There's solidness in that view. I think it's logic to think that without God there's no objective morality. And I think your explanation is brave enough to assume the consecuences.
Wow, that's a lot of words you put in my mouth. I will not disrespect you like that.
"Notice also how he's never going to give up. While you're motivated by a search for the truth, aintnostranger believes that if he doesn't have the last word, he failed his god, which is a much stronger sentiment." => presume much?? No, my system of beliefs doesn't require any of that.
"He also believes that if he doubts the word of the bible for one second, he'll end up in hell, so remove all hopes of ever getting him to change his mind."
Wow. No. I don't think my salvation depends on the clearness or completeness of my theology.
I'm answering with the assumption your message was honest and not just an attempt to go "ad hominem"
"Creator of morality? Are you really sure about that?"
That's the assumption both hsthompson69 and I are starting from, even if its hypothetical for him.
as for me, without a creator of morality, how can morality be transcending? I believe in a creator of morality and so in a transending morality. That's not a belief without consecuences, it means that good and bad will meet their reward sooner or later. Wouldn't it be great if people with power believed that?
He does fit for many people.
How is morality not defined by the creator? if there is a creator of all, and if morality is trascending, then he does define it. If morality doesn't trascend, it's just someone's or some culture's opinions on what's good and what's bad.
I don't think that God created you as you are 100%. I believe we have a mix of good and bad. A fallen nature with glimpses of a glorious creation.
"however there is a perfectly rational basis for my morality: my brain just works that way."
Depending to which historical figure we attribute that phrase is sounds better or worse. What if Charles Manson stated "my brain just works that way"? Does that make his actions moral?
also, Abraham said to Isaac "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." Gen 22:8 which can be interpreted many ways, one of which is that he had faith that in some part of the process God would provide a replacement for Isaac.
"If such a creator existed, it would be an immoral creator"
Because he doesn't fit *your* definition of morality?
"Morality is not imparted nor defined by the creator."
Please explain.
"Enlightened self-interest, to put it simply." That is not a rational foundation. That is survival instinct or something like that.
"I've never seen any such thing happening, nor had a reliable account of it, so I entirely discount it."
Same thing said most economists before 2008's crisis. You can discount it. But can you disprove it? Besides, my original point was not that you needed to believe the story of Abraham or not; it was about his action (taking his son to the altar to sacrifice him) being taken out of context. The story as it's told is not about a man who, without any previous encounter with God, is told to sacrifice his son. There's a context. If you are going to judge a story, you have to take it completely. You cannot take apart that context without changing the subject.
"enlightened self interest and attachment"
and how did you decide to choose them? what makes them more "reasonable" than any other basis?
"Can I assume that you don't have any rational foundation for your morality?"
right. I don't think there's any way for a rational foundation for morality to exist. And as I stated before, 20th century philosophy dealt a lot with that. Kant doesn't posit a rational basis for morality. He builds an ethic upon arbitrarily decided things such as "common good". We reason about morality, we reason based on some principle that we consider "basic", "unavoidable" or "self evident". But no one has *proved* any of those basis rationally.
", and that it is simply communicated to you through authorities you consider superior to your own intellect?"
I take Jesus as described in the Bible as basis for my morality.
Not your mother but The Creator. Creator of morality, thought, souls.
"As to what makes me say that those acts aren't moral, you can derive it in any number of ways without resorting to some otherworldly figure. Philosophers of all sorts have extolled all sorts of rational foundations for morality over the years."
Any solid examples? 20th centuries philosophers have struggled to postulate anything outside existencialism. What is *your* rational foundation for morality?
Not higher thoughts. A life of experiencing miracles. Fire coming from the sky upon a city is not just a "higher thought".
no, no disregard for "the rest of the populace". But, if I wanted to read science news in imprecise terms I would go to cnn, msnbc, etc... Maybe using the expression "joe sixpack" wasn't the most appropiate. Still, I expect better of slashdot news summaries.
I'm getting a little tired of science stories dumbing down things to "piles of books", "libaries of congress" etc... This site's is news for nerds, not news for Joe Sixpack.
— and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.
The good news is that at some western countries we have become *very* skeptical of the whole "national security" circus. I live in a south american country where we had a very polite speaking dictatorship which dissappeared people with total impunity in their day. Thousands kidnapped and killed for all kinds of "reasons". 30 years later, we've thrown most of the participants in jail, and any kind of "security trumps X" talk makes politicians look pretty bad. To us here, what's happening in the US is pretty bizarre. Back in the day we used to look at the kinds of freedoms the US had with admiration. We were told of those freedoms and of the soviet police state by hollywood movies. Remember "The hunt for red october"? The big dream the submarine XO had of travelling from state to state with no papers? That's long gone. And then, a few days ago, the local news channells here were showing a six-year old being patted down by the TSA.
It's sad the US lost its moral authority. I'm just glad we are not going to be taken down again in whatever "national security" policy it practices.
