|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Blasphemy Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: If there is something you would like to discuss about atheist indoctrination, this would be the place to do it. I don't think the thread is about "atheist indoctrination". The focus of the "Blasphemy Challenge" seems to be on freedom from indoctrination. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Remember, it is you who seems to have chosen the supernatural "explanation" and rejected the naturalistic one WRT the origins of moral behavior. quote: I agree that there is no way to prove a negative. However, what do you expect us to say when you ask for ways that morality could exost without God, are presented with multiple scientific explanations, but you just reject them because you find them "unsatisfying". I mean, come on. Obviously you think there is a conflict, otherwise you wouldn't have turned your back on the evidence because you didn't like how it made you feel. Again, I suggest that you read up on Cognitive Psychology as it pertains to morality and emotion. Much of the evidence you reject is produced in that field.
And "making stuff up" and deciding to accept it as truth is not a good way to do that. quote: Absolutely not true. Scientists observe phenomena. Then they attempt organize that observational data in a coherent way in order to explain why the data appears as it does. Then those explanations are tested to see if they hold up. At no time do scientists "make stuff up" in the same way that religious folks "make stuff up".
quote: Nobody's expecting you to stop doing that. However, if you ask a question regarding a natural phenomena and refuse to accept the naturalistic explanations because you simply don't like how they make you feel, you are behaving just like fundamentalists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: However, if you ask a question regarding a natural phenomena and refuse to accept the naturalistic explanations because you simply don't like how they make you feel, you are behaving just like fundamentalists do. There is nothing wrong with cognitive behaviour research, or even with the results of the research. There is nothing about it which contradicts what I believe or which makes me squirm. It is however a science, and we still have a choice about whether or not we will incorporate our findings into a philosophy. When I ask for a 'motive' in morality, I am asking what you or anyone have done with this knowledge. Science is facts, and the fact is, that our minds should not take refuge in facts unless they cohere with our reality. The idea of a morality based on survival is not suitable any longer because as thinking individuals we have surpassed this stage. We have enough intelligence to survive. We have the intelligence to seek altruistic relations when their is a common goal. This is an extremely deep subject which goes far beyond the scienctific explanations. I usually work on ideas from the ground up, and I must reason things out instead of just giving you an answer. Religious people will often start with an answer which is reliant upon the reasoning of someone else. The only thing to do is to see if the answer matches the evidence. So far, there are very few areas where I see a potential conflict between the Christian faith and acceptance of scientific evidence. There are dangers, yes, but I see them not so much for christians, but for the world if it lost christianity and had to rely ONLY on science. It is very tough stuff, but hopefully it will be revealed on a relevent thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anastasia: It is however a science, and we still have a choice about whether or not we will incorporate our findings into a philosophy. Why wouldn't factual discoveries be incorporated into one's belief system as a matter of course? A valid philosophy accommodates new discoveries.
Science is facts, and the fact is, that our minds should not take refuge in facts unless they cohere with our reality. How is it that a fact can fail to cohere with reality? How does one distinguish facts that are real from facts that are not real? From what threat do facts offer our minds a refuge? __ Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Er. Aren't "facts" reality? I think that you might be confusing "reality" with your perception of reality. The scientific method allows us to look beyond such individual preferences and reach closer to the truth that our own perceptions, inevitably fraught with bias and wishful thinking and error, will ever allow us.
quote: So, let's agree for the sake of argument that God gave us our morals. How has this increased our understanding of human morality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: Why wouldn't factual discoveries be incorporated into one's belief system as a matter of course? A valid philosophy accommodates new discoveries. I think they are, but I guess I am talking consciously versus subconsciously. In the Catholic church, for example, evolution is accepted and taught, but for every new developement in evolutionary theory, these facts must be checked against what is 'revealed' by God in other ways. It is not a question of abandoning one for the other. If the doctrine of original sin is to be upheld, it must be done even if we discover that life did not start with two individuals, and Adam and an Eve on which to 'blame' sin. There are definitely ways to do this 'melding' of science and philosophy on a conscious level. If we do not start out with a particular philosophy, I do think that on some level all facts and experiences continue to shape and guide us into our own view.
Why wouldn't facts cohere with reality? If I duscuss the origins of man or of life, and the scientific answers are not useful or practical in daily life, they must be incorporated into a larger philosophy. The idea of altruistic behaviour as a survival skill is wonderful, but so out-dated to me. It does not 'fit' into my daily life or my decision making in any conscious way. I think 'love thy neighbor' has long ago shifted from an idea which helps survival, to a coscious recognition of the rights and value of other men. I can easily make decisions based on the equality of men by asking how I would like to be treated, without any of the ambiguity of 'what does this mean for survival'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ah, I think you edited while I was replying...
Archer Opterix writes: A valid philosophy accommodates new discoveries. Precisely. It is easy to spot those which don't.
