Thread: Newton + Einstein were wrong!

I did not mean to put across that there was not ethics in atheism and looking back it seemed that my analogy seemed rather week and confusing but merely that if someone took evolution as a worldview he would then have to adopt a purpose that is associated with that world view.

I'm wary of your usuage of "worldview" i think that i'm built by my genes, and the reason why my genes 'bother' building me is because i allow them to replicate, but that doesn't matter to me, the process is stochastic and blind. Knowledge of our "purpose" from an evolutionary stance need not affect the way we live our lives.

In Atheism that would be that there is no grand spiritual purpose. This idea of no cosmic purpose would then have to controll his morals (not that he has none, but rather that they must fit into his worldview. I.E. one cannot adopt pantheistic ideas of justice for all... for where does this idea of justice come from.) An Atheistic worldview mandates true relatavism or an idea of "eveolved" ethics created by and independant of different society

Well, I know of atheists who agree with the concept of justice (though i do not). But, do you not think it very strange that by inlarge well educated theists and atheists have extremely similar concepts of morality?

If morality were really determined by one's view of purpose, does it not strike you that two people who have diametrically opposed views with regards to this purpose should have very different ethics? And yet, they don't.

In every way the question of purpose is relevant. It merely says "What does this mean I should do" or "how does this affect humanity" When I said evolution had a purpose I simply meant that the question still could be and did have to be answered.

I do think "how does this affect humanity" but i don't think that involves purpose at all, the question "Does humanity have a higher purpose?" is a factual question which is in principle answerable by science, and not answerable using anything but reason. What one chooses to do with the answer is up to us and science is not involved.

And I would say that ethics is a very important part of our society, and should be. I think we do need an ethical system. But if science doesn;t touch ethics, how then are we to know how to act?

Compassion, empathy, intuition, law.

How do you think other social animals know how to act within their social hierachy?

We can develop a more theoretical treatment through the various branches of Utilitarianism, but finding a consistent but complete ethical system is very hard to do, it may not even be possible. That's because evolution doesn't care about whether we can construct sensible frameworks, as an example there was an experiment done with a cat which when given the choice between two of three foods made choices that were somewhat incomprehensible: It chose food A over food B, food B over food C, but food C over food A.

All I was trying ot get across is that even though science is very useful, there are contingencies on the way we live that exist outside the scope of science.

I agree with that.

That I have seen a very strong slant towards a certain worldview with that sciece, both from atheistic and theistic viewpoints and I was irritated that people would follow blindly in both scenarious.

Well ok but surely if a "world view" is founded on statements regarding the real world _out there_ then that world view can be accepted or rejected on rational scientific grounds.

Modern Liberalism is based mainly on the idea of econimic justice. That we all have a right to certain things. I do not understand how this can stem from anything other than pantheistic or new age ideals (idea that all are gods or that we are all connected and thus equal in some spiritual manner). How then do most atheists claim to be liberals? I do not understand their thinking.

Compassion and empathy, suffering is bad by definition. Most people recognise that hurting another human being is a bad thing (ignoring contextual exceptions that alot of people will have).

You can try and construct an ethical framework based on these ideas but that almost misses the point, that's not how people work, i mean to an extent it is because it allows them to work out their position when new scenarios turn up, but the base principles, are already there and can be understood in an objective sense using evolutionary psychology/sociology/neurology.

Well, I know of atheists who agree with the concept of justice (though i do not). But, do you not think it very strange that by inlarge well educated theists and atheists have extremely similar concepts of morality?

I would argue that it is an almost identical sense of morality, but then I would ask how can two polar opposite perceptions of reality entail similar ethics when the basis for those ethics are contradictory?


I don't quite get your response to economic justice. I do not see how one can think that we all deserve the same thing (esp. in a capitalistic society) while maintaining that capitalistic identity.

Clarification: Worldview is simply meaning how you view the world. god created it, big bang theory ,pantheism etc...

I would argue that it is an almost identical sense of morality, but then I would ask how can two polar opposite perceptions of reality entail similar ethics when the basis for those ethics are contradictory?

I would answer that at its root ethics is not based on worldviews at all, its an evolved set of rules that enables us to coexist.

I don't quite get your response to economic justice. I do not see how one can think that we all deserve the same thing (esp. in a capitalistic society) while maintaining that capitalistic identity.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you refer to "capitalistic identity", atheists who believe in justice, ie. the bad people should be punished type justice do so presumeably because to them it seems right that people are treated based on the way they treat others.

In terms of everyone being treated equally (with certain caveats for rule breakers), again there will be alot of different answers, fairness would probably come up, but alot of people don't need a theoretical answer, it will be intuitive, i don't know about you, but as a kid i was always told not to do certain things, and as justification i was given "How would you feel if it was done to you?". I think a lot of core ethics is based on empathy.

I was just reading this thread and decided to do a quick reply.

In my church (yeah us Mormons, haha), we believe that true religion and true science go hand in hand. Of course there are several philosophies and theories out there that can be called "religion", but might not necessarily be the whole truth.

There are also several scientific theories that have yet to be proven, but probably are valid.

When both religion and science are in their fulness, we believe they work together and go hand in hand, and we believe that God works by and through the laws of the universe.

Now, just a very small note on the creation of the world. Our church has no official stance on how long it took to create the world in terms of our view on time.

