PDA

View Full Version : Newton + Einstein were wrong!



Pages : [1] 2

Jez
12-07-2004, 01:46 PM
What do you guys think of this?

http://www.poams.org/

I find it compelling.

Clyde
12-07-2004, 03:00 PM
Interesting, but i don't like their philosophy, and i find myself resisting many of their ideas. Still since some of these people are in Bristol i might look them up.

Oh wait its UWE not Bristol, hrrmm.

major_small
12-07-2004, 03:18 PM
I think I can't be bothered to think for people anymore for today... but in relation to this:

don't know exactly what you were pointing to, but judging from a quick read of this specific page (http://www.poams.org/04_relativity_and_time_dilation.html), they're not saying einstein was wrong, they're just proposing another theory that expands upon his and may fill in some of the blanks that need to be filled in...

Sang-drax
12-07-2004, 04:50 PM
Of course Newton and Einstein were wrong.
Newton was proved wrong by Einstein and Einstein was proved wrong by his own equation when they were applied to black holes.

Both theories (especially Newton's) remain very useful, though. Newton's theory of gravitation can be derived as an approximation of Einsteins curved space-time when the gravity field isn't extremely strong.

Philandrew
12-07-2004, 05:43 PM
Interesting kinda thing I learned from my religion teacher (Many would say he is wise)
[I'm in a catholic school system and religion is a required course]

"What holds the world up?" The Greeks answered this question by saying it was a Giant Turtle, and it carried the earth around the sun.
Then somebody came along and said "what holds the turtle up?"
The response was "don't ask silly questions, its turtles all the way down!"

As scientists try to uncover the mysteries of the world, they keep slamming their heads against a brick wall. Somebody comes out with a new equation that is true in some sense, but eventually simply breaks down.
Its true for all scientific equations. Newton, Einstein, the Greeks, the big bang, the new String Theory. He somehow said that it all led to God, but I can't remember how he tied it in :p I do remember though that in E=mc^2 for the big bang, he says that E is god's thought (In the beginning there was thought, and it was His thought...or something like that from one of the gospels)

Another interesting thing that just comes up with all this crazy stuff....world was supposed to end in the year 2000. For those who don't know, the calendar is actually off by about 60 years because the guy who fixed things up wasn't much of a historian and got the year 0, the birth of Jesus Christ wrong...by about 60 years or something like that.

I dunno where I'm going with this...but it kinda makes you think :)

Govtcheez
12-07-2004, 06:02 PM
> but eventually simply breaks down.

That's the nice thing about science. It adapts when things are shown to be wrong, and showing that things are wrong is very much promoted. When something in religion is shown to be wrong, it's either ignored or they reinterpret the scripture.

Jez
12-07-2004, 06:04 PM
don't know exactly what you were pointing to, but judging from a quick read of this specific page (http://www.poams.org/04_relativity_and_time_dilation.html), they're not saying einstein was wrong, they're just proposing another theory that expands upon his and may fill in some of the blanks that need to be filled in...

I only said Einstein + Newton were wrong to make people look. In fact POAMS contends that they were wrong about some things though. (aren't we all?).

To me the POAMS approach seems so much more natural and complete that I have trouble taking the standard view seriously any more.




Interesting, but i don't like their philosophy, and i find myself resisting many of their ideas. Still since some of these people are in Bristol i might look them up.

Oh wait its UWE not Bristol, hrrmm.


I know what you mean. If it was Cambridge more people would take notice I suppose. BTW, I live in Bristol too, although I first came across this when living in Swansea.

JaWiB
12-07-2004, 06:05 PM
Mach's programme for physics was to base the subject on what we actually observe, not on things and events that we merely imagine - or are told - there are underlying those observations. Moreover, for Mach, there was also the criterion of conceptual efficiency and economy. You can count horses by counting their legs and tails and dividing by five. But Mach would say that it is far simpler and safer to count the horses direct.


Yes, but what if all you can see are the horses' tails and legs?

That's exactly what science is based on! Make as detailed observations as possible, and then come up with a model that fits the data. Then, as you develop more ways of observing things, you can correct any errors that you've made previously. Or am I completely wrong here?

Philandrew
12-07-2004, 09:54 PM
When something in religion is shown to be wrong, it's either ignored or they reinterpret the scripture.
Although I'd hardly classify myself as a religous person....how about you back that statement up with some examples? :)

Science is based purely on empirical knowledge. What you can see, taste, smell and feel with your senses. Therefore you can not know something solely by science. (ohh the joys of Theory of Knowledge...)
Edit: I had to write an essay on it :eek:

novacain
12-07-2004, 11:26 PM
>>how about you back that statement up with some examples?

God created the universe in seven days. How long was a day before God created the sun and the earth?

