1) Are deliberately closed to new ideas 2) Are being deliberately dishonest (trolling)
You keep raising points that I have previously rebutted (e.g. arguments for the existence of God, Christian God etc - I addressed that one right at the start, AND it is irrelevant to the core of the argument.).
You keep trying to branch off into irrelevant arguments largely based on your prejudices.
You keep arguing without explanation, "just read these books and you will get it". If you cannot give any kind of explanation yourself, you probably do not understand it yourself either. I suppose I should not have expected any better at Slashdot.
I have not failed to read relevant research, I have read more than you think, but I understand its irrelevance.
The one thing I have to thank you for is that Google pointed me to some moderately interesting sites on topics like Evolutionary Stable Strategies. You did not appear to be able to find them for yourself - you do know there are sources put there other than (and more authoritative than) Wikipedia, right? I say moderately interesting because there is no real surprise in it once you know that what it is doing (which you know before reading very far) is applying game theory to evolution.
You originally argued that the existence of hell made god a torturer like Hitler of Stalin. You apparently cannot see the difference between vengefully consigning people to torture and allowing them choosing it for themselves. If someone experiences love as torture what do you expect God to do about it? The best God could do is cut them off (if our nature allows that, God is the ultimate reality, and once dead it is what you face), or nothing at all. If Christians believed that God forced himself on such people to force them to be happy (the logical alternative) you would undoubtedly object to such over-riding of free will.
The closest thing you have found to your point of view is the argument that if God is just, then he must impose some punishment on the wicked, as to do otherwise is not fair on the innocent. This is hardly a uniquely Christian idea. In fact one of the commonest objections to Christianity is that by allowing sinners to repent, people can do terrible things and get away with it. Now, did Hitler and Stalin do what they had to do to be just? If not your parallel is plain silly, and your argument fails anyway.
You argument appears to forget your original assertion, and tries to push me into saying hell does not exist - not an assertion I made, although it is something I think possible.
I do not say something is controversial because some people argue against it, but because it there has been constant argument about it over the millennia - as your precious encylcopedia shows - and even that admits it was never part of the Church's official teachings, and that the main "punishment" was self imposed exclusion from God's love.
Again you ignore the evidence that this is a constant controversy (wording like "there have always been").
My personal view is that the Christian view of Hell was influenced by pre-Christian ideas of justice requiring punishment. If you want my view read CS Lewis's The Great Divorce. Yes it is wrapped up in a fantasy, but that is necessary (because visualising God, or Heaven, makes visualising a hypercube look easy), but it gives as good an picture as we are likely to get.
You are also enamoured of second rate sources. Wikipedia is not authoritative. Your "Catholic Encylopedia" is only slightly better. Wikipedia would have been improved if you had bothered to read the articles through - I find it funny that your own sources contradict you.
One company I worked for had a policies on use of work email for, the stated reason being that emails from a work address could be associated with the company, fair enough.
However, they also blocked access to web mail, to prevent people avoiding these same rules. Logic?
I always thought that your policy, for your reasons, was the sensible thing to do. I wish more IT departments could follow the logic.
Anyone, whether physicist or theologian, seriously considering this realises that ultimate origins lie outside time, and that therefore speaking of "before" and "after" does not make sense.
A bit of Googling on this topic did turn up this book (looks interesting, but seems to be trying to cover too many angles), but not the information I was seeking - where the concept of a God outside time originated. I remember that a major theologian well before modern times described time as a river, with God outside it (and, presumably, creating it), but I cannot track that down.
I did not mean to suggest that the terms are equivalent.
However they both, in practice, advocate state control of industries, and therefore centralised control and planning - which is what they both share with MS.
A better analogy would be being a free markets advocate in a communist country.
MS's view of how things work is rather like that of some socialists. The state/MS controls the largest businesses and those of core importance, others are free to build around it, on the state's/MS's terms.
This contrasts with the free market/open source idea of low barriers to entry, consumer choice and competition in all markets.
No, I am arguing for the necessity of starting knowledge from some fundamental.