I do have my own opinion, however. The original meaning of the word "day" in ancient Hebrew did not mean a 24 hour period or anything like that, but simply from the time an event began to the time a certain event finished. I personally believe Moses was writing in that context when he wrote the Creation story in the book of Genesis, and therefore I personally believe that the creation did take several billion years.

Once again, this is no official stance of our religion, but it is how I stand on the subject. I personally support science in all of its aspects and find it incredibly fascinating. The only thing I do not accept is that man evolved from the ape, because it clearly says that God created man in his own image. Since the whole man/ape thing is only a theory anyways and not proven science, I'm still in the green.

Anyways, laters all.

Originally Posted by Clyde

I would answer that at its root ethics is not based on worldviews at all, its an evolved set of rules that enables us to coexist.

but then why must we coxist? at some time the question must be answered "Why should we live the way we do"

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you refer to "capitalistic identity", atheists who believe in justice, ie. the bad people should be punished type justice do so presumeably because to them it seems right that people are treated based on the way they treat others.

In terms of everyone being treated equally (with certain caveats for rule breakers), again there will be alot of different answers, fairness would probably come up, but alot of people don't need a theoretical answer, it will be intuitive, i don't know about you, but as a kid i was always told not to do certain things, and as justification i was given "How would you feel if it was done to you?". I think a lot of core ethics is based on empathy.

but if I were to not possess that empathy, how then could you hold me responsible. Or moreso, if an entire group of people did not have this empathy and they affected a group that did...

The only thing I do not accept is that man evolved from the ape, because it clearly says that God created man in his own image. Since the whole man/ape thing is only a theory anyways and not proven science, I'm still in the green.

In science saying something is_only_ a theory is like saying financially one is _only_ rich, theories are as a good as it gets. Theories do not progress to 'facts', or laws, theories remain theories they are never proven absolutely, only proven beyond reasonable doubt (which the evolution of man is).

but then why must we coxist? at some time the question must be answered "Why should we live the way we do"

We coexist because its usefull to do so, evolution fashioned us into a social species because doing so meant we were better off, i didn't make the computer i'm typing on or build the flat i'm staying in, soceity is rather useful.

But fundamentally i don't think ethics is built up from ethical theories i think ethical theories are fitted to certain ethical concepts which are present due to evolution, how else do you explain the similarity of the ethics of people who have radically different theoretical basis' for their morality.

but if I were to not possess that empathy, how then could you hold me responsible.

People who lose their sense of empathy are not really held responsible, they are treated in mental hospitals as schizophrenics.

Or moreso, if an entire group of people did not have this empathy and they affected a group that did...

Well, people who lack empathy would quite probably lack a concept of ethics, they would not be immoral but amoral. To them ethics would not exist, i would simply say that measures should be taken to protect society, whilst maintaining compassion towards the people lacking empathy, in theory that what we do today.

> Since the whole man/ape thing is only a theory anyways and not proven science

Gravity is "only a theory". The idea that germs cause infections is "only a theory". "It's only a theory" is a terrible reason to dismiss evolution, since, as Clyde says, you don't get any higher than a theory. Scientific definition of theory != regular definition of theory.

> ecause it clearly says that God created man in his own image.

The Bible's right because it says so in the Bible? OK....

Originally Posted by DavidP

The only thing I do not accept is that man evolved from the ape.

Then why were half-men-half-apes created? And why are they no longer around?

Once again, this is no official stance of our religion, but it is how I stand on the subject. I personally support science in all of its aspects and find it incredibly fascinating. The only thing I do not accept is that man evolved from the ape, because it clearly says that God created man in his own image. Since the whole man/ape thing is only a theory anyways and not proven science, I'm still in the green.

Humans only became humans when God placed a soul in them (when God breathed in the holy spirit). Therefore it doesn't matter if were were once apes, because at that point, we were not humans.

In science saying something is_only_ a theory is like saying financially one is _only_ rich, theories are as a good as it gets. Theories do not progress to 'facts', or laws, theories remain theories they are never proven absolutely, only proven beyond reasonable doubt (which the evolution of man is).

I think you are being a bit too literal. But if you want to argue that, maybe he meant this definition:

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

If you want to debate it, then why don't you debate whether or not evolution (or god's existence, or whatever) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

> then why don't you debate whether or not evolution (or god's existence, or whatever) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus, do some research.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ons.html#proof
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus, do some research.

Good point. I wonder if Jesus ever did study biology... He sure doesn't seem like a physics or math type of guy to me. Perhaps he was a psych major... Yeah, that seems pretty fitting.

</random interlude>

how else do you explain the similarity of the ethics of people who have radically different theoretical basis' for their morality.

That they either don't truly believe in that ethical system or they don't truly believe in the groundwork of theor ethics.

Essentially what you are saying is that we make standards of ethics based on how we actually act not on how we should?

Well, people who lack empathy would quite probably lack a concept of ethics, they would not be immoral but amoral. To them ethics would not exist, i would simply say that measures should be taken to protect society, whilst maintaining compassion towards the people lacking empathy, in theory that what we do today.

but why not take measures to protect those who have amorals from the moral? there must be a reason why we choose a set system of ethics so consistantly. Again the example of the schizophrenia is the same. Why must they be isolated from us because of their morals (or lack thereof) while we get to happily prance along with ours? There is a sense of hidden justice or right and wrong that seems to be in play.