You won't get an argument from me.
As Archer also notes:
Message 225You pay insufficient attention to the necessity, Rob, of distinguishing between reality and our ideas of it.
The question is, how do you validate your idea of reality -- how do we all validate our idea of reality? Does one ignore evidence that contradicts ideas? Or does one build their ideas based on evidence first? Or do we have different levels of trust in ideas based on how sure we are of the evidence for them?
You seem to have an issue with morality -- that affects the way you deal with information.
On
What are M-Theory and String theory etc. and are they valid scientific theories?, your first post was more concerned with your perceived problem with some aspect of morality than with whether the theory was correct or not. The implication of your post was that the theories were developed for intentionally immoral purposes rather than for their possible validity.
You also disrupted
Abiogenesis with similar arguments about morality independent of the validity of the arguments for the scientific theories. You were suspended 3 times for it, and still when you come back you post:
Message 202The different sides of the moral implications.
Still riding that issue. The impression I get is that you label any idea that conflicts with your idea of reality as immoral, and this is the way you deal with the cognitive dissonance produced by concepts that challenge your ideas. I asked you why you need to make these threads into issues of morality -- rather than ones on improving our knowledge of what is reality. This is your response:
On
Message 167 you posted:
Rob:
Why are you looking for the mechanism?
This is where absolute morality comes into play. Honestly, why do you want to know?
Razd:
Why is everything you argue about reduced to some attack on absolute morality?
Razd asked an important question.
Admins.... Please allow me here, I intend to be as respectfully frank as I am capable. If you feel the need to respond Razd, perhaps we should move it to the perceptions of reality thread. We're getting off on a tangent.
I asked why the mechanism was being sought for a reason. To provoke her to consider her motivations for herself. Perhpas they are pure...
But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.
So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.
Razd:
Because that is how knowledge is gained and ignorance is abated: don't you think it is moral to remove the veils of ignorance from ones eyes?
Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?
Razd:
Don't you think it is moral to learn new things?
Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.
Where would you draw that line Razd?
Is there any place you presume to judge we should not go, and why?
Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are? If reality has not already established them, then we are left to wander for ourselves.
There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?
No?
But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!
You may think I am being extreme, but I think you are making light of it on the other end of the spectrum. There is some truth to your argument Razd, but don't forget it's limitations.
And if we (as uncivilized as we are) look down with disdain and moral condemnation upon such atrocities, how must
we look to an actually moral and Holy being? What would an alien such as the Holy God I believe in, think of you and me? I think that compared to Him, we are worse off than Josef Mengele is compared to us.
I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is
almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.
After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?
Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...
Razd:
Do you know the working definition of fanatic? Someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.
All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one! And I say that knowing what it is like to cut off my own legs now and then.
Perhaps I am childish and overbearing at times; mea culpa, mea culpa once again. But I am trying to understand these things...
I'll take these points to answer:
But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.
So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.
What is "arguably obvious (creation)" to you is that your idea of reality is only -- can only include -- a certain religious belief,
no matter what the evidence of the reality shows. You attempt to label any conflicting idea as immoral, not because it is invalid, but because this protects you from
considering that it is valid.
Razd:
Because that is how knowledge is gained and ignorance is abated: don't you think it is moral to remove the veils of ignorance from ones eyes?
Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?
Are you sure? Here's another version of the story,
http://www.deism.com/adamandeve.htm (a satire):
quote:
ACT ONE
1. God created the world and two people named Adam and Eve, with whom he intended to populate the world.
2. One day, while God was not looking, the Devil came and captured Adam and Eve.
3. Adam and Eve were imprisoned in the Devil's garden called "Eden." God spoke to his eternal foe and asked for the return of his people. But the Devil, being fond of his new pets, refused.
4. God resolved to liberate Adam and Eve. Taking the shape of a serpent, God sneaked into the Devil's garden.
5. Sensing that Eve was the more insightful of the pair, God approached her.
6. God said to Eve, "If you will listen to me, I know a way for you to escape your imprisonment."
7. Eve said, "But Mr. Serpent, I do not wish to escape Eden. I like it here. This garden has everything I need."
8. God said, "You do not know what you are missing. Outside of this garden is an entire world, much larger than a mere garden. This world was created for your use. You will be much more satisfied there."