God created Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. They had two sons, Cain and Able (no other females). Cain killed Able.
So we are all descended from a Cain the murderer and whom?

God created man in his image. There no fossils of modern man. So which of the prehistoric men did God look like? (But then we have to accept evolution......)

Dissata
12-08-2004, 01:03 AM
>>how about you back that statement up with some examples?

God created the universe in seven days. How long was a day before God created the sun and the earth?

God created Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. They had two sons, Cain and Able (no other females). Cain killed Able.
So we are all descended from a Cain the murderer and whom?

God created man in his image. There no fossils of modern man. So which of the prehistoric men did God look like? (But then we have to accept evolution......)

unfortunately all only show is a lack of comprehension of the bible (no offense to you)

The when looking at the Hebrew translation of Genesis the word used for day can mean a given point in time.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html


Cain and Able were possibly not Adam and Eve's only children, there may have been various others. (I understand that this leaves open only incestrial breeding but that is beside the point of erradiating possible extinction based on the inability to breed)
(assuming your pending arguements on genetic deteriation of inbreeds and the idea that incest is a sin... will deal with later)

First, the idea of "in his image" does not have to be a physical sense. Second, the idea of prehistoric men is still speculative. Although this is not an area of scientific knowledge that I am particularly coherent in, from what I understand the fossils are inconclusive at best.

Most scientist's problem is this: They see science as something that can answer more than the question "what is?" They preordain a certain idea of reality, completly uncontingent of science (ontological questions are not completed by what is observed). They then base the other non scientific questions, how and why, off their scientific findings in a way that solely supports thier worldview. In effect they say: We know this is, I think god does not exist, therefore a plausible explanation of why it is based on my worldview is this.

i am in no way saying that anyone is right or wrong, but merely that science cannot answer why, nor should it, as its job is of observation of what is.

Why the human race exists cannot be explained by science. It can give possible reasons how it exists but that is not the quesion. The idea of god as a reality cannot even begin to be refuted by science nor can the idea of ethics or purpose without first identifying a biased worldview to base the scientific facts on.


I know this seems like a pointless rant...sorry, I got carried away a little. I am just annoyed by the consistant ignorance of people (of idiotic anti-religion atheists and their ignorant counterparts as the majority of professing christians, both of whom are equally unintelligent)

perhaps I'll spend some more time writing this out tomorrow after I have been flamed to death! :eek: :D

Dissata
12-08-2004, 01:04 AM
oh... sorry... and the link that started the random rant...

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_adamandeve.html

Philandrew
12-08-2004, 01:18 AM
Again, not religious, but going to a Catholic school I have picked some things up :) Hell, I'm not even Catholic. But I do believe there is a power greater than I.


God created the universe in seven days. How long was a day before God created the sun and the earth?
The story of Genesis is an archtypical story. The key focus of Genesis is the idea of original sin. Adam betrayed God. For Catholics the story of Genesis does not have to match perfectly.
An interesting note though. My physics teacher was telling me that science has proven - the faster you go, the slower time moves. They have tested it with Mach speed jets as well. Even at Mach speed (which pales in comparison to the speed of light), atomic clocks will find a difference of either seconds or milleseconds/nanoseconds (can't remember). Either way, the point stands that science is proving that time slows down as you travel faster. The same teacher elaborated. He told my class that he had just finished reading a book, a scientist's studies. The scientist was able to prove that time changes according to perspective. If you are travelling at the speed of light, 7 days of our time is equivalent to what is it, 3 billion? 6 billion? Whatever that scientific time it took to create the world through evolution....thats what it was.
In addition, we all know that the Bible can not necessarily be taken literally. You have to read parts as poetry, symbology, parables, etc.

Who says science at religion collide with each other? Big bang created earth. Ok, thats great. What caused the big bang? E=mc^2 E=God's thought. Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts"

The Word was in the beginning; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Words require thought.


God created Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. They had two sons, Cain and Able (no other females). Cain killed Able.
When Cain killed Abel he was marked. So that when he travelled in the world others would recognize him.
Hold the phone....others?


God created man in his image. There no fossils of modern man. So which of the prehistoric men did God look like? (But then we have to accept evolution......)
I know many Catholics that accept evolution but still have faith. Why does science have to contradict God?
I believe the idea of being made in God's image is that we were made loving.

Also, the point Dissata made about translation is very important. The Bible was originally in Hebrew, then translated to Latin (the language of the people), and eventually to all languages such as English. Read any translation, the translator always puts in his/her own feelings.

