Stephen Hawking
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Well, he's had a good go, to be fair. We don't yet have sufficient technologies to test his theories but, the maths look promising and the explanantions appeal to reason in a way that the sky fairy stuff simply doesn't.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
You sound like you are pushing a Darwinistic morality which is ironic and is much like a morality of strength. Amorality wins in such a situation.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; Sep 22, 2010 at 09:22 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
OH! So...it's not yet proven then?
Last edited by Setright; Sep 22, 2010 at 09:25 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
We're simply animals who evolved sufficiently to allow this universe to know itself.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Some big leaps being made there, Tony, but yes, I am a Darwinist as his explanations, like Hawking's, are the most plausible of all others i've read. If something more plausible is offered up, I'll adopt that.
We're simply animals who evolved sufficiently to allow this universe to know itself.
We're simply animals who evolved sufficiently to allow this universe to know itself.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
I rationally assess which course of action to take based on the best outcome for me, my family, my friends, my brethren and humanity. I do this enough throughout my life for the decision making process to be almost habitual and one developes a sense of 'knowing right from wrong'. These are taught to one's children and so on.
Religion has clearly made a magnificent contribution to the developement of morality and in my view did so as part of the evolution of human conciousness. The Renaissance and The Enlightenment revolutionised the available worldview and so we move on. I have no issue with the beautful poetry, metephor and allegory of religious works and feel that there's an absolute wealth of positive teachings to be drawn on. Logic and reason should, in my view, be the foundation, religion a resource.
Religion has clearly made a magnificent contribution to the developement of morality and in my view did so as part of the evolution of human conciousness. The Renaissance and The Enlightenment revolutionised the available worldview and so we move on. I have no issue with the beautful poetry, metephor and allegory of religious works and feel that there's an absolute wealth of positive teachings to be drawn on. Logic and reason should, in my view, be the foundation, religion a resource.
Last edited by JTaylor; Sep 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
It's not relevant. Humans will develop a set or morals that benefits the collective. It's an evolutionary push. You can see such behaviour in other species.
Look, of course I have picked out bits that portray the cruelty and unpleasantness of the bible, that is the point. Throughout these threads, I have said that the bible contains unpleasant stuff. not that all of it is.
It does contain some stuff which has merit, I would not argue with that, but that is not the point. There are clear contradictions in the bible which makes it impossible to follow, or clearly say it gives a message of love, because it patently does not! The underlying message is one of control and subservience. Loving your fellow man is secondary to loving your God.
As for metaphor, 2000 years ago, and for some centuries after, the bible was literal. People believed in it wholly, as did the writers. It has only been described as metaphor in more recent times when it has been shown to be so flawed and modern Christians try to use it to defend it.
Geezer
It does contain some stuff which has merit, I would not argue with that, but that is not the point. There are clear contradictions in the bible which makes it impossible to follow, or clearly say it gives a message of love, because it patently does not! The underlying message is one of control and subservience. Loving your fellow man is secondary to loving your God.
As for metaphor, 2000 years ago, and for some centuries after, the bible was literal. People believed in it wholly, as did the writers. It has only been described as metaphor in more recent times when it has been shown to be so flawed and modern Christians try to use it to defend it.
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
I rationally assess which course of action to take based on the best outcome for me, my family, my friends, my brethren and humanity. I do this enough throughout my life for the decision making process to be almost habitual and one developes a sense of 'knowing right from wrong'. These are taught to one's children and so on.
Religion has clearly made a magnificent contribution to the developement of morality and in my view did so as part of the evolution of human conciousness. The Renaissance and The Enlightenment revolutionised the available worldview and so we move on. I have no issue with the beautful poetry, metephor and allegory of religious works and feel that there's an absolute wealth of positive teachings to be drawn on. Logic and reason should, in my view, be the foundation, religion a resource.
Religion has clearly made a magnificent contribution to the developement of morality and in my view did so as part of the evolution of human conciousness. The Renaissance and The Enlightenment revolutionised the available worldview and so we move on. I have no issue with the beautful poetry, metephor and allegory of religious works and feel that there's an absolute wealth of positive teachings to be drawn on. Logic and reason should, in my view, be the foundation, religion a resource.
It's more than just conditioning, or some abstract mathematical equation of pure reason.
Science won't tell you what is right and wrong in essence, only philosophy or religion.
BTW I've never heard of anyone who claimed to be motivated by 'humanity' who was not a hypocrite.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
You can't justify a morality with such a 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps approach'. It's a post facto rationalization and an absurd deterministic one at that. Are you a crude Marxist?
You realize your darwinistic morality permits genocide and the persecution of minorities?
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Or maybe it is your debate skills? Do you think you win a debate, by insisting the oppostion is just wrong? You need structured, consistent arguments.
I have tried to illuminate another interpretation of the texts from the Bible. Even those who wrote it, may not have understood the folklore.
I have tried to illuminate another interpretation of the texts from the Bible. Even those who wrote it, may not have understood the folklore.
Well, if you can open your thoughts to this theory: God did not create the physical world. (This kind of talk would've gotten me burned/hanged not many years ago).