I'm not saying it's a stretch. I'm saying it requires believing in a non-provable assumption. And it's ok to do it. We go to work every morning assuming that we still have the job, etc... Ockham's razor might not be THE way to find truth, but it's a pretty nice rule to keep our sanity.
Gravity worked in the same manner before Einstein defined it that it does now.
That doesn't necessarily imply that it will work the same in the future.
Repeateable observation does not require faith
Until you want to use that observation to predict any future behavior. When you do (and I do) you have to assume some non-provable assumptions, like assuming the universe will continue behaving as what we have observed and *interpreted* so far.
It's just that the realm of physics seems to have given moslty good results when using those assumptions, while other fields, like economics have not.
Observation does not change constants
No, but observation changes the value we know constants have. Else we wouldn't be using expensive experiments to better know about them , like we are still doing for G: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract
And, observation has even shown us that the impact of those constants is different than we assumed. Before relativity, we had no idea that gravity would affect light.
mod parent up. The file size information is stored on tables (usually at the beginning of a partition) on most filesystems - So, as long as the table is stored ok, the actual file contents have nothing to do with the file size, names reported.
that's prejudice.
A lot of people read the Bible and find their assumptions challenged by it, to the point of changing their beliefs and actions. And they do it in an iterative manner. Approaching the Bible to try to prove my beliefs is a pretty sterile use of it.
It will always work in the same manner that it works at present.
Imagine someone in the year 1900 saying that. A few years later Albert Einstein proposed that in some situations, gravity works in a way pretty different than what was thought until then.
and it will work tomorrow.
There's your faith. There's no logical proof that tomorrow there'll be gravity, that it will work the same or that the universe will exist. Past experience doesn't demostrate the future. Underlying science is the belief that the universe has some sort of order, that we can acquire knowledge of it, and sometimes even the belief that it will be useful. It might just be that such faith is the most rational thing to think, but it still can't be logically proved.
This basically says that Microsoft now demands that anybody buying a widget from anywhere in the world effectively enforces a software audit on its suppliers. You know what happens if you tell your supplier they need to open up their stuff to you for scrutiny just in case they're doing something offensive to a 3rd party? They laugh at you, and cancel the deal.
I live in a third world country and have worked on a software outsorcing company. In my country, Microsoft (as part of an alliance much like the BSA in the US) already enforces audits on software companies. No one laughs at it, and outsorcing companies here are very careful of anything that will make them look bad in the eyes of US customers.
Slashdot Mirror
oh, the beauty of closed technology... decades of software development and we still have to beg permission for the big guys to let us use the toys...
well said
There's solidness in that view. I think it's logic to think that without God there's no objective morality. And I think your explanation is brave enough to assume the consecuences.
Wow, that's a lot of words you put in my mouth. I will not disrespect you like that. "Notice also how he's never going to give up. While you're motivated by a search for the truth, aintnostranger believes that if he doesn't have the last word, he failed his god, which is a much stronger sentiment." => presume much?? No, my system of beliefs doesn't require any of that. "He also believes that if he doubts the word of the bible for one second, he'll end up in hell, so remove all hopes of ever getting him to change his mind." Wow. No. I don't think my salvation depends on the clearness or completeness of my theology. I'm answering with the assumption your message was honest and not just an attempt to go "ad hominem"
"Creator of morality? Are you really sure about that?" That's the assumption both hsthompson69 and I are starting from, even if its hypothetical for him. as for me, without a creator of morality, how can morality be transcending? I believe in a creator of morality and so in a transending morality. That's not a belief without consecuences, it means that good and bad will meet their reward sooner or later. Wouldn't it be great if people with power believed that?
Omnipotence is not precisely one of His communicable attributes.
He does fit for many people. How is morality not defined by the creator? if there is a creator of all, and if morality is trascending, then he does define it. If morality doesn't trascend, it's just someone's or some culture's opinions on what's good and what's bad.
about the meaning of those Abraham words, yes, the Bible is not specific about that.
I don't think that God created you as you are 100%. I believe we have a mix of good and bad. A fallen nature with glimpses of a glorious creation. "however there is a perfectly rational basis for my morality: my brain just works that way." Depending to which historical figure we attribute that phrase is sounds better or worse. What if Charles Manson stated "my brain just works that way"? Does that make his actions moral?
also, Abraham said to Isaac "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." Gen 22:8 which can be interpreted many ways, one of which is that he had faith that in some part of the process God would provide a replacement for Isaac.
"God doesn't exist" Is that a fact, an opinion, a belief, what? "I would feel compelled to destroy him" good luck on that
pretty much yes. Except for the " for no good reason" part. I differ on that. "for no known reason" would be my choice of words.