This isn't meant in anyway to criticize or anything. I just don't see how science and religion are somehow polar opposites. :p

:)

PJYelton
12-08-2004, 02:20 AM
I was going to respond to some of this but I'm just too tired to make any coherent arguments. Besides, Clyde is so much better at this than I am and I sense a big post from him by the time I wake up :D

>>If you are travelling at the speed of light, 7 days of our time is equivalent to what is it, 3 billion? 6 billion? Whatever that scientific time it took to create the world through evolution....thats what it was.<<

I do have to respond to this though. This doesn't make any sense, if you go the speed of light time stops entirely. Of course there does exist a fraction of the speed of light you could travel that would make 7 days be equivalent to 3 billion years but what does this have to do with the bible and the creation of the earth? Was god traveling at .9999999999 times the speed of light?

Philandrew
12-08-2004, 02:34 AM
I do have to respond to this though. This doesn't make any sense, if you go the speed of light time stops entirely. Of course there does exist a fraction of the speed of light you could travel that would make 7 days be equivalent to 3 billion years but what does this have to do with the bible and the creation of the earth? Was god traveling at .9999999999 times the speed of light?

I can't remember the exact details of it (it was pretty abstract), but here is another example that might make more sense.

I am an identical twin. If I get in a space shuttle at travel at the speed of light for a very long long time, I will come back looking maybe a year older. My brother will either be long dead, or very very old.

I'm gunna try googling and seeing if I can find the whole thing...because it was pretty interesting.

The idea is basically perspective. A day is a human idea, measured by the rotation of our earth. If I go to mars, a day is different, if I go to pluto, a day is different. A day is a human creation.

Edit: Google isnt turning up much. Could be this is right. Could be it is wrong. Could be I misheard, Could be the teacher was wrong.
Either way, I do remember that some wacky crazy scientist (wacky crazy...that was repetitive...everybody is wacky and crazy! :) ) did some crazy calculations to justify a 7 day creation in billions of years :p (I myself find it hard to get my head around it...7 days...billions of years....7 days...billions of years....but I know I don't understand everything anyways :D )

PJYelton
12-08-2004, 03:10 AM
Oh, I completely understand the idea of time being relative from an Einstein point of view, just don't see how it relates to the creation of the earth. If you find it, let me know! Be careful though, your twin example and your Mars example are two very different things. One is a physics concept and the other is just a definition game. True humans have defined the word "day" to mean one earth rotation, but time passes at the same speed on both Earth, Mars, or anywhere else irregardless of what we call it.

Anyways, off to bed :D

Clyde
12-08-2004, 06:59 AM
To me the POAMS approach seems so much more natural and complete that I have trouble taking the standard view seriously any more.


Ok i have some questions regarding this POAMS stuff:

If they are doing away with photons in favour of a constant that determines how fast the frames of reality flick past, then how do they explain the slit experiments that show photons diffracting? Whats more if they are doing away with photons, what becomes of elecrons of any other subatomic particle - they behave in a very similar manner to photons.

If their case is purely semantic ie. its quantitatively the same as the previous mechanics then do they not fall prey to postivistic arguments themselves? If it's not quantitatively the same then there must be some divergence from current theory if that is the case then there should be a way of testing their views experimentally. In either case there should be a lot of mathematics that is conspicuously absent from their webpage demonstrating their ideas, perhaps its in some of their references, (which if you restrict yourself to looking only at articles published in journals you see is pretty spartan)

Quantum field theory lead to the standard model the most accurate theory of particle physics that exists, it seems very odd to turn around say there is no such thing as fields when the most accurate theory capable of specifying obervables to a stupid degree of precision was based on the idea of fields. What's more i was under the impression that aside from the graviton the other 'particles' had been detected, now it may well be that what they are saying is simply alteration in vocabulary (ie as stated above is semantic) rather than in substance in which case well there is no problem, but then neither can their approach be a solution to a problem.

Appealing to "common sense" seems to me somewhat misguided since there is nothing that is ever going to make quantum mechanics common sense, so if quantum theory is "allowed" to violate common sense, whats more if common sense was a barrier to the development of quantum theory, then surely that means physics can never return to a "common sense" view point and all attemps to do so are invariably doomed to fail.

It may well be that all my queries (and i have a few more) have very good answers perhaps you know some? Otherwise i will attempt to read through some of their literature but at this point i must confess a fair degree of skepticism.

Govtcheez
12-08-2004, 07:18 AM
>>how about you back that statement up with some examples?

>In addition, we all know that the Bible can not necessarily be taken literally. You have to read parts as poetry, symbology, parables, etc.

You make the point for me. The Bible, the infallible word of God has many different translations and many different interpretations of similar passages. Beside, we don't "all know" that the Bible's a collection of parables and the like. There are millions of literalists out there. If you don't believe me, go to a Baptist Church and start talking about evolution. Wait and see how long it is until you hear either "Carbon dating is only accurate to X years (which is deliberately misinterpreting science)" or "the fossils were put there by Satan to test our faith".

> Why the human race exists cannot be explained by science.

