31 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by poopsiecui🙂
You guys do not get it, so let me spell it out for you. Scientific discovery and experiment is not proven wrong because of the actions of its proponents. Neither is history, philosophy, or religion. Crusades, inquisitions and bad choices by the Pope neither add nor detract from the truth-claims of Christianity. Kingdanwa pulled the same trick on you idiots that he did in the Abe Lincoln thread, proving his point by saying exactly the opposite.
Edit: Need a lightbulb icon. poopsiecui sees the light - sonhouse is still lost.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by sonhouseYou seem to be focusing on analytical statements, but what about synthetic ones? What about historical events?
how could any moral judgement have any effect on universal truths?
For instance, here on this planet we may judge X,Y, and Z to be
totally immoral but maybe on some planet around some star in
the andromeda galaxy they look at the same morality issue and
come to the exact opposite conclusion. You get where I am going
with this? A moral judgement is a st ...[text shortened]... re is a big differance and if you can't see it, you have no
need to make these kind of posts.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaThere is no requirement for sythesis or history or humans at all,
You seem to be focusing on analytical statements, but what about synthetic ones? What about historical events?
C is still C. If you are dropped from 10,000 feet you will still be squashed, makes no differance if you think it moral or not.
Morality is subjective, being dropped from 10,000 feet is totally an
objective experience. If there are no life forms in a given universe
it makes sense there would be no morality but the speed of light
would still = C.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by poopsiecuiunless you're an eggplant you could readily tell the difference between a Pope reliance on Old Testament for guidance on the the use of force and Science's outright neutrality on such matters
You guys do not get it, so let me spell it out for you. Scientific discovery and experiment is not proven wrong because of the actions of its proponents. Neither is history, philosophy, or religion. Crusades, inquisitions and bad choices by the Pope neither add nor detract from the truth-claims of Christianity. Kingdanwa pulled the same trick on you idiots that he did in the Abe Lincoln thread, proving his point by saying exactly the opposite.
31 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse,
[b]how could any moral judgement have any effect on universal truths?
For instance, here on this planet we may judge X,Y, and Z to be
totally immoral but maybe on some planet around some star in
the andromeda galaxy they look at the same morality issue and
come to the exact opposite conclusion. You get where I am going
with this? A moral judgement is a st ...[text shortened]... tly cultural value and since other
cultures have differant values the morality issue is SUBJECTIVE.
You assert that all moral judgments are particular to the culture they originate from, and are thus, SUBJECTIVE (there's that evil word again). What evidence do you have to support this? Are you relying on the seemingly strikingly different moralities that have originated from different cultures? Could you make your argument a little more particular by offering examples of not only different values, but mutually exclusive moral values that are in conflict with one another?
- sorry don't know why this is in bold print.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by L8LutheranConvertI don't know why I bother with this but once again:
Sonhouse,
You assert that all moral judgments are particular to the culture they originate from, and are thus, SUBJECTIVE (there's that evil word again). What evidence do you have to support this? Are you relying on the seemingly strikingly different moralities that have originated from different cultures? Could you make your argument a litt ...[text shortened]... values that are in conflict with one another?
- sorry don't know why this is in bold print.
If there were no humans there would be no morality or unmorality.
It is a human attribute so BY DEFINITION subjective. Humans can
have no such thing as objective morality. Give it up. You are
obsessed with definitions and can never come to your own
independently thought out conclusions and persist in asking what
other people think. I think that is not your goal. I think your goal
is to show everyone your own innate moral superiority and thus
to elevate yourself in your own mind. No matter what arguement
was made for or against you would persist in arguing ad nausium.
Kind of like the monks did 500 years ago with the pointless debates
on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaEveryone is missing your point (but you aren't helping either).
Who's talking about heaven? The bottom line is this: Does immoral behaviour matter in evaluating a truth claim?
Of course a person's behavior has nothing to do with evaluating truth claims they make.
It is just as valid if a saint or devil says '2+2=4' (in normative mathematical systems).
It is just as valid if a saint or devil says 'It is wrong to steal.'
The difference is the former is a scientific truth -- it can be tested, examined, and repeated.
The latter is much trickier and we are prone to be distracted -- like a Pope who fathers a child
but advocates that priests ought to be celibate. Because the latter is intangible (or less tangible),
we often (in error) examine the person who says it rather than what is said.
Any claim should be weighed on its own merits and not on the morality of the person
in question.