"If such a creator existed, it would be an immoral creator" Because he doesn't fit *your* definition of morality? "Morality is not imparted nor defined by the creator." Please explain. "Enlightened self-interest, to put it simply." That is not a rational foundation. That is survival instinct or something like that. "I've never seen any such thing happening, nor had a reliable account of it, so I entirely discount it." Same thing said most economists before 2008's crisis. You can discount it. But can you disprove it? Besides, my original point was not that you needed to believe the story of Abraham or not; it was about his action (taking his son to the altar to sacrifice him) being taken out of context. The story as it's told is not about a man who, without any previous encounter with God, is told to sacrifice his son. There's a context. If you are going to judge a story, you have to take it completely. You cannot take apart that context without changing the subject.
"enlightened self interest and attachment" and how did you decide to choose them? what makes them more "reasonable" than any other basis? "Can I assume that you don't have any rational foundation for your morality?" right. I don't think there's any way for a rational foundation for morality to exist. And as I stated before, 20th century philosophy dealt a lot with that. Kant doesn't posit a rational basis for morality. He builds an ethic upon arbitrarily decided things such as "common good". We reason about morality, we reason based on some principle that we consider "basic", "unavoidable" or "self evident". But no one has *proved* any of those basis rationally. ", and that it is simply communicated to you through authorities you consider superior to your own intellect?" I take Jesus as described in the Bible as basis for my morality.
Not your mother but The Creator. Creator of morality, thought, souls. "As to what makes me say that those acts aren't moral, you can derive it in any number of ways without resorting to some otherworldly figure. Philosophers of all sorts have extolled all sorts of rational foundations for morality over the years." Any solid examples? 20th centuries philosophers have struggled to postulate anything outside existencialism. What is *your* rational foundation for morality? Not higher thoughts. A life of experiencing miracles. Fire coming from the sky upon a city is not just a "higher thought".
no, no disregard for "the rest of the populace". But, if I wanted to read science news in imprecise terms I would go to cnn, msnbc, etc... Maybe using the expression "joe sixpack" wasn't the most appropiate. Still, I expect better of slashdot news summaries.
I'm getting a little tired of science stories dumbing down things to "piles of books", "libaries of congress" etc... This site's is news for nerds, not news for Joe Sixpack.
— and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.
The good news is that at some western countries we have become *very* skeptical of the whole "national security" circus. I live in a south american country where we had a very polite speaking dictatorship which dissappeared people with total impunity in their day. Thousands kidnapped and killed for all kinds of "reasons". 30 years later, we've thrown most of the participants in jail, and any kind of "security trumps X" talk makes politicians look pretty bad. To us here, what's happening in the US is pretty bizarre. Back in the day we used to look at the kinds of freedoms the US had with admiration. We were told of those freedoms and of the soviet police state by hollywood movies. Remember "The hunt for red october"? The big dream the submarine XO had of travelling from state to state with no papers? That's long gone. And then, a few days ago, the local news channells here were showing a six-year old being patted down by the TSA. It's sad the US lost its moral authority. I'm just glad we are not going to be taken down again in whatever "national security" policy it practices.
I'm not saying it's a stretch. I'm saying it requires believing in a non-provable assumption. And it's ok to do it. We go to work every morning assuming that we still have the job, etc... Ockham's razor might not be THE way to find truth, but it's a pretty nice rule to keep our sanity.
Gravity worked in the same manner before Einstein defined it that it does now.
That doesn't necessarily imply that it will work the same in the future.
Repeateable observation does not require faith
Until you want to use that observation to predict any future behavior. When you do (and I do) you have to assume some non-provable assumptions, like assuming the universe will continue behaving as what we have observed and *interpreted* so far. It's just that the realm of physics seems to have given moslty good results when using those assumptions, while other fields, like economics have not.
Observation does not change constants
No, but observation changes the value we know constants have. Else we wouldn't be using expensive experiments to better know about them , like we are still doing for G: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract And, observation has even shown us that the impact of those constants is different than we assumed. Before relativity, we had no idea that gravity would affect light.
mod parent up. The file size information is stored on tables (usually at the beginning of a partition) on most filesystems - So, as long as the table is stored ok, the actual file contents have nothing to do with the file size, names reported.
that's prejudice. A lot of people read the Bible and find their assumptions challenged by it, to the point of changing their beliefs and actions. And they do it in an iterative manner. Approaching the Bible to try to prove my beliefs is a pretty sterile use of it.
It will always work in the same manner that it works at present.
Imagine someone in the year 1900 saying that. A few years later Albert Einstein proposed that in some situations, gravity works in a way pretty different than what was thought until then.
and it will work tomorrow.
There's your faith. There's no logical proof that tomorrow there'll be gravity, that it will work the same or that the universe will exist. Past experience doesn't demostrate the future. Underlying science is the belief that the universe has some sort of order, that we can acquire knowledge of it, and sometimes even the belief that it will be useful. It might just be that such faith is the most rational thing to think, but it still can't be logically proved.
Mod parent up. The catholic church is so far from being a monolithic institution.
I live in a third world country and have worked on a software outsorcing company. In my country, Microsoft (as part of an alliance much like the BSA in the US) already enforces audits on software companies. No one laughs at it, and outsorcing companies here are very careful of anything that will make them look bad in the eyes of US customers.