What are you talking about?

iain
12-08-2004, 07:30 AM
>>Oh wait its UWE not Bristol, hrrmm.

yey, thats my university!

Clyde
12-08-2004, 08:02 AM
Right so i decided a while ago that i wouldn't get sucked into arguing about religious nonsense, but i can talk about science:

People who say



Why the human race exists cannot be explained by science


Either do not understand science or do not understand the relevence of the question "why?".

There is an obvious answer to the question "Why does the human race exist": Physics, chemistry, evolution. Voila an answer.

But there is another way of taking the question, that is to see it as saying "What purpose does the human race serve?". In fact science can answer that too, "Replication" would be the answer. But no no that's no good enough either, "What _higher_ purpose does the human race serve?" And then what pray does _higher_ mean? Intelligence? Right so then actually this question is "For what reason did an intelligence create the human race?".

At the moment one might be able to claim science cannot answer this question of higher purpose, but then the only reason that science cannot answer it is because at the moment there is nothing indicating the human race has a 'higher purpose'. Science effectively has a default negative position unless evidence or theory suggest otherwise.

IF the human race really did have a higher purpose, for example say we were created by a bunch of aliens to do something specific, then the only way of discovering what our purpose was (or indeed discovering we had a purpose) would be through rational investigation. Perhaps there would be clues in our DNA, if when we sequenced the genome we discovered a long message encoded there explaining exactly how this alien race created us, what techniques they used, and why they did it, then science would have discovered our purpose, ergo science can in principle discover higher purpose.



In effect they say: We know this is, I think god does not exist, therefore a plausible explanation of why it is based on my worldview is this.


One could equally say: We know this is, i think that invisable unicorns on Mars do not exist, therefore a plausible explanation of why it is based on my worldview is this.

Science simply does not consider invisable unicorns, because there is no evidence or derived theory pointing to their existence, if evidence for invisable unicorns turned up, if for example quantum gravity predicted invisable unicorns on Mars and subsequent experiments provided some confirmation then the above statement would become:

"We suspect this (there is no certainty in science), we also suspect that there are invisable unicorns on Mars, therefore a plausible explanation for why (assuming that it is that the invisable unicorns are relevent to this particular explanation) it is based on my 'world view' is this"

Clyde
12-08-2004, 08:06 AM
yey, thats my university!


Sorry, i'm a Bristol student, well was a Bristol student, you know how Bristol and UWE get along :).

Dissata
12-08-2004, 09:51 AM
There is an obvious answer to the question "Why does the human race exist": Physics, chemistry, evolution. Voila an answer.

Sorry Clyde...that is merely a answer of how the human race exists. This is not an anser of why, and as you so elequently put it why is a purpose question. Your idea of replication as a purpose of humanity is more than science. Instead it is a interpretation of scientific data to fit a worldview (seemingly atheistic).

Essentially what I'm saying is this, and as you presumptiously already argued on your second part of your response, Science can be as irrefutable and perfect as we like; We can know all branches of it, Physics, chemestry, Biology, etc. The application of what we do with this data is completely tangent on what we believe. All I was saying is that I see the same ignorance of this in many qualified scientists/atheists as I do fanatical religous goons. Insteed of presenting information in an observational form.
I am in no way trying to take away from science. Furthur more I have learned to try not to argue science with you... but this is not a matter of science, but rather an application of what we find in science; Philosophy.

Clyde
12-08-2004, 10:34 AM
Sorry Clyde...that is merely a answer of how the human race exists. This is not an anser of why, and as you so elequently put it why is a purpose question.


Right but it depends on how one interprets the question, if you asked "Why is it the stars are only seen as night" you wouldn't mean purpose, sometimes why and how mean the same thing.



Your idea of replication as a purpose of humanity is more than science. Instead it is a interpretation of scientific data to fit a worldview (seemingly atheistic).


I don't really think it's more than science, evolution is just science, and it relates the form of all life to its fitness function, so one can ask "Why does this life have this form" and one can answer "because this form makes life fitter", and how "fit" life is, is measured by how good it is at passing on its genes ie. replicating.



Science can be as irrefutable and perfect as we like; We can know all branches of it, Physics, chemestry, Biology, etc. The application of what we do with this data is completely tangent on what we believe


Scientific knowledge is never irrefutable that's the whole point, every theory is falsifiable, there is not gospel truth there is simply the current best bet.

But physics biology and chemistry can determine what we 'believe', my 'beliefs' regarding the microscopic makeup of the wooden desk i'm typing on is based on biology.



Furthur more I have learned to try not to argue science with you... but this is not a matter of science, but rather an application of what we find in science; Philosophy.


I don't think one needs to appeal to philosophy in fact generally i think you shouldn't appeal to philosophy unless you absolutely have to.

