(1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains services for himself or for another which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat, by altering or tampering with the public utility meter or measuring device by which such services are delivered or by causing or permitting such altering or tampering, by making or maintaining any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically or inductively, to a distribution or transmission line, by attaching or maintaining the attachment of any unauthorized device to any cable, wire or other component of an electric, telephone or cable television system or to a television receiving set connected to a cable television system, by making or maintaining any unauthorized modification or alteration to any device installed by a cable television system, or by false token or other trick or artifice to avoid payment for the service.
(1.1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunication service by the use of an unlawful telecommunication device or without the consent of the telecommunication service provider.
(3) A person is not guilty of theft of cable television service under this section who subscribes to and receives service through an authorized connection of a television receiving set at his dwelling and, within his dwelling, makes an unauthorized connection of an additional television receiving set or sets or audio system which receives only basic cable television service obtained through such authorized connection.
(4) Where compensation for service is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of such service, as in the case of hotels and restaurants, refusal to pay or absconding without payment or offer to pay gives rise to a presumption that the service was obtained by deception as to intention to pay.
I see now that your actual argument, which I haven't addressed, is a strawman argument: as the sibling explains, the GP was not arguing that only concrete things have concrete value, he was arguing that "theft" was meant taking something concrete.
Was he, now?
The GGP states:
Taking stuff you haven't paid for is morally wrong. you can call it what you like, it doesn't change the fact that its a dirty low-down thing to do.
GP answers:
When you copy electronic media, no one loses anything concrete.
GP concludes:
Is it copyright infringement? sure. Is it illegal? sure. Is it morally wrong? good question.
GP assumes that the loss of a non-concrete possession is harmless, at least in some ways in some contexts. Therefore, I call on him to defend his assumption, not his conclusion.
Wrangling about with a person's claims is typically unproductive until we have settled disagreements in the premises, wouldn't you agree? My question is a strawman only if you believe that the point I am addressing is weaker than the GP's point. If you believe my point is simply unrelated, that'd be a red herring. But this is not, in fact, the case.
Besides, GP isn't defining theft anyway. GP is stating that certain kinds of acts are morally justified. I could have asked the GP to defend the additional assumption of consequentialism, but that would range a little far afield, and in any case GP's argument doesn't seem to hold water even within a consequentialist framework: thus, the discussion about value.
"Stealing somebody's identity" is an ambigous and misleading phrase. If you're "stealing my identity" by making purchases with my money, you're stealing my money, depriving me of the ability to use it(alternatively, depriving an insurance company of the ability to use it). If you're "stealing my identity" by doing things that don't involve taking anything from me(say, by making public statements in my name), then no, that isn't theft in the conventional sense of the word either, though it might very well be criminal.
Interesting. So my mere possession of your identifying credentials, prior to my employing them in some nefarious manner, is not identity theft? If I found that my credentials had been stolen, i.e. copied, I would most certainly take steps to cancel those credentials to prevent the thief from using them.
A criminal does not "steal my identity" by stealing my money. He steals my identity in order to steal my money. He steals my identity in order to make statements in my name.
The possession of those credentials enables concrete consequences. Therefore, such information is concretely valuable and furthermore, this value is damaged by its dissemination.
Now we can have a productive and fruitful discussion about whether or not this applies to the sale of creative works.
When you copy electronic media, no one loses anything concrete.
Absolutely correct. Now please explain why only concrete things have concrete value. If I steal your identity, you haven't lost anything concrete either.
Moreover, diamond is decidedly not tough. It may be hard (resists scratching), and stiff (resists bending), but it does not resist fracturing or shattering.
The toughest natural mineral is probably jade (both varieties), even though it's decidedly not hard. You can scratch it with a good knife, but if you take a hammer to a slab of jade, you're liable to damage the hammer. Interestingly, the microscale structure of jade is not unlike the material in TFA -- interlocking crystals, which are responsible for its physical strength.
The perception of diamonds as "forever" and "indestructible" was constructed by the diamond industry. Diamonds aren't rare, either.
This conflict arises because Eve was not the first woman mentioned in the bible, there was some imperfect revision work done to delete the earlier references to Lilith.
G'morning. Sorry for the long delay. Busy week.
Also, you made a very interesting point, one that I hadn't heard before. It did not square with my understanding of the textual chronology, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and spent a while researching the issue. Unfortunately, the few references to this particular Lilith theory (that I could find) are based on either a discredited text, a nonexistent text, or both. I imagine that's not what you're referring to, so I would find it educational if you could provide a citation.
What I found is that the primary source for this form of the Lilith legend is The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, a document that has been dated to around the 8th-10th centuries AD. This is not a primary source for Jewish traditions by any stretch of the imagination; indeed, much of its content is satirical, and so unflattering that some propose that the Alphabet could be anti-semitic in origin.
Now, there is a midrash that hypothesizes an unnamed first wife for Adam, and the best that can be said for the Lilith interpretation is that the compiler of the Alphabet cleverly synthesized this midrashic theory with a preexisting, non-Jewish myth of Lilith. Note that much of the midrashim, and specifically this midrash, dates from about 500AD and later. Jewish thinkers obviously found no issue with the two texts for 1100-1800 years, depending on which dates you subscribe to.
Interestingly, a conflating of these two points has led to a persistent belief that there are actual Rabbinic or midrashic writings that mention Lilith. There are none. It is simply sloppy scholarship.
The upshot is this: the order of events is backwards. The text is historical; the superimposition of Lilith (or some other first wife) is more recent. This is obvious in hindsight, as the very form of the Ben-Sira Lilith text is parasitic upon the pre-existent Genesis text, whereas there exists no clear route by which a hypothetical Lilith text could be redacted to produce the Genesis text -- even if this hypothetical text were to be found.
Now, I did find one website which amusingly mistook the Alphabet's date as being 8th-10th century BC, which could have possibly predated the authorship of Genesis if you accept the "assured results of modern criticism" that the book was compiled and redacted around 600BC rather than written by Moses around 1300BC. Again, I will assume that this is not what you were referring to.
Unfortunately, nearly the entirety of your post misunderstands nearly the entirety of mine. You were also clearly upset, which may be understandable in light of what you thought I was saying. Hopefully you've had time to chill a bit, perhaps have a nice holiday meal. I will provide a few pointers, and then kindly ask you to reread my post. (Please do not respond to this post; respond instead to what I was actually saying, in my original post.)
How ever there is of course the "gap" between the whole truth of how reality works, and what we understand up to this point. Now, your religion teachs you to fill in this gap with blind faith.
This is not what I was referring to when I said "faith is the unavoidable gap between plausibility and belief." I am not talking about gaps in mankind's total knowledge. I am talking about individual propositions, such as this one: "The Leidenfrost effect allows you to safely plunge your hand into molten lead." No propositions are 100% certain, even in science. So, do I accept this proposition? Of course! So should you. It's physics, after all, and is incredibly likely to be correct. But I will not plunge my hand into molten lead, if I can help it. Frankly, it's not worth the risk. That's the gap I was referring to.
Let's take a more serious example: the proposition "P != NP" There are many good reasons to think this is true, and some good reasons to think it is not. The proposition is quite likely to be correct, but hardly in the same league as a physics theorem. The gap is a little bigger, here. Someday we'll know the truth, but right now I have to decide how to live my life. I choose to believe that P != NP, and therefore trust RSA encryption. Some choose to believe that the NSA already knows that P == NP, and do not trust RSA. Two plausible alternatives; I call this choice faith.
Oh, and incidentally, your statement about what Christianity teaches is entirely incorrect.