For the fourth time... Not only do you sound naive, you didn't understand when I used the terms "game theory", "evolution", "animal behaviour"
I am familiar with Game Theory, although not primarilly in the context of evolution. I am also familiar with the central argument of The Selfish Gene. You were so adamant that it somehow disproved my point that I thought I must have got something wrong. Looking at the Wikipedia summary, it appears not. The problem is that describing any particular mechanism of evolution does not help your contention that it produces an "efficient" outcome, and it does not help you define what "efficient" is.
Of course it shows how evolution could produce "moral", (e.g. altruistic) instincts (what else would anyone expect? They clearly did evolve). The problem in this context, is the obvious reply is "so what?". It merely adds detail to what we knew already.
How many churches denied the existence of Hell in the year 1900
and
The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence
1) The issue here is not the existence of hell, but its nature. If you had read the things I linked to earlier, one of the early ideas was that it is not a place, but it lies in people's reaction to God's presence. Those that love God find joy, those that hate God find pain, in the very same thing.
The fact that some people, right from the start, doubted the existence of hell is another issue, although one that somewhat strenghtens my case.
2) Can you also not understand that the very fact that your Catholic Encylcopedia feels it has to argue for its position, shows that it is a matter of controversy. 3) Can you be bothered to read the links you have already provided. For example, from wikipedia: "For many ancient Christians, Hell was the same "place" as Heaven: living in the presence of God and directly experiencing God's love"
not grounds to be excommunicated
Censured = excommunicated? The Catholic Encyclopaedia also makes it clear that its own position is not endorsed by the church either.
You claim to live where it would take weeks to get one of the best selling books about science in all of history which still is in print... I won't call you a liar
Have you any idea of conditions in the third world? How widely stocked to you expect it to be in a country with perhaps a few hundred thousand people who speak English fluently - and far fewer read comfortably enough to read non-fiction for pleasure - and where the $15 US cover price is one one and a hlaf days wages for people like my gardener.
I can probably find more academic books covering the same ground in a University bookshop, if I care to spend time hunting them down.
I am ignoring various assertions without links or citations, and notice you are still ignoring my separate (because I forgot to put it into a previous comment) comment on examples of absolute morality.
Just an obvious note re the status of support for your theories re religion -- i.e. lots of contradicting theories that make claims about reality without support outside of people's heads.
You definitely need to read some philosophy. How to you prove that anything exists outside people's head's? Because you have seen something? How do you distinguish an illusion from reality? I am spending time arguing with you, but I have better proof of God's existence than yours.
Actually I think you might be trolling here - I have already rebutted this, so why are you repeating it? It is just a variant of the old "religion is an assertion" straw man that atheists seem to find necessary to maintain their beliefs.
The Catholic encyclopedia is quite old, so it has not been updated to show the new reality yet!!
And it makes it clear that the idea of Hell as a place of suffering is a controversial doctrine. "from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion."
If you had read it through there are lots of other references supporting my point. It is very clearly arguing from point of being at the extreme end of opinion on hell as a place of suffering - and even it is forced to admit that such suffering must be just and proportionate. I cannot remember Hitler being known for imposing just and proportionate suffering!
More modern references show the less sadistic version. (-: I didn't even read the content on Wikipedia, so sure was I...:-)
Well that just about says it all! You are assuming that your prejudices are correct. If you HAD bothered to read it you would have found more support for me, much of it from much older sources - completely rebutting your claim of changes in doctrine.
In any case claiming that minor changes to doctrine invalidates a religion is ridiculous. If you follow that logic, you will find that you will have to reject the idea that we can model the physical universe, because the models keep changing.
Catholicism has rewritten.. sorry, reinterpreted... the basic facts about their religion's afterlife that they were given by divine inspiration!
It was never a basic doctrine. The basic doctrines are those in the creed which has not changed at all. The nature of hell, and the existence of punishment is a matter of speculation - which, again, is why even your sources quote multiple different views.
For the third time -- just read up on the subject instead of arguing about things you don't have even a popular background in.
Given that you will not even clearly state what you are talking about, how do you know that I do not know it? You assume that you know something I do not, but without any statement of what it is. You quote a book that I would take several weeks to order and have delivered where I live. How about an internet source I can actually read?