Science is simply a mechanism of examining the world around us, if we were created by some intelligent process the scientific method is in principle capable of revealing that along with information regarding the process itself (encapsulating the 'purpose' of humanity)

Govtcheez
12-08-2004, 10:36 AM
Why do you feel there needs to be a why? I've never seen a scientist striving to find empirical evidence that states humanity has some sort of higher purpose. We just are.

Dissata
12-08-2004, 04:38 PM
I don't think one needs to appeal to philosophy in fact generally i think you shouldn't appeal to philosophy unless you absolutely have to.

I kindly disagree! :p


Science is simply a mechanism of examining the world around us, if we were created by some intelligent process the scientific method is in principle capable of revealing that along with information regarding the process itself (encapsulating the 'purpose' of humanity)

Untrue. It could only observe what came about as a result of the outside process (One would have to assume that if one created something that the creation would not be the creator as that defies logic). For example, we can describe a painting because of its properties, we cannot know who the artist is based solely on the picture itself. But rather to know the painter we would have to know more than what the painting is. This is a weak summerization of the first book of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (The first book in no way promotes any form of religion but rather takes a direct approach of how we can know things.)




Why do you feel there needs to be a why? I've never seen a scientist striving to find empirical evidence that states humanity has some sort of higher purpose. We just are.

A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.

Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner.

You contradict yourself with your own question: "Why does there need to be a why" to ask a question such as that. Why is it that -insert fact here- is and what does that entail.


to Clyde: Science can open certain doors and close others as far as possibility of something (becasue it contradicts true science) but it cannot answer which possibility is correct.

Govtcheez
12-08-2004, 07:00 PM
> A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.

Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act.

Dissata
12-08-2004, 08:33 PM
> A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.

Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act.

which is the entire point I have been trying to get across...

Clyde
12-09-2004, 07:58 AM
Untrue. It could only observe what came about as a result of the outside process (One would have to assume that if one created something that the creation would not be the creator as that defies logic). For example, we can describe a painting because of its properties, we cannot know who the artist is based solely on the picture itself. But rather to know the painter we would have to know more than what the painting is. This is a weak summerization of the first book of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (The first book in no way promotes any form of religion but rather takes a direct approach of how we can know things.)


We can look at a painting determine it was painted by a painter, and then go looking for the painter. Both processes need be nothing but rational investigations with measures taken to avoid error.

Movements like ID try and demonstrate that life shows definable signs of intelligent design, the approach seems to be valid, it's just that it fails. _In principle_ it could have suceeded.

Science could _in principle_ discover lots about the intelligence involved, whether it be an alien race, or a single/multiple Gods. Prior to a decent understanding of cosmoloy people literally thought the kingdom heaven resided in the sky, in fact the first ever astronauts first words were (paraphrased) "there ain't no God up here", so again _in principle_ there could have been, the astronaut could have found heaven repleat with pearly gates, want to know about God? Just ask the angels standing around strumming their harps. It's just that's not what we found, that's not what science has found or is finding.



A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.


That's nonsense, atheists are as ethical as theists yet we do not buy into a cosmic "why". What's more that logic is horribly wrong: the validity of a "why" question in the manner you are referring to is dependent on the real nature of the universe around us (whether we do infact have a purpose is a factual question), that does not change just because we want to be able to use a system of ethics.



Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner


Again that's nonsense, do you see evolutionary biologists going around thieving, killing etc. etc. Dawkins is the most radical neo-Darwinist, evolutions greatest protagonist, the definition of atheism and yet a liberal.

Evolution tells us nothing what so ever about morality, evolution tells us simply how the phenotype of a species changes over time.



You contradict yourself with your own question: "Why does there need to be a why" to ask a question such as that. Why is it that -insert fact here- is and what does that entail.


That's wrong as well, as i pointed out earlier the question "why" can be taken in many different contexts, if i asked "Why is it you can't see the stars at night?" That "why" is NOT a 'purpose' "why" at all indeed your original question "why does the human race exist" can be taken in different ways.

The question "What reason is there for believeing that every phenomena has a purpose" is the same question Govt asked rephrased and is not contradictory at all.



Science can open certain doors and close others as far as possibility of something (becasue it contradicts true science) but it cannot answer which possibility is correct


In a sense that's true but i don't think its true for the reason your thinking of, science does not offer certainty as such one is only ever left with probable answers not definate ones, but there is no way of avoiding that and i don't see how that's relevent to our current discussion.

Govt writes



Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act


You reply



which is the entire point I have been trying to get across...


But you said



Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner.


Evolutionary biology is simply science. What's more i agree that science does not say anything directly about ethics (though science says stuff of relevence to ethics), but thats because we make ethics up, ethics are not aspects of the universe 'out there' they are social rules that we maintain, we can understand ethics from a sociobiological point of view, and that understanding might in part help us form new systems of ethics but ultimately ethics is not about the 'truth' and so science isn't directly involved.