So no, your are completely wrong in stating that faith is some how a fundamental requirement in human thinking.
All thinking does require unproven "first principles." Perhaps you dislike the word "faith," but note that the entire first half of my post was not even about religion. This is all just elementary philosophy. I was correcting the OP's philosophical error (a common one).
You are sitting at a computer, using it to type a message stating that logic and reason don't always work.
Nope, I certainly think that they do work, all the time. I said that they cannot be proven to work. This is the same fallacy that I was pointing out to the OP: you are equating provability with truth.
Now, you want to try to argue that people of faith some how have better morals, or that morals are derived from faith? That's is absolutely wrong and I find that insulting!
Nope. You are making a common error in responding to this argument. Nowhere do I state or even imply that atheists cannot be moral people. Most of my atheist friends and acquaintances are exceptionally moral people.
I did not state that atheism cannot justify morality (though I could have; I chose not to.)
What I said is this: universal and inalienable human rights that apply to all people in all circumstances and cultures, cannot be justified under atheism. I figured the logic would be obvious.
This is a fact that seems to escape most Americans, when it should be scaring them shitless! Why is there not much being made of the fact that 7 (or 8?) states amended their state constitutions to make same-sex marriage illegal? [snip] This legislation based on religion needs to be stopped! We are headed for a theocracy, and it frightens me.
I think you need to clarify some definitions.
During the last election, I read a bunch of comments on some CNN blog about "moral issues." Perhaps one out of three was a shocked or indignant complaint about "separation of church and state," typically along the lines of "get your morals/religion out of politics." Let's clarify these muddy notions, shall we?
Every issue is a moral issue.
If you think that it is unfair to deny marriage to same-sex couples, you have made a moral judgment of exactly the same category as those who oppose same-sex marriage. More generally: if you believe (as most of us do) that all people deserve equal treatment, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc., then you have taken a moral position. Further: if you believe that the US should intervene in other countries and cultures to defend these and other universal human rights, then you have taken a moral position.
In fact, any time you use the word "should" or any of its synonyms -- such as, "the government should permit abortions" -- then you have taken a moral position.
If you are offended that someone would guide their vote based on a moral position... then you have taken a moral position! Moral neutrality is a fashionable myth.
Now we can properly define the "separation of church and state," which is that the state does not have legal authority over the church. And the church has no legal authority over the state -- that is the definition of theocracy. The establishment clause, in its original meaning, prohibits government dealings with religious organizations.
It does not mean that the government is supposed to make perfectly objective, neutral decisions that are completely severed from any religious viewpoint. This is impossible, because moral neutrality doesn't exist, remember? This was also the understanding of the founders; even Jefferson writes of "the moral principles on which the government is to be administered."
In other words, the government carries out the moral position of the voters, within the limits of the constitution -- which, among other things, partly guards against the tyranny of the majority.
By the way, this understanding is completely consistent with the Treaty of Tripoli, cited earlier. Remember that the other party in that treaty was a theocracy; the language should be interpreted in the context of assuring them that we are not a theocracy. This does not, in any way, diminish the role of the government as a moral agent. Jefferson, again, says: "Moral duties [are] as obligatory on nations as on individuals."
"God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray God, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image."
Interesting quote. Watch out for the assumptions, though.
1. It assumes a standard of greatness. The author implies that a god that does not satisfy his definition of greatness cannot be God. But if God doesn't exist, there is no such standard. If God does exist, who is he to tell God what the standard is? 2. It assumes a standard of splendor. The author uses "splendor" as a value judgment upon a potential god. But unless God exists, "splendor" is equivalent to "I like it." 3. It assumes a standard of human worth. The author compares a minuscule, worthless human to an infinitely powerful god. But this standard of human worth is only true if God does not exist. If God does exist, who is he to tell God what we are worth to him? 4. It assumes a standard of honor. The author has decided that an all-powerful god "would never" allow an insignificant creature to betray him. Is this not the creation of god in his own image? If God exists, who is he to say, "You shouldn't have let me do that to you!" in response to the gift of free will. A relationship in which one party can never be hurt is not a relationship.
So... four circular arguments conclude, "That is impossible."
I would say that religion limits you further...with atheism, there is no limit to what you can discover...with religion, you discover as much as what is written in a book. A book which was written by men who thought the world was flat.
A similar observation. If no religions are true, then atheism offers the most freedom. But this is obvious. It's practically a tautology.
On the other hand, if there is a religion that is actually true, then faith in that religion limits you to the truth. The "freedom" of atheism then becomes an unchartable sea of arbitrary options, impossible to distinguish because they are all equally false. I have no need of a philosophy that opens up limitless possibilities of falsehood. (Look up postmodernism sometime for a very relevant example; millions of humanities students are indoctrinated into this crap every year.)
Yes, I am not presenting reasons why one particular religion might be true; I've written enough about that elsewhere. I'm only pointing out your assumption that every proposition in the set of religions is false. It is no more valid than my assumption that the correct, true proposition exists within that set.
We're 2 chapters in, and already have a self-contridiction. I would enjoy discussing this apparent contridiction with a beliver such as yourself.
The answer is that you have a very simple cultural assumption: that the text is chronological. Most modern texts assume this, but it has not always been the case (and still isn't, especially with some very recent literature).
There's no difficulty here when you recognize that 1:27 is a summary. In fact, it is a literarily significant summary of text that comes both before and after.
But I'm sure you know that simple objections like this are easily addressed, especially in the age of Google. What issue, then, is your real interest?
Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent.
As a Christian, I agree with this in a way. People bring up atheism and then expect me to conform to its supposed neutrality and superiority. I'm tired of having people spout off atheistic bollocks at me and keeping silent.;-)
Seriously, though, we are both in the pursuit of truth here, we just happen to have reached different conclusions. More importantly, it's admirable that you're willing to make your views known. These days, people are often branded "intolerant" and "biased" when they speak up against falsehoods. "Tolerance" used to mean "respectful disagreement," but now it frequently means "never, ever criticize anyone's beliefs."
Christians are guilty of forgetting that we have an obligation to create a level playing field for all ideas to be aired. This is implicit in our duty to treat others better than we treat ourselves, and our conviction that this is the best vehicle for truth. Whenever Christians have failed to do this, throughout history, it has been disastrous. Whenever Christians have adhered to this, truth has been served.
Of course, atheists don't escape criticism here, either. There's a common misconception that atheism is an obvious, default, and neutral starting point; add "God" and you get theism. This "presumption of atheism" is only possible for "weak" atheism or agnosticism. The assertion that God is a "fairy tale" is epistemically equivalent to the theistic assertion -- and since both assertions carry a number of nontrivial implications, atheism cannot be viewed as the "rational" subset of theism. They are distinct sets that are almost disjoint.
In other words, some propositions have no neutral ground. Occam's Razor does not apply to such situations. This is easy to see if you take certain other binary examples: humans are either equal, or they are not equal. The axiom of choice is true, or it's not. God exists, or God doesn't. Which position is neutral? One of them will be true, but neither of them is neutral. But invariably, one position -- or its implication -- gets promoted as neutral, and is therefore taught in every grade school. Hmm.
Or take, for instance, Christopher Reeve's statement regarding stem cell research: "When discussing matters of public policy, no religions should have a seat at the table." This is hardly a level playing field; in fact, it is espousing strong atheism over theism while claiming to be neutral.
Perhaps I'll dig at this a bit more: I've given reasons why Christians should welcome debate (even though they often don't). Is there a comparable duty within atheism?