I suspect it is all stuff I know about well enough to realise it is irrelevant.
I also notice that you have avoided replying to my other comment on examples of an absolute morality.
at least what they pitch to their fundamentalist "Christian" core constituency
Thanks for putting "Christian" in quotes.
As I said to a Muslim friend earlier today, most of us regard GWB and his ilk as an embarrassment.
He also does not seem to have read the bit in the Bible about rich men entering heaven (or rather not entering).
More seriously, why is there do Christian left in the US? It is quite evident in other countries - and right wing British governments have found the churches to be a significant source of opposition (particularly over issues such as poverty) - why is that not happening in the US?
You are doing a straw man. I was obviously not discussing the nature of religion, I was claiming that "To make [extreme claims without any basis in proof or reason -- when there are many competing theories and no reason any of them should be true] is very similar to religion".
There is clearly an implicit assumption about the nature of religion there - as well as a grotesque distortion of what I said earlier
Again -- that contradicts the position of most Xian churches since very early years. You can continue to cherry pick quotes all you want, but that is well documented.
If I am cherry picking, how come I can provide documentation, and you cannot? Even the non-authoritative links you came up with support my position! If it is well documented, it appears neither of us can find this documentation.
I only discussed efficiency because you wrote "efficient stratagy for survival for humanity" (which looks like pre-1960s "good for the species"-thinking.)
The problem is that you are trying to apply the label efficient, without a criteria to judge efficiency by.
Look up the word efficient (which you used first) on wordnet:
(adj) efficient (being effective without wasting time or effort or expense) "an efficient production manager"; "efficient engines save gas"
(adj) effective, efficient (able to accomplish a purpose; functioning effectively)
What purpose? Without waste by what measure or criterion?
I can give you examples - what I can not give you are examples that no one will disagree with:
For example: it is wrong to kill people by the million because you do not like their ethnicity - Hitler obviously disagreed.
It is wrong to torture children to death because their parents hold different views to yours - Pol Pot obviously disagreed.
My own absolute moral are the two greatest commandments that Jesus taught - obviously that formulation only makes sense if you have a particular religioos beliefs, otherwise you need a more complex one. I assume that you read the links from the wikipedia articles I mentioned earlier so you know what they are
Tell me what your criteria for a criteria example are, THEN I can give you an example.
To make claims about how the world is made without any reasons (and with thousands of competing theories at least as likely) is very similar to religion.
No, simply wrong about the nature of religion. I am wondering whether you actually understood ANY of what I wrote earler.
Again. You are arguing against Catholic dogma -- and you supported your own position with a non-representative quote... that breaks my moral.
Have you read what you are quoting? It supports what I say, and even quotes the same sources!
The support for Hell in early Xianity is well documented by researchers (no English references but here are two WikiPedia pages).
Oh look it says Hell was the same "place" as Heaven: living in the presence of God and directly experiencing God's love. and Whether this was experienced as pleasure or torment depended on one's disposition towards God. . More evidence for me. God does not torture anyone, they choose for themselves and it is not physical torture, it lies in our own reaction to the offer of perfect joy.
I'm sorry, but that was just naive ("good for the species" argument?!)
So from what point of view are you arguing it is "efficient" for. Not the species, and not the individual? A smaller group? Same problem. Not good for species, group or individual - then good for what exactly?
You know that you have not full information but have an opinion anyway, because of how you feel the world should be -- the definition of religion!
Wrong (troll?)
Oh, get real. I pointed out that the only example of absolute moral you gave was not agreed by society at the time CS Lewis held the speech... and that CS Lewis did not speak out against it either.
Any your point is? Obviously no point of morality is univerally accepted, let alone campaigned about by any one individual
And to insinuate that the Catholics don't believe in a hell with fire and pain must be trolling.
If you read that carefully, it is clear that it refers to eternal (i.e. outside time) fire, even without a physical body. Even the source you are quoting makes the most sense if the fire is interpreted metaphorically. It also quotes a lot of Catholic opinion that disagrees with its view (putting forward a non-consensus view reduces hte credibility of something that calls it self an Encylclopedia).