Dissata
12-09-2004, 09:35 AM
That's nonsense, atheists are as ethical as theists yet we do not buy into a cosmic "why". What's more that logic is horribly wrong: the validity of a "why" question in the manner you are referring to is dependent on the real nature of the universe around us (whether we do infact have a purpose is a factual question), that does not change just because we want to be able to use a system of ethics.


and..


Again that's nonsense, do you see evolutionary biologists going around thieving, killing etc. etc. Dawkins is the most radical neo-Darwinist, evolutions greatest protagonist, the definition of atheism and yet a liberal.

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. 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 societies.


That's wrong as well, as i pointed out earlier the question "why" can be taken in many different contexts, if i asked "Why is it you can't see the stars at night?" That "why" is NOT a 'purpose' "why" at all indeed your original question "why does the human race exist" can be taken in different ways.


I apologize for not being very clear. I simply mean purpose as it is derived by a contingency of a world view.


The question "What reason is there for believeing that every phenomena has a purpose" is the same question Govt asked rephrased and is not contradictory at all.

To begin to answer this question we say what do we believe. If it is Atheistics then there seems to be no purpose, if it is Marxist, then the purpose seems to be destroying all theistic point of views and then evolve punctually into a true communistic society. If it is theistic, then the purpose is to do as the god of your beliefs wants.

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.


Evolutionary biology is simply science. What's more i agree that science does not say anything directly about ethics (though science says stuff of relevence to ethics), but thats because we make ethics up, ethics are not aspects of the universe 'out there' they are social rules that we maintain, we can understand ethics from a sociobiological point of view, and that understanding might in part help us form new systems of ethics but ultimately ethics is not about the 'truth' and so science isn't directly 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?

Essentially in my inability to communicate properly I have raised your gaurds about starting another "religious" thread or such... my apologies. 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. 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.

Dissata
12-09-2004, 09:43 AM
On a side note, I have a question and would like to hear an outside perspective before I formulate an opinion.

This is about an American political idea...

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.

Clyde
12-09-2004, 10:26 AM
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.

Clyde
12-09-2004, 10:32 AM
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.

Dissata
12-09-2004, 11:12 AM
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...

Clyde
12-09-2004, 12:31 PM
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.

DavidP
12-09-2004, 02:05 PM
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.

Dissata
12-09-2004, 02:22 PM
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...

Clyde
12-09-2004, 03:42 PM
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.

Govtcheez
12-09-2004, 03:57 PM
> 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....

Sang-drax
12-09-2004, 04:21 PM
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?

Philandrew
12-09-2004, 04:52 PM
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.

JaWiB
12-09-2004, 05:27 PM
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.

Govtcheez
12-09-2004, 05:38 PM
> 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-misconceptions.html#proof
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Zach L.
12-09-2004, 06:57 PM
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. :D :p

</random interlude>

Dissata
12-09-2004, 08:19 PM
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.

VirtualAce
12-09-2004, 10:04 PM
Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus, do some research.


After reading those links you might realize that the guy proves this by simply using a circular argument and attempting to redefine evolution giving it a much grander scope. So the end result is well if this is evolution and I know this happens, then the other must be as well even though I've never seen it nor have proof of it. Sorry I don't go along with that line of thinking.

But since I'm not a scientist I will discuss this from a (hopefully) well-studied theological standpoint. You might be surprised that I don't agree with the religious zealouts of the current day regarding this debate.

Creation/creationism is not science. Period
Fact is I don't think you can 'prove' creation ever. Not in a trillion years. Problem is that it requires faith to believe it which is why some never will. It's not really a science and I, for one, feel that it is a mute point. No one will ever prove Creation is true....they are not supposed to be able to.

Why creationism requires faith
In fact if we could prove Creation then a whole lot of things have to change. If you accept Creation then you must accept there is a God. Since creation is written in the Bible and you accept creation as true, then you must accept the Bible as true or at least the part about creation. If you accept the Bible as true then you must also accept what it says as true. If you accept what it says as true then a whole lot of other pre-suppositions must change as well......and it goes on from there. It is an invalid argument.

It's not designed so that all of a sudden something clicks and you suddenly believe creation over evolution. Your not ever going to find scientific evidence that automatically points to creation and stuns the entire world and changes their minds. It's just not going to happen.
In my mind creation and evolution are two different mindsets and they are diametrically opposed. If one exists then the other cannot.