(Finally, though you may be sick of hearing this, it's relevant to note that the premier exponent of the presumption of atheism argument was ex-atheist Antony Flew. So even the "weak" position has come under well-deserved scrutiny. =)
Next time some nut starts to explain how "Jesus saved" or "God's love will guide you". Call them on it. Explain to them that what they believe is a fairy tale with zero evidence.
Okay, I'll take you up on that. =) The "zero evidence" schtick is a pet peeve of mine.
You state that Christianity is a "fairy tale with zero evidence." I gather you mean that no claim should be believed unless it's verifiable by evidence. This is naturally a popular refrain here on Slashdot.
But it doesn't work very well. For instance, what evidence would establish that the universe exists? If that's too academic, let me rephrase: what evidence could possibly establish that we don't live in the Matrix? Yet, most people consider belief in a real universe to be quite rational. And they are correct, even though this falls decidedly into your category of "fairy tale[s] with zero evidence."
Your position is called positivism, and it was very popular for a very short time, until we suddenly realized that it makes no sense. The belief that "no claim should be believed unless it is verifiable by evidence," is not verifiable by evidence. It's self-refuting. Accordingly, this philosophy died a rapid death at its own hands... but not before the natural sciences had adopted these notions as (oops!) unquestioned dogma.
In other words, we all believe lots of things that cannot be proven. And we are rationally justified in doing so. But more than that, Godel showed us that some of these propositions will actually be true. There is no good reason to equate the set of true propositions with the set of empirically verifiable propositions.
--
Okay, so your position and mine are both grounded in unprovable assumptions. We know what these are called: axioms. So here's my point.
God is an axiom.
The stereotype of a "rational," "intelligent," "educated" person is one who ardently lives by certain axioms, such as the reliability of logic, or the existence of the universe -- but not others, such as the axiom that God exists. This is an arbitrary cultural bias, and has nothing to do with being rational, intelligent, or educated.
How should one choose an axiom system, then? Logically, they can't be distinguished; yet we know that exactly one (or zero) of them will be true. Fortunately, we have the real world as a guide. It is not the only guide, but it's a good clue. In other words,
Faith is the choice between two plausible alternatives.
Not a blind faith, but judgment leading to confidence. Faith is the unavoidable gap between plausibility and belief -- of anything. I judge that the theistic axiom system is far more complete and plausible than the atheistic one.
First, let's clarify: the Christian axiom system contains all the axioms of science, and always has (though not always followed). I have no objection to evolution, or to the Bible; in the proper axiom system, they are not in conflict. So the Christian model encompasses science, in contrast to your other post claiming that Christians cannot be scientists.
Second, the Christian model encompasses more than the atheistic model. Let's take one example: universal equality, and other such human rights. Under atheistic axioms, human rights are a social construction. This isn't because they necessarily are a construction; the atheistic model simply has no better explanation. This is problematic, because you can't really have a "universal right" that some society invented, can you? We can only apply these ideas within our own culture, which means they're not human rights at all, but (say) Canadian rights. But in reality, we do in fact go around accusing other countries of "human rights violations" like slavery or racial genocide. Of course we do, because most of us really believe that universal rights exist -- just because t
Getting back to the original question of whether liberal morals are more based on science than conservative morals, it depends how extreme the morals are. The notion that there is a absolute distinction between being a human life and not a human life has no scientific basis. Until dead chickens can produce live human offspring the notion that human life begins at conception is, what we in the sciences refer to as, "not even wrong".
Interesting amalgamation of concepts here. I have a few questions:
1. Can you elaborate on what it means for science to be a basis for morals? Science is a methodology. It produces information. I do not see how science can produce obligations. Your example of human life misses the point; the whole debate over when "human" "life" "begins" rests on a presupposition by both parties that human life should not be harmed. No one would care about the debate unless that were true. Except there is no scientific basis for it, is there? Under your classification, the statement "Humans should not be murdered" is not even wrong. So is the statement, "The inferior races are trash, fit only for slavery."
2. More to the point, you seem to consider "scientific basis" to be the only test for truth, since you imply that any statement without [the possibility of] scientific basis is not even wrong, i.e., some kind of useless non-fact not even capable of bearing the title "true" or "false." But I submit that there are objectively true propositions that absolutely cannot be established by science, such as: "Does the universe exist, or do we live in the Matrix?" If I claim that the universe actually exists, you would probably consider me quite rational. And you would be right. Godel showed that there will always be true statements that cannot be proven to be true.
But here's the real kicker. Can you please provide a "scientific basis" for the following claim: Any statement that has no scientific basis is what we in the sciences refer to as, "not even wrong." If you cannot, then the position refutes itself.
3. You forgot to define "extreme." Please note, any definition of "extreme" implicitly includes a definition of "norm" against which to judge extremity. Is your "norm" normative?;-)
I have never heard of this definition of "legislating morality." This is because your definition is inconsistent:
You don't see a fundamental difference between laws that stop you from taking an action (abortion, drugs) that effects no one else and a law that stops you from hurting others (public smoking)? Traditionally one person's rights end when another persons rights begin. You have the right to smoke and kill yourself, just so long as you don't poison me in the process, because that is violating my rights.
The very notion that I should not violate your rights is a moral one. To legislate that I cannot violate your rights is to legislate morality. Morality is not defined by privateness. Morality is involved anytime you invoke the word "should," or its cognate, "rights."
You seem to have taken a rather common, but IMO indefensible, position that "morals" are things that are personal, private, and subjective; they are not "true" or "false" in the sense that facts are true or false, so by definition they can govern only my personal behavior which doesn't affect others. Yet you are espousing a set of other rules that purport to govern my public behavior which does affect others -- as if this single distinction somehow causes the latter rules to be more valid or more real. Yet, what would you call these rules, if not morals?
The illustration is simple: Suppose I have the power to violate your rights as often as I want, without consequence. Provide me a non-moral reason why I should refrain. (Note: "Law" doesn't count. "Social contract" doesn't count. "Tradition" doesn't count. Tell me why I should not injure you if we assume that I want and can.)
I contend that morals either exist, and apply everywhere, or they do not exist, and they apply nowhere. You can't have it both ways.
The only "ideology" of science, if you want to call it that, is to go where the evidence leads you, no matter how unsettling, disruptive or embarrasing the truth may turn out to be.
Nope.
Science is a tool, a methodology. And a tool per se is clearly not an ideology. But this is a red herring. No one can use a tool without bringing their ideology with them.
The ideologies of scientific practice are so intertwined with science itself that they often aren't even noticed, much less questioned. Examples include the belief that progress is both inevitable and beneficial (utopianism), or the belief that atheism is automatically more rational than theism.
But my favorite ideology is positivism, which claims that nonscientific statements cannot be true. This might sound plausible, even compelling. But it is not science. A silly example: (1) science cannot establish that humans have unalienable rights, (2) therefore human rights are a mere social fiction. Proposition #1 is empirically valid. Proposition #2 cannot logically follow without first assuming positivism -- it is a thoroughly ideological conclusion, yet often represented as "science" anyway.
It is equally valid to say, (2) human rights do exist (perhaps they are incorrigible, for instance), therefore positivism is a mere social fiction. In fact, this is extraordinarily plausible since all of us believe plenty of nonscientific claims -- such as the reliability of logic and the existence of the universe (rather than the Matrix) -- and we do not consider ourselves irrational for doing so. And Godel, of course, showed us that some of these unprovable beliefs will in fact be true.