Furthermore, the most important point is that it is self chosen. The sufferings, whatever they are, are the unavoidable result of human nature combined with hatred of God. See this
I also refered to CS Lewis's concept of hell in The Great Divorce. It is a good (fictional) illustration of the above.
It can also be argued to be an efficient strategy in many human cultures, as seen in game theory.
Are you implying that it should be changed if another strategy looked more efficient?
It is an efficient strategy for the group or species (thus favoured by evolution), not for an individual. From the point of view of an individual making a choice, why should you care whether something is an efficient stratagy for survival for humanity or not?
If your point is that this explains why this behaviour evolved, then that does not really matter from the point of view of an indivdual making a moral choice.
1. True, but that does not in any way get rid of the need for Philosophical discussion
2. a.I gave that example to make an altogether different point. That the vast majority of people who claim to be moral relativists would be appalled by that particular idea. I was questioning the consistency of moral relativists.
2.b. CS Lewis never commented on it, and may not have even being aware of it (I commented on that as well - I was not aware of British law on this point till the publicity that arose when it was changed).
3. You can know a lot about human nature and people without knowing much about evolutionary issues.
You really need to present support for what an absolute morale might contain
Any example is bound to have some people disagree with it, which you say invalidates it.
I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make in the last paragraph. I think that you are objecting to a concept of hell that I do not agree with - again, Lewis's views are fairly close to mine, and he expresses them very well in The Great Divorce. In brief and VERY superficialy, hell is not torture. It is self chosen exclusion from the joy that God means for us - which, because of our nature, means emptiness - but more lack of fulfilment than pain or torture. To quote from the chatechism of the Catholic Church hell is "self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed" and "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God".
PS sorry to go on about spelling, but it is "moral", not "morale". The meaning of morale is altogether different.
try to avoid hurting people when possible
That is an absolute moral position, even if a very minimal one (not that much more minimal than the two key commandments of Christianity). It is certainly not moral relativism.
You would have stood a much better chance of being modded funny if you had worked in a Star Trek reference, rather than one that would only be understood by moderators who have actually read a book.
Ah, now even I see... you talk philosophy and religion while I discuss game theory and computation.:-)
I would say both are necessary. Different approaches for different reasons. Of course, the religious reasoning per se is more important to a religious person (but it is not all of philosophical reasoning).
One example. Consider the idea of original sin. An ancient religious idea, its mechanisms can be explained by psychology, and how it came into existence by the study of evolution. Both also confirm its existence.
More fundamentally, any attempt to get to the roots of any subject ends in philosophy (which is why there are such things as "philosophy of science", Ibiblio even has some lecture notes on "philosophical issues in economics")
The connection is a lot more obvious in public perceptions and far more subject to scrutiny than the Bush connections.
Furthermore Gates is clearly currently trying to prove what a good guy he really is - he is hardly going to muck it up by doing something crooked.
He is a very different person from Bush and in very different circumstances. I am no fan of Gates and MS (see previous comments, blog, etc.), but even he does not look so bad when compared to politicians!
I fail to understand how my original comment has been moderated troll. Because I said something good about Bill Gates, or because I do not like Scott Adams?
Surely the camera manufacturers will be a bit distrustful of an MS format after MS unexpectedly tried to collect money from them for using FAT.
It seems to me that using any new format is very high risk. You do not know what patents may exist on it - not only those held by the deviser of the format (which may be safely covered by a license agreement), but any held by third parties.
Of course even a format that has been around a while may be hit by an unexpected claim (as recently with mp3), but as a format gets olders the lower the risk, and once it has been in use for longer patents last, it is completely safe.
You took rape as an example -- and I pointed out that in CS Lewis' time it was legally impossible to rape your own wife, since you owned her sexuality. This lack of human rights for females was embraced as an obvious part of Absolute Morale
Ah, now I see the problem. You do not mean the same thing as me by moral absolute.
You take it to mean a known, legalistic code of right and wrong.
Take a look at the wikipedia pages on moral absolute, moral objectivism, and moral relativism. I think you could classify my position as very similar to what it calls graded absolutism.