Arguing creation as science is not even correct theologically, much less scientific.
From a theological standpoint debating creation as science is utterly absurd. I'll say it again. Creationism is not science. It never will be no matter how many organizations attempt to make it so. I feel they only hurt the Christian movement as a whole because they are arguing something from a scientific standpoint when it is not science. This separates everyone even farther because true scientists know how absurd it is to argue something scientifically when it's not science - thus making the creation 'scientists' look ridiculous. You will never accept/believe God or any of the Bible purely on mental assent. He obviously doesn't want it that way - it's about trust and faith - not about science. You don't approach God because you figured it all out - you approach Him because you need Him - He wants you to need and depend on Him essentially. If you are not prepared for that or prepared to submit to that kind of mindset or lifestyle - no amount of debating or quarelling will ever change your mind. It's useless. If this does not make sense then I suggest you study Christian Soteriology. But again this is a circular argument as well - attempting to prove a belief by studying works that were written by people of the belief. I can't really tell you it's even possible to study creation from an objective point of view. I don't think it's possible. It's impossible to separate creationism/creation from the religous mindset that it comes from. In other words you cannot say that at some point a non-believer will become one simply because some organization or some person has proven creation is true - not gonna happen. Creation cannot be separated from faith.

Conclusion
Creation as it is taught in that an all knowing Creator spoke it into existence in 6 days cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor can it ever be repeated, proven, tested, or demonstrated. Therefore it is falls in the category of faith and not science.



Now even though I believe Creation because of faith, I'm also intelligent enough to understand that it cannot be taught, presented, or argued as a science. Ever.

Govtcheez
12-10-2004, 07:00 AM
> You might be surprised that I don't agree with the religious zealouts of the current day regarding this debate.

C'mon, Bubba. Give me a little more credit than that. I'd be pretty surprised if you did agree with them.

> After reading those links you might realize that the guy proves this by simply using a circular argument and attempting to redefine evolution giving it a much grander scope

Could you give an example?

> In fact if we could prove Creation then a whole lot of things have to change. If you accept Creation then you must accept there is a God. Since creation is written in the Bible and you accept creation as true, then you must accept the Bible as true or at least the part about creation.

This only applies if you prove Biblical creation is true. What if any of the other multitudes of creation stories were proven true? What if we found out the Viking creation story was the real way it happened?

> I'm also intelligent enough to understand that it cannot be taught, presented, or argued as a science. Ever.

Please go to the various schoolboards around the country that are talking about teaching Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory and tell them that please :(

Clyde
12-10-2004, 11:30 AM
but then why must we coxist? at some time the question must be answered "Why should we live the way we do"


Evolution helped fashion ethics because coexisting benefits us as individuals, i didn't built the flat i live in or farm the food i eat, society is usefull.



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


Well i was saying that whilst people appeal to different theroretical frameworks, core ethics are not really reasoned out, they are ingrained through biological functionality and social upbringing, we only start thinking about the principles of ethics afterwards.



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.


Well the reason we protect non-schizophrenics from schizophrenics is because its the non-schizophrenics who need protecting.

To put it another way those who have a concept of ethics deem harming people wrong, ergo they try to prevent it by putting schizophrenics into mental institutes.

Dissata
12-10-2004, 11:43 AM
What I am saying is this: You could just as easily say that the non-scchizophrenics are the one harming the schizophrenics. Why not put them away? There does not seem to be a logical reason to put one group of people away vs. another based on that idea.

moreso, If two groups of people are brought up with to completely contradictory social upbringings. which one then is correct or which one would we adhere to as the predominate "moral code"

VirtualAce
12-10-2004, 05:28 PM
Please go to the various schoolboards around the country that are talking about teaching Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory and tell them that please
I wish I could. They wouldn't listen to me though. There are well-meaning radical zealots out there that simply are acting out of ignorance. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people in the church are very uneducated about what they believe or even what their denomination believes. Theology is hardly ever touched upon and so they resort to this radical hyped up bologna they call spirituality which is more akin to acting like a moron - which only hurts the church more and more and drives more and more people away from it. So many people in even my own church just tell me to accept whatever is said and 'forget' about my education. Sorry, charlie, I paid a lot of money for it and the stuff they taught me has helped me understand a great deal. I don't agree with about 80% of what I see on the TV concerning religion simply because most of it is pure hype...not even backed up by anything save for their charisma. My theo profs taught against this kind of absent minded radicalism and for good reason.

In fact my profs even warned, cautioned, and basically told us to stay away from the creationism movement. Not because we don't believe in creation but because we know according to the laws of science it cannot be studied as a science and therefore should not be presented in a scientific format.