The kicker is that philosophers abandoned positivism decades ago after discovering a slight problem: the statement "nonscientific statements cannot be true" is a nonscientific statement. It cannot be established by science. Therefore it is not true. =) Unfortunately, the notion remains firmly entrenched in both academic and popular culture, and I am skeptical that SEFORA will take pains to separate illegitimate ideological conclusions from their very legitimate anti-censorship activities. Pot, kettle, black.
The failure of positivism is an unsettling, disruptive, embarrassing truth that its adherents are frequently unwilling to admit. As Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin famously wrote, "We cannot let a divine foot in the door." And no, I am not defending ID. But it is terribly amusing to see how many objections to ID turn out to be ideological.
Our HP Color Laserjet 2550L has, as many devices do, a web-based interface. Except this printer has no network support. How, then, does it have a web interface?
Because the driver installs a web server on your machine!
And guess what? The web server is written in Java! So the driver installs Java on your machine!
Of course, they both autostart as services. That's well over thirty megabytes of RAM, consumed constantly, to support what looks like a 45k HTML web app with a trivial USB backend to talk to the printer.
anyone who follows the recursive assumptions long enough winds up at a logical wall where they have no other option than to say "I belive X without any proof"
Well said yourself. And it's after we get to this point that things get interesting, since we're still talking about figuring out the truth. A given proposition may be unprovable but that certainly doesn't preclude it from being actually and objectively true -- thank Godel! It just means there's a bit more room for disagreement sometimes.;-)
And this is faith; but it is not blind faith. For instance, we would probably agree that the axioms of logic work quite well and are highly likely to be True, provability notwithstanding. In contrast, I could disagree with your other statement...
to me "finding God" is the spiritual equivalent of a "get rich quick" scheme
...and suggest that your recursion has stopped slightly short. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "get rich quick" scheme, but it's clear you're talking about the attractive upsides of theism -- elsewhere you mention the comfortable sense of having a benevolent God. Personally, I favor the existential upsides, such as having a simple, consistent, and objective framework that justifies things like equality, human dignity and human rights, compassion, meaning, etc. (rather than resorting to convoluted social explanations of these things).
But here's the other half of the recursion: atheism has its attractive upsides as well, primarily in terms of autonomy, self-creation, personal independence, moral subjectivism, and so on. And this is equally a "get rich quick" scenario. The atheist looks at theism and sees human desire behind it; the theist looks at atheism and sees human desire behind it also.
If we were blithering postmoderns we'd just stop here and prattle about the "equal validity of all viewpoints," but I'm not and I doubt you are. So I expect we agree that, at the end of the day, exactly one (or none) of those two options is True.
(I also think the question is decidable with adequate certainty, but I won't bet we agree on that. Thanks for an interesting discussion. =)
My mind long ago dismissed the idea of a God that "just is" as logically redundant, I prefer the notion that I "just am" because I emerged from a universe that "just is".
Not to nitpick, but I fail to see a factor that logically differentiates the notions of a God that "just is" and a universe that "just is." Of course I realize you're simplifying here. But absent other considerations, I see those two statements as possessing entirely equivalent justification (or lack thereof, depending on your inclination =).
Accordingly, you state that you "prefer" one over the other; but then how is this "logically" redundant?
And isn't that what a degree is all about: To give the student a "body of knowlage" in the form of facts and concepts
Actually, I'd disagree, if you're talking about undergraduate degrees. Research finds that breadth is a major determinant of future success. It's not the facts and concepts, but the mental disciplines such as flexibility, quick learning, communication, and (especially) having as many different problem-solving tools as possible. That comes from exposure to a wide variety of subjects taught by experts -- and for most of us, undergraduate college is the best and only place to get that.
For instance, I credit all of my debugging skills to an Art History class -- no exaggeration. The data-synthesis skills I learned there outweigh everything else, when it comes to rooting out problems. Personally, it's simply the right tool for the job.
Facts and concepts are important but secondary. For the students out there: go ahead and major in science. Have a blast. Just recognize that a lot of it will be job training. Don't skimp on real education that trains the mind.
Philosophy is mindless crap if you maintain the conviction that it has some intrinsic relevance in the real world.
The conviction that philosophy does or does not have any intrinsic relevance to the real world is itself a philosophical question that cannot be blithely passed off. It requires philosophical treatment.
Now, if you lack that, then philosophy is fascinating, critical to civilization and often very useful,
The notion that the truth of an idea can or should be judged by its usefulness is a philosophical question.
particularly if combined with a requirement for observation -- ie science.
The requirement for empirical observation is a philosophical issue. Taken too far, it results in positivism, which states that only empirically verifiable propositions are true. Too bad positivism died long ago... at its own hand: the statement "only empirically verifiable propositions are true" is not empirically verifiable. (Hey, look, it's philosophy again.)
Of course, this incoherent positivism often pops up as unquestioned dogma in certain circles -- i.e., science.
And that is where philosophy has a great role in any science curriculum. To say nothing of its role in disciplining the mind in ways that science does not.
Moreover, the money most people fork over for a plasma ($2000-$5000) can buy a projector that ranges from excellent to fabulously excellent.
By the same token, a highly decent projector can be had for $1000. Even $500, the cost of a mediocre 4:3 TV, will get you a nice little 4:3 projector that is at least as good as the TV if you don't mind the 2x DLP rainbows.
(Note: the MSRPs listed on ProjectorCentral should be cut in half to get street prices; ask Froogle. On top of that, the AE900 even has an additional $400 rebate, for a little while... that makes it cheaper than my 5-year-old AE100).
This doesn't always happen. I'd guess that a weird word that has wide exposure has a good chance of just being absorbed into normal lingo.
But a word that isn't widely known can fail to become widely known if it doesn't sound good. Case in point: when asked, all of my non-techie friends say that one of the main reasons they switched to Firefox was because it wasn't called Mozilla. And the reason I asked them was because I had an absolutely terrible time getting anyone to use something called Mozilla. (I prefer "Netscape" over both those names, though.)
I think, on balance, "Wii" is a poor name. Nintendo has enough marketing clout to get people used to it, though. It's not clear to me which way this one is going to fall.
molested AND killed, nor OR killed. read up on your boolean logic plz.
The OP claims "molested AND killed" is rare. I claim "molested AND NOT killed" is common. You bring up "molested OR killed," which is simply nonsensical.
You can count the children molested and killed by strangers in the past few years on the fingers of one hand (there were 4). That's in the entire USA. The average is about 1.5 per year, contrast to the 9 kids hit by lightning and the 3 children killed by baseballs.
Citation, please. And "molested and killed" is unquestionably a poor metric, since I personally know two people who were molested, and not killed, by strangers. And I don't know very many people.
And on top of that we can add in the figures for child sex trafficking, for which the US has allegedly become one of the largest markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does.
3926. Theft of services.
(a) Acquisition of services.--
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains services for himself or for another which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat, by altering or tampering with the public utility meter or measuring device by which such services are delivered or by causing or permitting such altering or tampering, by making or maintaining any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically or inductively, to a distribution or transmission line, by attaching or maintaining the attachment of any unauthorized device to any cable, wire or other component of an electric, telephone or cable television system or to a television receiving set connected to a cable television system, by making or maintaining any unauthorized modification or alteration to any device installed by a cable television system, or by false token or other trick or artifice to avoid payment for the service.
(1.1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunication service by the use of an unlawful telecommunication device or without the consent of the telecommunication service provider.
(3) A person is not guilty of theft of cable television service under this section who subscribes to and receives service through an authorized connection of a television receiving set at his dwelling and, within his dwelling, makes an unauthorized connection of an additional television receiving set or sets or audio system which receives only basic cable television service obtained through such authorized connection.