There are limits to human plasticity. When we change how humans work and interact in groups, there are bound to be mistakes... shudder
How would you decide that something was a mistake? If people did not like a particular change, you could just adjust the next generation so they did like it.....
Actually Gates would probably make a better president than some. He would not be able to favour MS, and would probably bend over backwards to ensure he did not.
Of course the problem is that he is already powerful enough not to care for a political position (no more real power when you take into account all the constraints on political leaders, more scrutiny, more stress).
The other things is that this stunt is typical of Scott Adams recent idiocy.
One of the Dilbert booKs contains his own theory of gravitation (yes really, and yes it look like he was serious). He said there were no obvious flaws, it took me about ten seconds to spot one.
He followed it up by attempting to write a philosophy/theology book. He came up with what appears to be rather naive pantheism, at best a poor rehash of ideas like the Hindu one of the dance of Shiva. The sad bit is that he seems to think it is an original idea, and he cannot understand the objections to the flaws in his thinking (fairly obvious if you read his blog). The book is called God's Debris - its a free ebook download because he could not find a publisher (he whines about that on his blog as well).
Now he wants to influence politics.
Obviously he is dissatisfied being funny and wants to achieve something serious. Personally I wish he would just stick to being funny - he is actually good at that.
My first attempt at installing Linux (kubuntu) on a laptop is not going that well so far.
A friend wanted to try Linux on her Compaq Presario C300. I have not figured out how to get wireless networking working yet, and the sound is very soft. The former can probably be sorted out, the latter is a known problem but apparently not yet fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sick of this.
I can only conclude that you
1) Are deliberately closed to new ideas
2) Are being deliberately dishonest (trolling)
You keep raising points that I have previously rebutted (e.g. arguments for the existence of God, Christian God etc - I addressed that one right at the start, AND it is irrelevant to the core of the argument.).
You keep trying to branch off into irrelevant arguments largely based on your prejudices.
You keep arguing without explanation, "just read these books and you will get it". If you cannot give any kind of explanation yourself, you probably do not understand it yourself either. I suppose I should not have expected any better at Slashdot.
I have not failed to read relevant research, I have read more than you think, but I understand its irrelevance.
The one thing I have to thank you for is that Google pointed me to some moderately interesting sites on topics like Evolutionary Stable Strategies. You did not appear to be able to find them for yourself - you do know there are sources put there other than (and more authoritative than) Wikipedia, right? I say moderately interesting because there is no real surprise in it once you know that what it is doing (which you know before reading very far) is applying game theory to evolution.
You originally argued that the existence of hell made god a torturer like Hitler of Stalin. You apparently cannot see the difference between vengefully consigning people to torture and allowing them choosing it for themselves. If someone experiences love as torture what do you expect God to do about it? The best God could do is cut them off (if our nature allows that, God is the ultimate reality, and once dead it is what you face), or nothing at all. If Christians believed that God forced himself on such people to force them to be happy (the logical alternative) you would undoubtedly object to such over-riding of free will.
The closest thing you have found to your point of view is the argument that if God is just, then he must impose some punishment on the wicked, as to do otherwise is not fair on the innocent. This is hardly a uniquely Christian idea. In fact one of the commonest objections to Christianity is that by allowing sinners to repent, people can do terrible things and get away with it. Now, did Hitler and Stalin do what they had to do to be just? If not your parallel is plain silly, and your argument fails anyway.
You argument appears to forget your original assertion, and tries to push me into saying hell does not exist - not an assertion I made, although it is something I think possible.
I do not say something is controversial because some people argue against it, but because it there has been constant argument about it over the millennia - as your precious encylcopedia shows - and even that admits it was never part of the Church's official teachings, and that the main "punishment" was self imposed exclusion from God's love.
Again you ignore the evidence that this is a constant controversy (wording like "there have always been").
My personal view is that the Christian view of Hell was influenced by pre-Christian ideas of justice requiring punishment. If you want my view read CS Lewis's The Great Divorce. Yes it is wrapped up in a fantasy, but that is necessary (because visualising God, or Heaven, makes visualising a hypercube look easy), but it gives as good an picture as we are likely to get.