However, the behavior of a person making a claim can be indicative of the motives
for posing certain claims. Consider RBHILL, who repeatedly makes erroneous claims about the
Roman Catholic Church. As such, whenever he makes such a claim about the RCC, we would be
foolish not to recall his inattentiveness (his repeated errors), recall his hermeneutic (he has a
demonstrable bias against that tradition), and recall his unwillingness to be corrected (even in
the face of evidence, he will maintain falsehoods). In this exemplar, we show wisdom that
computers cannot have in recognizing that, if RBHILL makes a claim about the Church, it is
most likely wrong.
Do we still have the responsibility to examine the claim on its own merits? Absolutely. But
to be predisposed for certain results does not always work to our disadvantage. I know, for my
own part, I do far less research into his bogus claims now than before, because I've debunked
(to no avail) his crackpot theories repeatedly.
Kingdanwa, I understand your point -- we need to evaluate claims on their own meris -- but
a person's behavior is not entirely irrelevant in the overall context.
Nemesio
31 Aug 05
Right, then. This thread is concerned neither with the validity of Einstein's equation nor his character--it has to do with the validity of attacking a person's statements on moral grounds. Example: "Pope Joan consorted with cross-dressing nymphomaniacs so nothing she said has any value". If it is possible to speak the truth, then it is the word that is true. If Einstein's equation is true, the fact that I don't understand it when I parrot it doesn't devalue it.
People are paradoxical: Pope Urban VIII wrote passionately against the enslavement of Native Americans (if not Africans) but was unable to accept the truth of Galileo's work; Einstein hated war but treated various women in his life very badly. Language is paradoxical: the Cretan said that all Cretans are liars; then there is Gödel's mathematical paradox:"This statement is false/unprovable".
Spaniards slaughtered Incas in the name of God (and Mammon); their actions show that they either did not understand or did not care about the grains of truth (Christ's words) contained in their religion.
As for historical truth--history is constantly being written. Perhaps evidence will arise that the Incas committed suicide en masse before the conquistadors, who begged them to refrain in the name of Christ. Perhaps the Holocaust really was a hoax. Send for the archaeologists...
Have I understood your point, Kingdanwa, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by Nemesioactions done in the name of religion do indeed reflect on the nature of religion.
Everyone is missing your point (but you aren't helping either).
Of course a person's behavior has [b]nothing to do with evaluating truth claims they make.
It is just as valid if a saint or devil says '2+2=4' (in normative mathematical systems).
It is just as valid if a saint or devil says 'It is wrong to steal.'
The difference is the former ...[text shortened]... meris -- but
a person's behavior is not entirely irrelevant in the overall context.
Nemesio[/b]
Nobody dropped an A-Bomb in the name of science , however people have been killed throughout history in the name of God.
and that IS part of the religion too, at the very least the OT makes it so. Even in the New Testament Stephen was, along with other Christians , not to mention Christ himself , killed in the name of God.
Tread carefully through the 4-term pitfalls and it becomes clear that not only is his post a false analogy but requires the OT to have nothing to do with religion.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by poopsiecuiYes, yes...that was really clever how danwa got all those nasty skeptics to admit God Exists.
You guys do not get it, so let me spell it out for you. Scientific discovery and experiment is not proven wrong because of the actions of its proponents. Neither is history, philosophy, or religion. Crusades, inquisitions and bad choices by the Pope neither add nor detract from the truth-claims of Christianity. Kingdanwa pulled the same trick on you idiots that he did in the Abe Lincoln thread, proving his point by saying exactly the opposite.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio,
Everyone is missing your point (but you aren't helping either).
Of course a person's behavior has [b]nothing to do with evaluating truth claims they make.
It is just as valid if a saint or devil says '2+2=4' (in normative mathematical systems).
It is just as valid if a saint or devil says 'It is wrong to steal.'
The difference is the former is a scientific truth -- it can be tested, examined, and repeated.[/b]
I agree with your entire post. However, I don't think the testable scientific truth is as clear cut as that. You can't repeat the millions of years it took to make some geological formations. I've never heard of a test that demonstrates inter-species change through random mutation and natural selection. Are either of those testable/repeatable? If not, should we amend our definition of science?
Is it not also fair to examine a scientist's motives? I don't care too much about this Darwin stuff, but it is interesting to see how quickly scientists freak out when ID stuff comes up, and how ready they are to begin the "creationist!" name calling game. So if we'll consider motives in one area of investigation, let's look at others too.