(4) Where compensation for service is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of such service, as in the case of hotels and restaurants, refusal to pay or absconding without payment or offer to pay gives rise to a presumption that the service was obtained by deception as to intention to pay.
(From the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes)
--
Dum de dum.
Was he, now?
The GGP states:
GP answers:
GP concludes:
GP assumes that the loss of a non-concrete possession is harmless, at least in some ways in some contexts. Therefore, I call on him to defend his assumption, not his conclusion.
Wrangling about with a person's claims is typically unproductive until we have settled disagreements in the premises, wouldn't you agree? My question is a strawman only if you believe that the point I am addressing is weaker than the GP's point. If you believe my point is simply unrelated, that'd be a red herring. But this is not, in fact, the case.
Besides, GP isn't defining theft anyway. GP is stating that certain kinds of acts are morally justified. I could have asked the GP to defend the additional assumption of consequentialism, but that would range a little far afield, and in any case GP's argument doesn't seem to hold water even within a consequentialist framework: thus, the discussion about value.
"Stealing somebody's identity" is an ambigous and misleading phrase. If you're "stealing my identity" by making purchases with my money, you're stealing my money, depriving me of the ability to use it(alternatively, depriving an insurance company of the ability to use it). If you're "stealing my identity" by doing things that don't involve taking anything from me(say, by making public statements in my name), then no, that isn't theft in the conventional sense of the word either, though it might very well be criminal.
Interesting. So my mere possession of your identifying credentials, prior to my employing them in some nefarious manner, is not identity theft? If I found that my credentials had been stolen, i.e. copied, I would most certainly take steps to cancel those credentials to prevent the thief from using them.
A criminal does not "steal my identity" by stealing my money. He steals my identity in order to steal my money. He steals my identity in order to make statements in my name.
The possession of those credentials enables concrete consequences. Therefore, such information is concretely valuable and furthermore, this value is damaged by its dissemination.
Now we can have a productive and fruitful discussion about whether or not this applies to the sale of creative works.
--
Dum de dum.
When you copy electronic media, no one loses anything concrete.
Absolutely correct. Now please explain why only concrete things have concrete value. If I steal your identity, you haven't lost anything concrete either.
--
Dum de dum.
Moreover, diamond is decidedly not tough. It may be hard (resists scratching), and stiff (resists bending), but it does not resist fracturing or shattering.
The toughest natural mineral is probably jade (both varieties), even though it's decidedly not hard. You can scratch it with a good knife, but if you take a hammer to a slab of jade, you're liable to damage the hammer. Interestingly, the microscale structure of jade is not unlike the material in TFA -- interlocking crystals, which are responsible for its physical strength.
The perception of diamonds as "forever" and "indestructible" was constructed by the diamond industry. Diamonds aren't rare, either.
--
Dum de dum.
Let the free market sort that out. If the producers deserve to get paid, they will get paid.
Firefly.
--
Dum de dum.
This conflict arises because Eve was not the first woman mentioned in the bible, there was some imperfect revision work done to delete the earlier references to Lilith.
G'morning. Sorry for the long delay. Busy week.
Also, you made a very interesting point, one that I hadn't heard before. It did not square with my understanding of the textual chronology, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and spent a while researching the issue. Unfortunately, the few references to this particular Lilith theory (that I could find) are based on either a discredited text, a nonexistent text, or both. I imagine that's not what you're referring to, so I would find it educational if you could provide a citation.
What I found is that the primary source for this form of the Lilith legend is The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, a document that has been dated to around the 8th-10th centuries AD. This is not a primary source for Jewish traditions by any stretch of the imagination; indeed, much of its content is satirical, and so unflattering that some propose that the Alphabet could be anti-semitic in origin.
Now, there is a midrash that hypothesizes an unnamed first wife for Adam, and the best that can be said for the Lilith interpretation is that the compiler of the Alphabet cleverly synthesized this midrashic theory with a preexisting, non-Jewish myth of Lilith. Note that much of the midrashim, and specifically this midrash, dates from about 500AD and later. Jewish thinkers obviously found no issue with the two texts for 1100-1800 years, depending on which dates you subscribe to.
Interestingly, a conflating of these two points has led to a persistent belief that there are actual Rabbinic or midrashic writings that mention Lilith. There are none. It is simply sloppy scholarship.
The upshot is this: the order of events is backwards. The text is historical; the superimposition of Lilith (or some other first wife) is more recent. This is obvious in hindsight, as the very form of the Ben-Sira Lilith text is parasitic upon the pre-existent Genesis text, whereas there exists no clear route by which a hypothetical Lilith text could be redacted to produce the Genesis text -- even if this hypothetical text were to be found.
Now, I did find one website which amusingly mistook the Alphabet's date as being 8th-10th century BC, which could have possibly predated the authorship of Genesis if you accept the "assured results of modern criticism" that the book was compiled and redacted around 600BC rather than written by Moses around 1300BC. Again, I will assume that this is not what you were referring to.
But it's worth mentioning, of course, that this "modern criticism" or "higher criticism" of Graf and Wellhausen (a.k.a. the "JEDP" theory of multiple authorship) was conceived nearly 200 years ago, long before the advent of fields such as, say, archaeology or comparative linguistics. The methods of textual criticism are quite valuable in providing interpretive insights to a text, but to extrapolate such nuances into a challenge of authorship is to exaggerate their significance, under most circumstances. Textual criticism often produces absurd results when applied to nonreligious texts with the rigidity and vehemence that it is applied to religious texts. As one essayist concluded: "My professor of classics at Cornell University in the 1950's observed wryly that after seventy-five years of that sort of thing in Homeric scholarship, 'we have finally jettisoned that approach and have concluded that if Homer didn't write the Odyssey, it was written by someone of the same name who lived about the same time.'"
Surprisingly, the immense popularity
Unfortunately, nearly the entirety of your post misunderstands nearly the entirety of mine. You were also clearly upset, which may be understandable in light of what you thought I was saying. Hopefully you've had time to chill a bit, perhaps have a nice holiday meal. I will provide a few pointers, and then kindly ask you to reread my post. (Please do not respond to this post; respond instead to what I was actually saying, in my original post.)
How ever there is of course the "gap" between the whole truth of how reality works, and what we understand up to this point. Now, your religion teachs you to fill in this gap with blind faith.
This is not what I was referring to when I said "faith is the unavoidable gap between plausibility and belief." I am not talking about gaps in mankind's total knowledge. I am talking about individual propositions, such as this one: "The Leidenfrost effect allows you to safely plunge your hand into molten lead." No propositions are 100% certain, even in science. So, do I accept this proposition? Of course! So should you. It's physics, after all, and is incredibly likely to be correct. But I will not plunge my hand into molten lead, if I can help it. Frankly, it's not worth the risk. That's the gap I was referring to.
Let's take a more serious example: the proposition "P != NP" There are many good reasons to think this is true, and some good reasons to think it is not. The proposition is quite likely to be correct, but hardly in the same league as a physics theorem. The gap is a little bigger, here. Someday we'll know the truth, but right now I have to decide how to live my life. I choose to believe that P != NP, and therefore trust RSA encryption. Some choose to believe that the NSA already knows that P == NP, and do not trust RSA. Two plausible alternatives; I call this choice faith.
Oh, and incidentally, your statement about what Christianity teaches is entirely incorrect.
So no, your are completely wrong in stating that faith is some how a fundamental requirement in human thinking.
All thinking does require unproven "first principles." Perhaps you dislike the word "faith," but note that the entire first half of my post was not even about religion. This is all just elementary philosophy. I was correcting the OP's philosophical error (a common one).