You are also enamoured of second rate sources. Wikipedia is not authoritative. Your "Catholic Encylopedia" is only slightly better. Wikipedia would have been improved if you had bothered to read the articles through - I find it funny that your own sources contradict you.
Old Commodore: "revolutionary graphics chip" "revolutionary audio" "revolutionary OS" New Commodore: "revolutionary painting process"
Ah, a rational admin!
One company I worked for had a policies on use of work email for, the stated reason being that emails from a work address could be associated with the company, fair enough.
However, they also blocked access to web mail, to prevent people avoiding these same rules. Logic?
I always thought that your policy, for your reasons, was the sensible thing to do. I wish more IT departments could follow the logic.
Anyone, whether physicist or theologian, seriously considering this realises that ultimate origins lie outside time, and that therefore speaking of "before" and "after" does not make sense.
A bit of Googling on this topic did turn up this book (looks interesting, but seems to be trying to cover too many angles), but not the information I was seeking - where the concept of a God outside time originated. I remember that a major theologian well before modern times described time as a river, with God outside it (and, presumably, creating it), but I cannot track that down.
I did not mean to suggest that the terms are equivalent. However they both, in practice, advocate state control of industries, and therefore centralised control and planning - which is what they both share with MS.
A better analogy would be being a free markets advocate in a communist country.
MS's view of how things work is rather like that of some socialists. The state/MS controls the largest businesses and those of core importance, others are free to build around it, on the state's/MS's terms.
This contrasts with the free market/open source idea of low barriers to entry, consumer choice and competition in all markets.
No, I am arguing for the necessity of starting knowledge from some fundamental.
I am familiar with Game Theory, although not primarilly in the context of evolution. I am also familiar with the central argument of The Selfish Gene. You were so adamant that it somehow disproved my point that I thought I must have got something wrong. Looking at the Wikipedia summary, it appears not. The problem is that describing any particular mechanism of evolution does not help your contention that it produces an "efficient" outcome, and it does not help you define what "efficient" is.
Of course it shows how evolution could produce "moral", (e.g. altruistic) instincts (what else would anyone expect? They clearly did evolve). The problem in this context, is the obvious reply is "so what?". It merely adds detail to what we knew already.
and
1) The issue here is not the existence of hell, but its nature. If you had read the things I linked to earlier, one of the early ideas was that it is not a place, but it lies in people's reaction to God's presence. Those that love God find joy, those that hate God find pain, in the very same thing.
The fact that some people, right from the start, doubted the existence of hell is another issue, although one that somewhat strenghtens my case.
2) Can you also not understand that the very fact that your Catholic Encylcopedia feels it has to argue for its position, shows that it is a matter of controversy.
3) Can you be bothered to read the links you have already provided. For example, from wikipedia: "For many ancient Christians, Hell was the same "place" as Heaven: living in the presence of God and directly experiencing God's love"
Censured = excommunicated? The Catholic Encyclopaedia also makes it clear that its own position is not endorsed by the church either.
Have you any idea of conditions in the third world? How widely stocked to you expect it to be in a country with perhaps a few hundred thousand people who speak English fluently - and far fewer read comfortably enough to read non-fiction for pleasure - and where the $15 US cover price is one one and a hlaf days wages for people like my gardener.
I can probably find more academic books covering the same ground in a University bookshop, if I care to spend time hunting them down.
I am ignoring various assertions without links or citations, and notice you are still ignoring my separate (because I forgot to put it into a previous comment) comment on examples of absolute morality.
OK that was even crappier than the car analogies.
If you insist on a relationship analogy, its more like co-habiting with someone you want to marry, in the hope they marry you later.
The main difference is that you get the lock-in immediately.
Not only did I recognise the subject matter, but the fact that it was on the BCS website, and by a lecturer from the same "university".
I quoted the word "university" because vocational training college would be a more accurate description.
Actually I think you might be trolling here - I have already rebutted this, so why are you repeating it? It is just a variant of the old "religion is an assertion" straw man that atheists seem to find necessary to maintain their beliefs.
