and love without learning? it would go astray"
|
On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me
No thanks? If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent.. don't just direct me to some book as if that's an appropriate response.
|
On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent..
haha you have no idea the irony...
edit: "whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence" - wittgenstein
edit: the point is that wittgenstein is a big part of the reason why pretty much no philosopher would agree with your claims about science, and yes you really should just go read him
|
On January 03 2013 03:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent.. haha you have no idea the irony...
I'm not really interested in supposed the irony. You've now responded twice, once with a reference to some book and another just some stupid remark that's supposed to achieve I-don't-know-what.
I've expressed my view very clearly, and I'll do so again.
"As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid
than another"
A fairly simple, logical statement. You seem to disagree with it? I'd be interested in hearing why...
Is that really too difficult for you? 
|
I'm really not interested in getting involved in this retarded "discourse" that you people have driven this thread to, completely unrelated and utterly off-topic to what this thread is supposed to be about, but as to this:
"As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another"
This is pretty much a reiteration of the logical positivist tenant that was later shown to be internally problematic. To give a very condensed form of the problem:
1. Only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful.
2. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", cannot be empirically tested, observed, and proven.
3. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", is not meaningful.
w/e this thread is irreparable.
I hate you people. All of you.
edit: TENENT. You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread.
|
oh, we hate you koreasilver. we hate you too <3
also, I'm a very compassionate landlord and all my tenants are meaningful 
yeah, Reason, nobody with an education in philosophy these days believes that claim, and they haven't for oh about 60 years (in the beginning of the 20th century it was a very fashionable thing to think). The short version is that any formal system ultimately must rest on assumptions which are not able to be formalized within that system. c.f. second incompleteness theorem.
the point is that your claim here is quite literally a statement of faith, with which you purport to forever denounce all statements of faith.
|
On January 03 2013 03:18 koreasilver wrote:I'm really not interested in getting involved in this retarded "discourse" that you people have driven this thread to, completely unrelated and utterly off-topic to what this thread is supposed to be about, but as to this: Show nested quote +"As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" This is pretty much a reiteration of the logical positivist tenant that was later shown to be internally problematic. To give a very condensed form of the problem: 1. Only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful. 2. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", cannot be empirically tested, observed, and proven. 3. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", is not meaningful. w/e this thread is irreparable. I hate you people. All of you. edit: TENENT. You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread.
Tenet? lol  If you'd like to quote some people you feel in particular are guilty of such heinous crimes feel free to do so, also if you have some particular idea about what the current topic of discussion should be then feel free to direct us in the right direction... I'd be happy to hear well expressed and on topic opinions as opposed to mindless ranting...
It's a ridiculous stretch imo because it says X is "meaningful" and since you can't test for "meaningful" as meaning is attributed by a group of people or an individual then yeah of course you can't empirically prove and test that statement. No shit. That doesn't make it any more or less true... the fact that it's "internally problematic" means..... nothing.
Suffering is bad.
BUT WHAT IS BAD AND WHAT IS SUFFERING LOLOLOLOL
Oh shit, you're right. Maybe suffering is good. I'll be quiet now because you've 100% just disproved what I was saying.
Try harder next time.
|
So it's just a formality, but that's nice I guess.
|
Not that i'm gonna join this trainwreck of a thread, but
On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me
On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:
If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent..
Thank you, both of you <3
|
On December 29 2012 00:01 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand. Your discussion about the scientific nature of morality on the other hand is completely on topic? I apologise, good sir.
I would say it is very much on topic actually...
|
On January 03 2013 08:50 SmoKim wrote:Not that i'm gonna join this trainwreck of a thread, but Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:
If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent.. Thank you, both of you <3
No one wants to join a trainwreck, but many people enjoy watching it from a distance. I am one of those people.
|
On January 03 2013 09:28 KosQ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 00:01 Reason wrote:On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand. Your discussion about the scientific nature of morality on the other hand is completely on topic? I apologise, good sir. I would say it is very much on topic actually...
Tell it to the guy who wrote this:
On January 03 2013 03:18 koreasilver wrote:You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread.
To the people (^ and others) who like to come in and comment about the current state of a thread - if you have something better to say *on-topic* then let's hear it, otherwise derailing the thread further with spam can hardly be called contributing and you are actually worse than the two guys arguing about science and morality.
Do you have anything to say? 
On January 03 2013 08:50 SmoKim wrote:
Not that i'm gonna join this trainwreck of a thread, but
You just did I'm afraid and in the most condemnable fashion possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