But since you don't like the way I explained it, please instead read: epistemology, philosophy of science, empiricism, reason, and perhaps philosophical skepticism.
You are sitting at a computer, using it to type a message stating that logic and reason don't always work.
Nope, I certainly think that they do work, all the time. I said that they cannot be proven to work. This is the same fallacy that I was pointing out to the OP: you are equating provability with truth.
Now, you want to try to argue that people of faith some how have better morals, or that morals are derived from faith? That's is absolutely wrong and I find that insulting!
Nope. You are making a common error in responding to this argument. Nowhere do I state or even imply that atheists cannot be moral people. Most of my atheist friends and acquaintances are exceptionally moral people.
I did not state that atheism cannot justify morality (though I could have; I chose not to.)
What I said is this: universal and inalienable human rights that apply to all people in all circumstances and cultures, cannot be justified under atheism. I figured the logic would be obvious.
1:27 says he created both of them together in his image. 2:22 says he created woman from man. It's saying 2 different things.
Umm. Perhaps I wasn't clear? Let me illustrate:
1. So Bach composed cantatas every Sunday, every Sunday he composed them; two-hundred-nine cantatas composed he.
2. And the theme, which Bach had taken from Cantata BWV 137, made he a variation, and brought forth Cantata BWV 120a.
The grammar plainly makes no claim to creating both together.
--
Dum de dum.
This is a fact that seems to escape most Americans, when it should be scaring them shitless! Why is there not much being made of the fact that 7 (or 8?) states amended their state constitutions to make same-sex marriage illegal? [snip] This legislation based on religion needs to be stopped! We are headed for a theocracy, and it frightens me.
I think you need to clarify some definitions.
During the last election, I read a bunch of comments on some CNN blog about "moral issues." Perhaps one out of three was a shocked or indignant complaint about "separation of church and state," typically along the lines of "get your morals/religion out of politics." Let's clarify these muddy notions, shall we?
Every issue is a moral issue.
If you think that it is unfair to deny marriage to same-sex couples, you have made a moral judgment of exactly the same category as those who oppose same-sex marriage. More generally: if you believe (as most of us do) that all people deserve equal treatment, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc., then you have taken a moral position. Further: if you believe that the US should intervene in other countries and cultures to defend these and other universal human rights, then you have taken a moral position.
In fact, any time you use the word "should" or any of its synonyms -- such as, "the government should permit abortions" -- then you have taken a moral position.
If you are offended that someone would guide their vote based on a moral position... then you have taken a moral position! Moral neutrality is a fashionable myth.
Now we can properly define the "separation of church and state," which is that the state does not have legal authority over the church. And the church has no legal authority over the state -- that is the definition of theocracy. The establishment clause, in its original meaning, prohibits government dealings with religious organizations.
It does not mean that the government is supposed to make perfectly objective, neutral decisions that are completely severed from any religious viewpoint. This is impossible, because moral neutrality doesn't exist, remember? This was also the understanding of the founders; even Jefferson writes of "the moral principles on which the government is to be administered."
In other words, the government carries out the moral position of the voters, within the limits of the constitution -- which, among other things, partly guards against the tyranny of the majority.
By the way, this understanding is completely consistent with the Treaty of Tripoli, cited earlier. Remember that the other party in that treaty was a theocracy; the language should be interpreted in the context of assuring them that we are not a theocracy. This does not, in any way, diminish the role of the government as a moral agent. Jefferson, again, says: "Moral duties [are] as obligatory on nations as on individuals."
--
Dum de dum.
"God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray God, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image."
Interesting quote. Watch out for the assumptions, though.
1. It assumes a standard of greatness. The author implies that a god that does not satisfy his definition of greatness cannot be God. But if God doesn't exist, there is no such standard. If God does exist, who is he to tell God what the standard is?
2. It assumes a standard of splendor. The author uses "splendor" as a value judgment upon a potential god. But unless God exists, "splendor" is equivalent to "I like it."
3. It assumes a standard of human worth. The author compares a minuscule, worthless human to an infinitely powerful god. But this standard of human worth is only true if God does not exist. If God does exist, who is he to tell God what we are worth to him?
4. It assumes a standard of honor. The author has decided that an all-powerful god "would never" allow an insignificant creature to betray him. Is this not the creation of god in his own image? If God exists, who is he to say, "You shouldn't have let me do that to you!" in response to the gift of free will. A relationship in which one party can never be hurt is not a relationship.
So... four circular arguments conclude, "That is impossible."
I would say that religion limits you further...with atheism, there is no limit to what you can discover...with religion, you discover as much as what is written in a book. A book which was written by men who thought the world was flat.
A similar observation. If no religions are true, then atheism offers the most freedom. But this is obvious. It's practically a tautology.
On the other hand, if there is a religion that is actually true, then faith in that religion limits you to the truth. The "freedom" of atheism then becomes an unchartable sea of arbitrary options, impossible to distinguish because they are all equally false. I have no need of a philosophy that opens up limitless possibilities of falsehood. (Look up postmodernism sometime for a very relevant example; millions of humanities students are indoctrinated into this crap every year.)
Yes, I am not presenting reasons why one particular religion might be true; I've written enough about that elsewhere. I'm only pointing out your assumption that every proposition in the set of religions is false. It is no more valid than my assumption that the correct, true proposition exists within that set.
--
Dum de dum.
We're 2 chapters in, and already have a self-contridiction. I would enjoy discussing this apparent contridiction with a beliver such as yourself.
The answer is that you have a very simple cultural assumption: that the text is chronological. Most modern texts assume this, but it has not always been the case (and still isn't, especially with some very recent literature).
There's no difficulty here when you recognize that 1:27 is a summary. In fact, it is a literarily significant summary of text that comes both before and after.
But I'm sure you know that simple objections like this are easily addressed, especially in the age of Google. What issue, then, is your real interest?
--
Dum de dum.
Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent.
;-)
As a Christian, I agree with this in a way. People bring up atheism and then expect me to conform to its supposed neutrality and superiority. I'm tired of having people spout off atheistic bollocks at me and keeping silent.
Seriously, though, we are both in the pursuit of truth here, we just happen to have reached different conclusions. More importantly, it's admirable that you're willing to make your views known. These days, people are often branded "intolerant" and "biased" when they speak up against falsehoods. "Tolerance" used to mean "respectful disagreement," but now it frequently means "never, ever criticize anyone's beliefs."
Christians are guilty of forgetting that we have an obligation to create a level playing field for all ideas to be aired. This is implicit in our duty to treat others better than we treat ourselves, and our conviction that this is the best vehicle for truth. Whenever Christians have failed to do this, throughout history, it has been disastrous. Whenever Christians have adhered to this, truth has been served.
Of course, atheists don't escape criticism here, either. There's a common misconception that atheism is an obvious, default, and neutral starting point; add "God" and you get theism. This "presumption of atheism" is only possible for "weak" atheism or agnosticism. The assertion that God is a "fairy tale" is epistemically equivalent to the theistic assertion -- and since both assertions carry a number of nontrivial implications, atheism cannot be viewed as the "rational" subset of theism. They are distinct sets that are almost disjoint.
In other words, some propositions have no neutral ground. Occam's Razor does not apply to such situations. This is easy to see if you take certain other binary examples: humans are either equal, or they are not equal. The axiom of choice is true, or it's not. God exists, or God doesn't. Which position is neutral? One of them will be true, but neither of them is neutral. But invariably, one position -- or its implication -- gets promoted as neutral, and is therefore taught in every grade school. Hmm.