And it makes it clear that the idea of Hell as a place of suffering is a controversial doctrine. "from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion."If you had read it through there are lots of other references supporting my point. It is very clearly arguing from point of being at the extreme end of opinion on hell as a place of suffering - and even it is forced to admit that such suffering must be just and proportionate. I cannot remember Hitler being known for imposing just and proportionate suffering!
Well that just about says it all! You are assuming that your prejudices are correct. If you HAD bothered to read it you would have found more support for me, much of it from much older sources - completely rebutting your claim of changes in doctrine.In any case claiming that minor changes to doctrine invalidates a religion is ridiculous. If you follow that logic, you will find that you will have to reject the idea that we can model the physical universe, because the models keep changing.
It was never a basic doctrine. The basic doctrines are those in the creed which has not changed at all. The nature of hell, and the existence of punishment is a matter of speculation - which, again, is why even your sources quote multiple different views.Given that you will not even clearly state what you are talking about, how do you know that I do not know it? You assume that you know something I do not, but without any statement of what it is. You quote a book that I would take several weeks to order and have delivered where I live. How about an internet source I can actually read?
I suspect it is all stuff I know about well enough to realise it is irrelevant.
I also notice that you have avoided replying to my other comment on examples of an absolute morality.
As I said to a Muslim friend earlier today, most of us regard GWB and his ilk as an embarrassment.
He also does not seem to have read the bit in the Bible about rich men entering heaven (or rather not entering).
More seriously, why is there do Christian left in the US? It is quite evident in other countries - and right wing British governments have found the churches to be a significant source of opposition (particularly over issues such as poverty) - why is that not happening in the US?
Look up the word efficient (which you used first) on wordnet:
- (adj) efficient (being effective without wasting time or effort or expense) "an efficient production manager"; "efficient engines save gas"
- (adj) effective, efficient (able to accomplish a purpose; functioning effectively)
What purpose? Without waste by what measure or criterion?For example: it is wrong to kill people by the million because you do not like their ethnicity - Hitler obviously disagreed.
It is wrong to torture children to death because their parents hold different views to yours - Pol Pot obviously disagreed.
My own absolute moral are the two greatest commandments that Jesus taught - obviously that formulation only makes sense if you have a particular religioos beliefs, otherwise you need a more complex one. I assume that you read the links from the wikipedia articles I mentioned earlier so you know what they are
Tell me what your criteria for a criteria example are, THEN I can give you an example.
No, simply wrong about the nature of religion. I am wondering whether you actually understood ANY of what I wrote earler.
Have you read what you are quoting? It supports what I say, and even quotes the same sources! Oh look it says Hell was the same "place" as Heaven: living in the presence of God and directly experiencing God's love. and Whether this was experienced as pleasure or torment depended on one's disposition towards God. . More evidence for me. God does not torture anyone, they choose for themselves and it is not physical torture, it lies in our own reaction to the offer of perfect joy.So from what point of view are you arguing it is "efficient" for. Not the species, and not the individual? A smaller group? Same problem. Not good for species, group or individual - then good for what exactly?
The problem is that it often leads to the wrong solution, supposed solutions that do not work, and disproportionate solutions.
The politicians syllogison (from "Yes, Minister")
Something must be done This is something Therefore we must do this.
Furthermore, I was quoting from the chatechism of the church (an official, is slightly simplistic summary its teaching), from the Vatica website.
Furthermore, the most important point is that it is self chosen. The sufferings, whatever they are, are the unavoidable result of human nature combined with hatred of God. See this
I also refered to CS Lewis's concept of hell in The Great Divorce. It is a good (fictional) illustration of the above.
Are you implying that it should be changed if another strategy looked more efficient?It is an efficient strategy for the group or species (thus favoured by evolution), not for an individual. From the point of view of an individual making a choice, why should you care whether something is an efficient stratagy for survival for humanity or not?
If your point is that this explains why this behaviour evolved, then that does not really matter from the point of view of an indivdual making a moral choice.
2. a.I gave that example to make an altogether different point. That the vast majority of people who claim to be moral relativists would be appalled by that particular idea. I was questioning the consistency of moral relativists.