Therefore, the Almighty cannot be blamed for the suffering we have gotten ourselves into here. This IS our very own hell. Until we wake up, we are damned here forever, but NOT by God, by our own short-sightedness.
You complain that God has given us no proof of existence. Two comments:
1) As I have suggested many times already, God did not create the physical world, and therefore has no reason to leave a trademark in it.
2) There is "proof", but it lies without the physical world. You will never be able to find it with scientific measuring equipment. You must open other senses to experience it.
Yes, yes, I know you will probably be questioning my sanity by now, and perhaps I should not have gone so far, but please try to think about this. Ignore the Bible, and religion in general, just look at the face value of a physical world, made in our collective mind, with no God to blame. God is only for us to find
Therefore, the Almighty cannot be blamed for the suffering we have gotten ourselves into here. This IS our very own hell. Until we wake up, we are damned here forever, but NOT by God, by our own short-sightedness.
You complain that God has given us no proof of existence. Two comments:
1) As I have suggested many times already, God did not create the physical world, and therefore has no reason to leave a trademark in it.
2) There is "proof", but it lies without the physical world. You will never be able to find it with scientific measuring equipment. You must open other senses to experience it.
Yes, yes, I know you will probably be questioning my sanity by now, and perhaps I should not have gone so far, but please try to think about this. Ignore the Bible, and religion in general, just look at the face value of a physical world, made in our collective mind, with no God to blame. God is only for us to find
This is like a last stand when the idea of God is so against everything the fallback position is "you can never detect him or find proof" - it's back to faith......
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Yet we have developed societies with great inequity where elites have 1000's times the wealth and power of lower classes.
You can't justify a morality with such a 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps approach'. It's a post facto rationalization and an absurd deterministic one at that. Are you a crude Marxist?
You realize your darwinistic morality permits genocide and the persecution of minorities?
You can't justify a morality with such a 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps approach'. It's a post facto rationalization and an absurd deterministic one at that. Are you a crude Marxist?
You realize your darwinistic morality permits genocide and the persecution of minorities?
The church is one of the richest institutions in the world, it lauds over some of the poorest people in the world. It would be so easy to ease their suffering with it's wealth, ease their suffering by saying "yes, it's ok to use condoms", end their marginalisation by saying "it's ok to be homosexual", yet they do not. What sort of morality is that?
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
My point is your morality cannot be based upon pure logic, since even logic requires a table of rank. It's the way that things are ranked is the morality. Contrast Christian compassion with the Roman morality of strength, both can claim logic and reason behind them.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
I'm not expecting a straight answer from you since your previous posts has shown you either choose to ignore the questions, and there have been many, or skirt around the subject and try and bring other factors and in to which neither supports your arguements just so you can avoid giving a straight answer.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Abrahamic religions in particular, and most religions generally, permit the same.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
My point is your morality cannot be based upon pure logic, since even logic requires a table of rank. It's the way that things are ranked is the morality. Contrast Christian compassion with the Roman morality of strength, both can claim logic and reason behind them.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 15,078
Likes: 46
From: Nottm
Much like your moralities allow the same?
The church is one of the richest institutions in the world, it lauds over some of the poorest people in the world. It would be so easy to ease their suffering with it's wealth, ease their suffering by saying "yes, it's ok to use condoms", end their marginalisation by saying "it's ok to be homosexual", yet they do not. What sort of morality is that?
Geezer
The church is one of the richest institutions in the world, it lauds over some of the poorest people in the world. It would be so easy to ease their suffering with it's wealth, ease their suffering by saying "yes, it's ok to use condoms", end their marginalisation by saying "it's ok to be homosexual", yet they do not. What sort of morality is that?
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
But if you adopt a Darwinistic morality then genocide is easy so long as you can prove it benefits the 'collective'.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Would you sacrifice your family, parents etc for Science?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
As I said earlier, religiously or scientifically based arguments just come to nothing, except bad blood in so many cases.
Might just as well work out your own beliefs and stick with what your conscience tells you is right for you.
Absolute waste of time trying to convince someone else that you are right instead of his beliefs if they are different to your own.
Even worse if it turns into an insulting match-that proves nothing about the arguments, only your own character!
Les
Might just as well work out your own beliefs and stick with what your conscience tells you is right for you.
Absolute waste of time trying to convince someone else that you are right instead of his beliefs if they are different to your own.
Even worse if it turns into an insulting match-that proves nothing about the arguments, only your own character!
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
See, I knew you were incapable of giving a straight answer. But in answer to your question, no I wouldn't, on what basis would I have to sacrafice my family for science? Answer, none! Nothing tells me I have to put science first.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
From: Scotchland
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Point 2: No-one should adopt a Darwinistic morality. Darwinism just decribes how life has evolved, not how humans should behave. Having said that, I firmly believe that people are generally good to each other because it has historically good for human social and family groups. In short, altruistic behaviour in humans has evolved. Not all behaviour is altruistic within humans, though; as with any variation within populations, there is a spread of behaviours, many combinations of which can be evolutionarily stable. It's been extensively studied and is extremely fascinating. Instead of throwing out strawman arguments against Darwinism, you might actually gain something by reading a little on the subject.