Or take, for instance, Christopher Reeve's statement regarding stem cell research: "When discussing matters of public policy, no religions should have a seat at the table." This is hardly a level playing field; in fact, it is espousing strong atheism over theism while claiming to be neutral.
Perhaps I'll dig at this a bit more: I've given reasons why Christians should welcome debate (even though they often don't). Is there a comparable duty within atheism?
(Finally, though you may be sick of hearing this, it's relevant to note that the premier exponent of the presumption of atheism argument was ex-atheist Antony Flew. So even the "weak" position has come under well-deserved scrutiny. =)
--
Dum de dum.
Next time some nut starts to explain how "Jesus saved" or "God's love will guide you". Call them on it. Explain to them that what they believe is a fairy tale with zero evidence.
Okay, I'll take you up on that. =) The "zero evidence" schtick is a pet peeve of mine.
You state that Christianity is a "fairy tale with zero evidence." I gather you mean that no claim should be believed unless it's verifiable by evidence. This is naturally a popular refrain here on Slashdot.
But it doesn't work very well. For instance, what evidence would establish that the universe exists? If that's too academic, let me rephrase: what evidence could possibly establish that we don't live in the Matrix? Yet, most people consider belief in a real universe to be quite rational. And they are correct, even though this falls decidedly into your category of "fairy tale[s] with zero evidence."
Your position is called positivism, and it was very popular for a very short time, until we suddenly realized that it makes no sense. The belief that "no claim should be believed unless it is verifiable by evidence," is not verifiable by evidence. It's self-refuting. Accordingly, this philosophy died a rapid death at its own hands... but not before the natural sciences had adopted these notions as (oops!) unquestioned dogma.
In other words, we all believe lots of things that cannot be proven. And we are rationally justified in doing so. But more than that, Godel showed us that some of these propositions will actually be true. There is no good reason to equate the set of true propositions with the set of empirically verifiable propositions.
--
Okay, so your position and mine are both grounded in unprovable assumptions. We know what these are called: axioms. So here's my point.
God is an axiom.
The stereotype of a "rational," "intelligent," "educated" person is one who ardently lives by certain axioms, such as the reliability of logic, or the existence of the universe -- but not others, such as the axiom that God exists. This is an arbitrary cultural bias, and has nothing to do with being rational, intelligent, or educated.
How should one choose an axiom system, then? Logically, they can't be distinguished; yet we know that exactly one (or zero) of them will be true. Fortunately, we have the real world as a guide. It is not the only guide, but it's a good clue. In other words,
Faith is the choice between two plausible alternatives.
Not a blind faith, but judgment leading to confidence. Faith is the unavoidable gap between plausibility and belief -- of anything. I judge that the theistic axiom system is far more complete and plausible than the atheistic one.
First, let's clarify: the Christian axiom system contains all the axioms of science, and always has (though not always followed). I have no objection to evolution, or to the Bible; in the proper axiom system, they are not in conflict. So the Christian model encompasses science, in contrast to your other post claiming that Christians cannot be scientists.
Second, the Christian model encompasses more than the atheistic model. Let's take one example: universal equality, and other such human rights. Under atheistic axioms, human rights are a social construction. This isn't because they necessarily are a construction; the atheistic model simply has no better explanation. This is problematic, because you can't really have a "universal right" that some society invented, can you? We can only apply these ideas within our own culture, which means they're not human rights at all, but (say) Canadian rights. But in reality, we do in fact go around accusing other countries of "human rights violations" like slavery or racial genocide. Of course we do, because most of us really believe that universal rights exist -- just because t
You're not the one who needs a new font.
Publishers are the ones who need to stop using fonts that have this problem. No one should have to tolerate such crap.
Pfagh!
--
Dum de dum.
Getting back to the original question of whether liberal morals are more based on science than conservative morals, it depends how extreme the morals are. The notion that there is a absolute distinction between being a human life and not a human life has no scientific basis. Until dead chickens can produce live human offspring the notion that human life begins at conception is, what we in the sciences refer to as, "not even wrong".
;-)
Interesting amalgamation of concepts here. I have a few questions:
1. Can you elaborate on what it means for science to be a basis for morals? Science is a methodology. It produces information. I do not see how science can produce obligations. Your example of human life misses the point; the whole debate over when "human" "life" "begins" rests on a presupposition by both parties that human life should not be harmed. No one would care about the debate unless that were true. Except there is no scientific basis for it, is there? Under your classification, the statement "Humans should not be murdered" is not even wrong. So is the statement, "The inferior races are trash, fit only for slavery."
2. More to the point, you seem to consider "scientific basis" to be the only test for truth, since you imply that any statement without [the possibility of] scientific basis is not even wrong, i.e., some kind of useless non-fact not even capable of bearing the title "true" or "false." But I submit that there are objectively true propositions that absolutely cannot be established by science, such as: "Does the universe exist, or do we live in the Matrix?" If I claim that the universe actually exists, you would probably consider me quite rational. And you would be right. Godel showed that there will always be true statements that cannot be proven to be true.
But here's the real kicker. Can you please provide a "scientific basis" for the following claim: Any statement that has no scientific basis is what we in the sciences refer to as, "not even wrong." If you cannot, then the position refutes itself.
3. You forgot to define "extreme." Please note, any definition of "extreme" implicitly includes a definition of "norm" against which to judge extremity. Is your "norm" normative?
--
Dum de dum.
I have never heard of this definition of "legislating morality." This is because your definition is inconsistent:
You don't see a fundamental difference between laws that stop you from taking an action (abortion, drugs) that effects no one else and a law that stops you from hurting others (public smoking)? Traditionally one person's rights end when another persons rights begin. You have the right to smoke and kill yourself, just so long as you don't poison me in the process, because that is violating my rights.
The very notion that I should not violate your rights is a moral one. To legislate that I cannot violate your rights is to legislate morality. Morality is not defined by privateness. Morality is involved anytime you invoke the word "should," or its cognate, "rights."
You seem to have taken a rather common, but IMO indefensible, position that "morals" are things that are personal, private, and subjective; they are not "true" or "false" in the sense that facts are true or false, so by definition they can govern only my personal behavior which doesn't affect others. Yet you are espousing a set of other rules that purport to govern my public behavior which does affect others -- as if this single distinction somehow causes the latter rules to be more valid or more real. Yet, what would you call these rules, if not morals?
The illustration is simple: Suppose I have the power to violate your rights as often as I want, without consequence. Provide me a non-moral reason why I should refrain. (Note: "Law" doesn't count. "Social contract" doesn't count. "Tradition" doesn't count. Tell me why I should not injure you if we assume that I want and can.)
I contend that morals either exist, and apply everywhere, or they do not exist, and they apply nowhere. You can't have it both ways.
--
Dum de dum.
The only "ideology" of science, if you want to call it that, is to go where the evidence leads you, no matter how unsettling, disruptive or embarrasing the truth may turn out to be.
Nope.
Science is a tool, a methodology. And a tool per se is clearly not an ideology. But this is a red herring. No one can use a tool without bringing their ideology with them.
The ideologies of scientific practice are so intertwined with science itself that they often aren't even noticed, much less questioned. Examples include the belief that progress is both inevitable and beneficial (utopianism), or the belief that atheism is automatically more rational than theism.
But my favorite ideology is positivism, which claims that nonscientific statements cannot be true. This might sound plausible, even compelling. But it is not science. A silly example: (1) science cannot establish that humans have unalienable rights, (2) therefore human rights are a mere social fiction. Proposition #1 is empirically valid. Proposition #2 cannot logically follow without first assuming positivism -- it is a thoroughly ideological conclusion, yet often represented as "science" anyway.