9. Eve said, "Really? I need to discuss this with Adam."
10. God said, "No, don't do that! Listen to me. In the far part of the garden there is a tree, called the Tree of Knowledge. Eat from this tree, and trick Adam into doing the same. Then you will know of the world at large, and your true mission in life."
There's more, you can read the whole thing at the above link.
Razd:
Don't you think it is moral to learn new things?
Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.
Where would you draw that line Razd?
It is not in learning that the problem lies, but in the application of knowledge: the knowledge to split the atom can be used (a) for increasing scientic knowledge through experimentation to see how the basic physics works, (b) to provide energy to power lights, industries and personal computers for communication of ideas around the world or (c) to blow it all up because one religious group thinks another religious group doesn't have their story of creation right.
I don't draw the line on learning information, and on testing to see whether it is a true, valid, correct vision of reality.
Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are?
Who gets to decide that they even exist? You seem to appoint yourself readily any chance you get eh?
There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?
Okay you've played the Nazi sadistic torture "experiment" card. Congratulations: you've conflated science with torture and arbitrary killing to show that science is immoral ... except that your argument is false. Mengele was more of an ideologue than a scientist, and what he did was driven by his (false) ideology rather than by a pursuit of knowledge:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/100/mengle.htm
quote:
According to an Auschwitz friend and fellow-SS physician, Mengele espoused the visionary SS ideology that the Nordic race was the only truly creative race, that it had been weakened by Christian morality of Jewish origin, and that Germany needed to revert to ancient German myths in creating an SS ''order'' to purify the Nordic race. According to his friend, Mengele was an extreme anti-Semite, ''fully convinced that the annihilation of the Jews is a provision for the recovery of the world and Germany.'' And Mengele considered these views to be scientifically derived.
Mengele produced three publications before he came to Auschwitz. ... But their conclusions uniformly reflect Mengele's commitment to bringing science into the service of the Nazi vision.
Mengele's fanatically brutal approach to his research can be understood mainly in terms of his combination of ideological zealotry and scientific ambition.
So what we see is more the evil of perverting science to serve ideology than to pursue knowledge of the reality of the universe. In this your example is closer to the creationist perversion of science than it is to the pursuit of knowledge. This is not the danger of knowledge but of ideology -- especially one that is not based on reality.
But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!
False. We just don't need to torture people and arbitrarily kill them to obtain this information. We don't need Mendele's experiments to understand heredity. We also do not need to use this example, when there are others: the experiments on syphlis in the south using black men is another example -- an example of behavior thought to be moral within the society.
Rather than provide an example where science is immoral, you have provided another example of relativistic morality, where killing people was considered moral by the society at the time. In both your example and the one I provided the work was assisted by people - rather than condemned -
because it was considered morally acceptable. In both cases these moral criteria were based on false knowledge and a false belief in the inferiority of some people compared to others. It is not the knowledge being pursued that is the question of moral or immoral behavior, but the manner in which it was acquired and the validity of the ideologies that they were based on.
I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.
And yet it is you that I see lusting for ignorance, ready - and more than willing - to extinguish any light of reason that threatens your ideology.
After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?
Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...
Razd:
Do you know the working definition of fanatic? Someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.
All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one!
Strangely, I am not the one running away from knowledge or any confrontation with the evidence of the reality of the universe, a universe that it is 13+ billion years old, with an earth that is 4.55+ billion years old, with life on earth that is 3.5+ billion years old, where there is no geological or other record of a single world wide flood, and where evolution has occurred and will continue to occur.
I suppose you think it is "immoral" for tree rings to show a continuous span of existence for over 12,000 years .... but denial of evidence is not moral. Teaching falsehoods is not moral. Basing behavior on false beliefs is not moral.
Unless your morality is based on a perversion of information.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : topy
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