2.b. CS Lewis never commented on it, and may not have even being aware of it (I commented on that as well - I was not aware of British law on this point till the publicity that arose when it was changed).
3. You can know a lot about human nature and people without knowing much about evolutionary issues.
Any example is bound to have some people disagree with it, which you say invalidates it.
I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make in the last paragraph. I think that you are objecting to a concept of hell that I do not agree with - again, Lewis's views are fairly close to mine, and he expresses them very well in The Great Divorce. In brief and VERY superficialy, hell is not torture. It is self chosen exclusion from the joy that God means for us - which, because of our nature, means emptiness - but more lack of fulfilment than pain or torture. To quote from the chatechism of the Catholic Church hell is "self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed" and "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God".
PS sorry to go on about spelling, but it is "moral", not "morale". The meaning of morale is altogether different.
That is an absolute moral position, even if a very minimal one (not that much more minimal than the two key commandments of Christianity). It is certainly not moral relativism.
You would have stood a much better chance of being modded funny if you had worked in a Star Trek reference, rather than one that would only be understood by moderators who have actually read a book.
One example. Consider the idea of original sin. An ancient religious idea, its mechanisms can be explained by psychology, and how it came into existence by the study of evolution. Both also confirm its existence.
More fundamentally, any attempt to get to the roots of any subject ends in philosophy (which is why there are such things as "philosophy of science", Ibiblio even has some lecture notes on "philosophical issues in economics")
The connection is a lot more obvious in public perceptions and far more subject to scrutiny than the Bush connections.
Furthermore Gates is clearly currently trying to prove what a good guy he really is - he is hardly going to muck it up by doing something crooked.
He is a very different person from Bush and in very different circumstances. I am no fan of Gates and MS (see previous comments, blog, etc.), but even he does not look so bad when compared to politicians!
I fail to understand how my original comment has been moderated troll. Because I said something good about Bill Gates, or because I do not like Scott Adams?
Surely the camera manufacturers will be a bit distrustful of an MS format after MS unexpectedly tried to collect money from them for using FAT.
It seems to me that using any new format is very high risk. You do not know what patents may exist on it - not only those held by the deviser of the format (which may be safely covered by a license agreement), but any held by third parties.
Of course even a format that has been around a while may be hit by an unexpected claim (as recently with mp3), but as a format gets olders the lower the risk, and once it has been in use for longer patents last, it is completely safe.
You take it to mean a known, legalistic code of right and wrong.
Take a look at the wikipedia pages on moral absolute, moral objectivism, and moral relativism. I think you could classify my position as very similar to what it calls graded absolutism.
How would you decide that something was a mistake? If people did not like a particular change, you could just adjust the next generation so they did like it.....
Of course the problem is that he is already powerful enough not to care for a political position (no more real power when you take into account all the constraints on political leaders, more scrutiny, more stress).
The other things is that this stunt is typical of Scott Adams recent idiocy.
One of the Dilbert booKs contains his own theory of gravitation (yes really, and yes it look like he was serious). He said there were no obvious flaws, it took me about ten seconds to spot one.
He followed it up by attempting to write a philosophy/theology book. He came up with what appears to be rather naive pantheism, at best a poor rehash of ideas like the Hindu one of the dance of Shiva. The sad bit is that he seems to think it is an original idea, and he cannot understand the objections to the flaws in his thinking (fairly obvious if you read his blog). The book is called God's Debris - its a free ebook download because he could not find a publisher (he whines about that on his blog as well).
Now he wants to influence politics.
Obviously he is dissatisfied being funny and wants to achieve something serious. Personally I wish he would just stick to being funny - he is actually good at that.
My first attempt at installing Linux (kubuntu) on a laptop is not going that well so far.
A friend wanted to try Linux on her Compaq Presario C300. I have not figured out how to get wireless networking working yet, and the sound is very soft. The former can probably be sorted out, the latter is a known problem but apparently not yet fixed.
Whats that? The Danish equivalent of the GNAA?
Yes, I did google and find out what it really stood for.