It is equally valid to say, (2) human rights do exist (perhaps they are incorrigible, for instance), therefore positivism is a mere social fiction. In fact, this is extraordinarily plausible since all of us believe plenty of nonscientific claims -- such as the reliability of logic and the existence of the universe (rather than the Matrix) -- and we do not consider ourselves irrational for doing so. And Godel, of course, showed us that some of these unprovable beliefs will in fact be true.
The kicker is that philosophers abandoned positivism decades ago after discovering a slight problem: the statement "nonscientific statements cannot be true" is a nonscientific statement. It cannot be established by science. Therefore it is not true. =) Unfortunately, the notion remains firmly entrenched in both academic and popular culture, and I am skeptical that SEFORA will take pains to separate illegitimate ideological conclusions from their very legitimate anti-censorship activities. Pot, kettle, black.
The failure of positivism is an unsettling, disruptive, embarrassing truth that its adherents are frequently unwilling to admit. As Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin famously wrote, "We cannot let a divine foot in the door." And no, I am not defending ID. But it is terribly amusing to see how many objections to ID turn out to be ideological.
--
Dum de dum.
30 MB? try 300 MB for newer ones.
It actually is 30MB... of RAM!
Our HP Color Laserjet 2550L has, as many devices do, a web-based interface. Except this printer has no network support. How, then, does it have a web interface?
Because the driver installs a web server on your machine!
And guess what? The web server is written in Java! So the driver installs Java on your machine!
Of course, they both autostart as services. That's well over thirty megabytes of RAM, consumed constantly, to support what looks like a 45k HTML web app with a trivial USB backend to talk to the printer.
Utterly, utterly despicable.
--
Dum de dum.
anyone who follows the recursive assumptions long enough winds up at a logical wall where they have no other option than to say "I belive X without any proof"
;-)
Well said yourself. And it's after we get to this point that things get interesting, since we're still talking about figuring out the truth. A given proposition may be unprovable but that certainly doesn't preclude it from being actually and objectively true -- thank Godel! It just means there's a bit more room for disagreement sometimes.
And this is faith; but it is not blind faith. For instance, we would probably agree that the axioms of logic work quite well and are highly likely to be True, provability notwithstanding. In contrast, I could disagree with your other statement...
to me "finding God" is the spiritual equivalent of a "get rich quick" scheme
...and suggest that your recursion has stopped slightly short. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "get rich quick" scheme, but it's clear you're talking about the attractive upsides of theism -- elsewhere you mention the comfortable sense of having a benevolent God. Personally, I favor the existential upsides, such as having a simple, consistent, and objective framework that justifies things like equality, human dignity and human rights, compassion, meaning, etc. (rather than resorting to convoluted social explanations of these things).
But here's the other half of the recursion: atheism has its attractive upsides as well, primarily in terms of autonomy, self-creation, personal independence, moral subjectivism, and so on. And this is equally a "get rich quick" scenario. The atheist looks at theism and sees human desire behind it; the theist looks at atheism and sees human desire behind it also.
If we were blithering postmoderns we'd just stop here and prattle about the "equal validity of all viewpoints," but I'm not and I doubt you are. So I expect we agree that, at the end of the day, exactly one (or none) of those two options is True.
(I also think the question is decidable with adequate certainty, but I won't bet we agree on that. Thanks for an interesting discussion. =)
--
Dum de dum.
My mind long ago dismissed the idea of a God that "just is" as logically redundant, I prefer the notion that I "just am" because I emerged from a universe that "just is".
Not to nitpick, but I fail to see a factor that logically differentiates the notions of a God that "just is" and a universe that "just is." Of course I realize you're simplifying here. But absent other considerations, I see those two statements as possessing entirely equivalent justification (or lack thereof, depending on your inclination =).
Accordingly, you state that you "prefer" one over the other; but then how is this "logically" redundant?
And isn't that what a degree is all about: To give the student a "body of knowlage" in the form of facts and concepts
Actually, I'd disagree, if you're talking about undergraduate degrees. Research finds that breadth is a major determinant of future success. It's not the facts and concepts, but the mental disciplines such as flexibility, quick learning, communication, and (especially) having as many different problem-solving tools as possible. That comes from exposure to a wide variety of subjects taught by experts -- and for most of us, undergraduate college is the best and only place to get that.
For instance, I credit all of my debugging skills to an Art History class -- no exaggeration. The data-synthesis skills I learned there outweigh everything else, when it comes to rooting out problems. Personally, it's simply the right tool for the job.
Facts and concepts are important but secondary. For the students out there: go ahead and major in science. Have a blast. Just recognize that a lot of it will be job training. Don't skimp on real education that trains the mind.
--
Dum de dum.
Philosophy is mindless crap if you maintain the conviction that it has some intrinsic relevance in the real world.
The conviction that philosophy does or does not have any intrinsic relevance to the real world is itself a philosophical question that cannot be blithely passed off. It requires philosophical treatment.
Now, if you lack that, then philosophy is fascinating, critical to civilization and often very useful,
The notion that the truth of an idea can or should be judged by its usefulness is a philosophical question.
particularly if combined with a requirement for observation -- ie science.
The requirement for empirical observation is a philosophical issue. Taken too far, it results in positivism, which states that only empirically verifiable propositions are true. Too bad positivism died long ago... at its own hand: the statement "only empirically verifiable propositions are true" is not empirically verifiable. (Hey, look, it's philosophy again.)
Of course, this incoherent positivism often pops up as unquestioned dogma in certain circles -- i.e., science.
And that is where philosophy has a great role in any science curriculum. To say nothing of its role in disciplining the mind in ways that science does not.
--
Dum de dum.
Moreover, the money most people fork over for a plasma ($2000-$5000) can buy a projector that ranges from excellent to fabulously excellent.
By the same token, a highly decent projector can be had for $1000. Even $500, the cost of a mediocre 4:3 TV, will get you a nice little 4:3 projector that is at least as good as the TV if you don't mind the 2x DLP rainbows.
(Note: the MSRPs listed on ProjectorCentral should be cut in half to get street prices; ask Froogle. On top of that, the AE900 even has an additional $400 rebate, for a little while... that makes it cheaper than my 5-year-old AE100).
--
Dum de dum.
This doesn't always happen. I'd guess that a weird word that has wide exposure has a good chance of just being absorbed into normal lingo.
But a word that isn't widely known can fail to become widely known if it doesn't sound good. Case in point: when asked, all of my non-techie friends say that one of the main reasons they switched to Firefox was because it wasn't called Mozilla. And the reason I asked them was because I had an absolutely terrible time getting anyone to use something called Mozilla. (I prefer "Netscape" over both those names, though.)
I think, on balance, "Wii" is a poor name. Nintendo has enough marketing clout to get people used to it, though. It's not clear to me which way this one is going to fall.
--
Dum de dum.
molested AND killed, nor OR killed. read up on your boolean logic plz.
The OP claims "molested AND killed" is rare.
I claim "molested AND NOT killed" is common.
You bring up "molested OR killed," which is simply nonsensical.
--
Dum de dum.
You can count the children molested and killed by strangers in the past few years on the fingers of one hand (there were 4). That's in the entire USA. The average is about 1.5 per year, contrast to the 9 kids hit by lightning and the 3 children killed by baseballs.
Citation, please. And "molested and killed" is unquestionably a poor metric, since I personally know two people who were molested, and not killed, by strangers. And I don't know very many people.
And on top of that we can add in the figures for child sex trafficking, for which the US has allegedly become one of the largest markets.
--
Dum de dum.