From what threat do facts offer our minds a refuge? Purposelessness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anastasia: Ah, I think you edited while I was replying... Yes, sorry. Your choice of words got curiouser and curiouser as I looked. On one hand you don't seem to mean a disconnection between 'facts' and 'reality' at all. You seem to mean filtering personally useful facts from those facts that just become part of our common store of knowledge. You decide the ultimate worth of a fact not by its reality--facts are true by definition--but by utilitarian value. If so, I'd say that's something everybody does regardless of their personal philosophy. It doesn't lessen the instrinic value of facts, though. They show us reality. Usefulness just brings a practical dimension into it. Which sciences can one apply? On the other hand, your most recent explanation suggests that by 'facts' you mean the discoveries of science and by 'reality' you mean Catholic teachings. You set these against each other. It seems you really do filter facts you will accept as 'real' based on the comfort of their fit with church doctrines. If that's the case, the 'refuge' facts offer 'our minds' would be from the unwanted teachings of clerics. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : another typo. Grrrr! Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: I think that you might be confusing "reality" with your perception of reality. But I said 'our reality'. I don't know what else that could mean but 'our perception' of such.
The scientific method allows us to look beyond such individual preferences and reach closer to the truth that our own perceptions, inevitably fraught with bias and wishful thinking and error, will ever allow us. The beauty of a rainbow is evident without science, and yes, using the scientific method has opened up a whole new world of beauty without proving or disproving that which has already been visible. Could science make a rainbow ugly, unlucky, or not a smile from God? No, but we can. Science like-wise can not complain if we take morality and give it meaning as the only tool we have to save us from destruction of spirit. With, of course, beauty. Beauty is reality, and goodness is beauty. Of course they are subjects to our perceptions, and yet so objective that we will always continue to seek them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Beauty is reality, and goodness is beauty. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful. The Classical Triad. You are a friend of Plato's. ___
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: One one hand you don't seem to mean a disconnection between 'facts' and 'reality' at all. You seem to mean filtering personally useful facts from those facts that just become part of our common store of knowledge. You decide the ultimate worth of a fact not by its reality--facts are true by definition--but by utilitarian value. Yes.
On the other hand, your most recent explanation suggests that by 'facts' you mean the discoveries of science and by 'reality' you mean Catholic teachings. You set these against each other. It seems you really do filter facts you will accept as 'real' based on the comfort of their fit with church doctrines. The RCC as most religions, proclaims itself to be 'truth'. It is a philosophy which is pre-provided. If I call it 'reality' it is to give it the benefit of the doubt while I check actual facts against it. If they do not cohere, one or the other must go. It is obvious that many forms of Biblical literalism toss facts out the window in favor of 'reality'. The point is that for you and others, the RCC is not reality, but you must still check facts against your own philosophy. A living philosophy will be forever evolving this way, and I do believe that people will often choose to ascribe to no pre-made view while waiting for the facts to come in. In the mean-time, one can hardly put off having a philosophy for life, even if it as simple as 'live for the moment'. And yes, I think that religion has a utilitarian purpose, and I would not want to replace usefulness with mere knowledge. It is good to see if the knowledge can be useful for creating a fuller picture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: The Good, the True, and the Beautiful. The Classical Triad. You are a friend of Plato's. I am glad that someone has finally caught on. But yes, a friend, and not a student, because I have worked out my philosophy from the ground up, and can recognize a kindred spirit at long last, only because I have been down the same road. I am still stuck in the 'curious' terms land between expressing an idea and presenting it an understandable terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Sounds to me like your personal monitor is set to a split-screen view.
On one side is Platonic thinking: start with big things and work down to particulars. On the other side is Aristotelian thinking: start with particulars and work up to the big things. On the Platonic side you have ideals like the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. God is the ultimate Ideal. From these ideals you work your way down. On the Aristotelian side you have all bits of data that come your way, including the findings of science. From these particulars you work your way up. The view on one side informs and corrects the view on the other, you say. Your ongoing task is to feather and eventually eliminate any line dividing the two views. Is that a fair representation of the situation? You're aware, I know, that Aristotle's approach won out over Plato's in the Renaissance. The scientific method is Aristotle's baby. Those who work in the sciences excel at this way of thinking, as you see, and many are content to keep the Aristotelian landscape on their monitors full-screen. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: The view on one side informs and corrects the view on the other, you say. Your ongoing task is to feather and eventually eliminate any line dividing the two views. I would like this to be so. I am not informed enough to know if this is a vain hope. I imagine that when it seems clear that one way MUST disprove another, or that Aristotle's ideas are on their way to conclusively ending the 'battle', (whilst anything transcendant can never be proven} there is a sort of panic which ensues in spiritual minds. Nowadays, you can study science, or religion, and the thought is that one needn't interfere with another. Yet, where before religion may have overstepped itself in answering scientific questions, now it is thought that science is interfering in religious questions. So, we either meld the two, and find that they are leading to One result, which makes a good case for a creator. Or, we seperate the two, and find they are leading to two Results, which is a good case for dualism, and essentially the same case of the flesh versus the spirit. The God, or Mammon, etc. Even so, that is NOT seperation, anymore than it is in religion. It is still a choice between two very real realities. If we prove that science has all the answers, we can not disprove the possibility of another answer. All things which are seen, studied, and created, may be very easily self-sustaining and self-sufficient. Yet, if there is a soul and a spirit realm which is not part of creation, we can only use what HAS been created to obtain any knowledge of this, even if what HAS been created was made also for another purpose. I hope this makes sense. I do understand that Aristotle is for now, winning. But I think this may be simply because we have not explored this area enough, and not that we have disproved Plato. We are just a bit bored with him and of exploring the unprovable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024