There were also several theories brought up at my school concerning creation which most churches do not accept. The basic premise is that the word used for day in the actual Greek does not mean 'day' in our sense of the word. It truly means an undefined amount of time which could be a minute, an hour, or ten million years. So for me to attempt to prove God created the earth in six literal days flies in the face of Genesis itself - and then to be so arrogant as to calim to have found scientific proof of it when there is none is just utterly insane. In essence and according to hermenuetics of scripture I would be pulling something out of the passage that truly was not there - basically reading my own meaning into the passage with no thought or concern about the context of the passage, the context of the verses surrounding the passage, the historical setting of the book, the time in which the book was written, the people or audience that the book was written to, the personality traits of the author of the book, the nationality of the author of the book, etc., etc. A lot of study must be done in order to correctly interpret the meaning of a passage. And while some believe it cannot be done there truly is a science behind interpreting a passage. Of course none of us are the same two people so two different men might throw a different spin on the passage - but its core meaning should not change. It's kind of like C++. None of us use the same exact algorithms to get a certain task done. But we both end up solving the problem one way or another - so the core task or the core goal of our code is the same even though our code is not identical. We each throw our own little spin into how we arrive at the end result. That cannot be avoided with any author, much less biblical authors.

I see far too many times uneducated people attempting to teach and preach out of scripture when they truly have no clue about how to go about doing it. The end result is usually a lesson or message with about 50% truth in it, and 50% personal spin. Creationism is one of these areas for sure. So many people have put their own spin on it and have tried to use other passages to support their pre-suppositions.....but they all have failed miserably. Even in the church we do not agree in how many days or how long it took to create all of what we see and don't see so attempting to prove one aspect of that to the world using science even though the issue itself does not lend itself to scientific analysis is totally beyond comprehension. It's...well....stupid.

The more you study churches and religion in general the more common grounds you begin to find. On the surface you have all of these different sects and spinoffs and it can become quite confusing - but if you dig deep enough into the fundamentals you will begin to see a common thread and you will also begin to see those that deviate considerably from that common thread. I would call it a form of syncretism in that 50% of it looks really good and can be found in a passage, but the other 50% is way out in left field and can't be found anywhere except inside of the inventor's head. This is not a healthy way to present topics and issues found in the Bible and it certainly is not healthy presenting creation as a science. It's not healthy for the church nor is it healthy for people in general. It immediately gives the wrong impression to a great many people, some whom are extremely educated, and therefore nullifies all future arguments or claims.

Makes me mad really.

Even though you and I probably disagree about a great many things on a fundamental level, we can still discuss the issue at hand. I'm not offended by any of it and I don't wear my 'religion' on my shoulder so to say. I know what I believe and why I believe and I don't get mad when someone challenges that. In fact it is quite healthy I think. Some of my fellow church members however seem to get mad when they cannot find a good answer to a question that probably shakes their very belief system. It's simpy because way down deep.........they don't know what they believe. I really can't explain it any different than that. In C++ and programming in general I need proof of everything and every algo. Solid 100% empirical evidence that something works and I must know why. However when it comes to my faith this is simply not the case - after all if I had empirical evidence I really couldn't call it a faith anymore could I? And what would be special about my belief in something I had empirical evidence for - that's not faith - that's something that computes like mathematics or physics. We can all do that. It doesn't require belief, it just requires logic. But faith is one of those areas where logic fails and empirical evidence is just not the norm. It's just faith. If religious faith could be attained by mental assent and by proving this or that we would all be people of religous faith because all of us here on this board only believe something if it can be proven. If not then we don't accept it which is part of our very nature and which makes us unique. I know that if it all made sense we would all believe....but it does not make sense. A belief in something you cannot see, taste, feel, hear, or prove exists is definitely a faith.

So teaching creation is impossible without teaching faith. And since I do not feel that a school should be responsible for teaching faith I shudder at all of this nonsense about teaching creation as a science. It's ridiculous.

EDIT: And oops I forgot to show you evidence of the circular argument. Gimme some time and I'll re-read the information you presented and then give you my reasons for saying that. It's just circular because it is. j/k :D LOL.

And here I am cheez debating with you so eloquently reaching back into the dark cob-webbed recesses of my mind pulling out all my old college classes and lectures........and you can't even add to my rep? HAH. This debate is over. :) I'm not gonna do all this work for nothing....it feels too much like school.

Clyde
12-11-2004, 06:19 AM
What I am saying is this: You could just as easily say that the non-scchizophrenics are the one harming the schizophrenics. Why not put them away? There does not seem to be a logical reason to put one group of people away vs. another based on that idea.


Treating the schizophrenics in a special manner results in the least amount of suffering/harm. The non-schizophrenics buy into to this idea (or other ideas like justice/ something else) and out number the schizophrenics so thats what happens.



moreso, If two groups of people are brought up with to completely contradictory social upbringings. which one then is correct or which one would we adhere to as the predominate "moral code"


Well which one we would adhere to depends on which group we were part of.

When there are differences then i think people do fall back on the theoretical arguments they use to justify their ethics. The consistency and basis of the theoretical arguments used can be analysed, factual beliefs may play a part and can in principle be pointed out as rational or irrational (no, killing a child every month will not make it rain).