Philosophy Religion, science, and the problem of moral edicts made by the scientifically ignorant.

[Scottty]

I want you to re-read what you just said, and think of things from my perspective. Imagine if someone came along, and said this thing you enjoyed was wrong, or evil, and should be suppressed/abolished; and then, when you tried to defend it from what you saw as unjust accusations, they simply brushed your objections aside as "well, he's just addicted to it, we can safely ignore anything he has to say."
I suggest you look up argumentum ad hominem, because that's what you just did.

No it isn't. The focus of discussion there was not whether pornography is wrong, but whether it is addictive. Which is not the same concept.
Now what is the essential feature of addiction? Is it not that certainty on the part of the addict, that this is something that he or she cannot live without, and would sooner die than give up?

Of course I understand that one cannot cure people of an addiction merely by telling them that the thing they are addicted to is wrong, or even by declaring their addiction illegal. Don't confuse me with TNoL.

 

[Terthna]

You don't need to be a christian to respect and value christian morality and the bible as a foundation of the west either. What I am addressing is this.


Which by that logic, given the constitution is at least partially based in religion, our revolution is partially based in religion given we opened up with overtly talking about how God justifies our independence, that therefore must mean that America and the constitution is theocratic, or at least partially so. Do you agree with that?

My point is to show that you guys like politics that were absolutely influenced by religion. Therefore, you cannot just say "politics should always be divorced from religious belief, if you involve that in politics it makes you a theocrat." You are all dismissing us purely based on the fact that we have all made overt declarations of our faith, therefore our ideas have zero merit and can be dismissed because we have faith. All I want is you guys to acknowledge that faith influencing your politics isn't grounds for automatic dismissal of your argument, it doesn't make you a theocrat, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with religion influencing political beliefs.

I am not disputing that politics was influenced by religion, that would be foolish of me. I also acknowledge that faith influencing your politics isn't grounds for automatic dismissal of your argument (because that would be arguing in bad faith), it doesn't make you a theocrat (not necessarily at least), and that there is nothing inherently wrong with religion influencing political beliefs (because everything influences political beliefs).

I may fundamentally disagree with your beliefs, to the point where I find some of them downright immoral and unethical; but I am not and will never dismiss an argument, solely because it is of christian origin. I just think you're wrong.

No it isn't. The focus of discussion there was not whether pornography is wrong, but whether it is addictive. Which is not the same concept.
Now what is the essential feature of addiction? Is it not that certainty on the part of the addict, that this is something that he or she cannot live without, and would sooner die than give up?

Of course I understand that one cannot cure people of an addiction merely by telling them that the thing they are addicted to is wrong, or even by declaring their addiction illegal. Don't confuse me with TNoL.

I think it is, from my perspective at least. Everything can be addictive, from Legos to mayonnaise; that is a pointless argument to make. The argument, however, was never about that; but actually about how pornography is uniquely addictive, and destructive enough to warrant censure. I don't believe that it is; and accusing me of being addicted to it contributes nothing to the discussion, other than act as an attack on my character.

Now, am I addicted to porn? I don't know; maybe. But no more than I am addicted to watching anime, playing video games, listening to music, reading books, eating sandwiches, arguing about politics, and everything else I happen to enjoy indulging in regularly. Try to take any of those things away from me, and I'd react in exactly the same way.

 

[Bacle]

You know, I want to take this topic on a different track, and address the other type of example I made, the pork prohibition.

Because I realized there is another similar example to it; Hindi's and cows.

Now, the Hindi's excuse for not eating cows is a bit better than the Jewish and Islamic issues with pork, because the cow is a holy animal to them.

But it is another case of a moral directive being issued by people with no real scientific background, or reasoning to their dictate.

 

[FriedCFour]

You know, I want to take this topic on a different track, and address the other type of example I made, the pork prohibition.

Because I realized there is another similar example to it; Hindi's and cows.

Now, the Hindi's excuse for not eating cows is a bit better than the Jewish and Islamic issues with pork, because the cow is a holy animal to them.

But it is another case of a moral directive being issued by people with no real scientific background, or reasoning to their dictate.

There's a lot of reasoning. You just don't care to understand any of it, because apparently morality needs to be based in "science" whatever that means. They aren't excuses, they are a part of their religion and world view.

 

[Deleted member]

You know, I want to take this topic on a different track, and address the other type of example I made, the pork prohibition.

Because I realized there is another similar example to it; Hindi's and cows.

Now, the Hindi's excuse for not eating cows is a bit better than the Jewish and Islamic issues with pork, because the cow is a holy animal to them.

But it is another case of a moral directive being issued by people with no real scientific background, or reasoning to their dictate.

The reasoning is religious and it never intends to be otherwise. Mother Cow is a symbol of all the necessities of Life that she provides, so honouring her is equivalent to honouring life itself. It’s a story of religious virtue and respect for creation in a rule.

There's a lot of reasoning. You just don't care to understand any of it, because apparently morality needs to be based in "science" whatever that means. They aren't excuses, they are a part of their religion and world view.

Exactly. Trying to understand religion through empiricism is, to paraphrase/quote The Clear Recital, like peeling away all the layers of an onion to find the truth only to find nothing within: The Truth was between every layer.

 

[FriedCFour]

Exactly. Trying to understand religion through empiricism is, to paraphrase/quote The Clear Recital, like peeling away all the layers of an onion to find the truth only to find nothing within: The Truth was between every layer.

Even just trying to understand morality through science is slamming a square peg into a round hole over and over again. Science can tell you absolutely nothing about the value of human life, for example. It can tell you all the biological functions, its gestation period, average life span, way it ends, you cannot possibly use science to give you a value of a human being though. The most basic moral questions cannot be answered through science.

 

[Terthna]

Even just trying to understand morality through science is slamming a square peg into a round hole over and over again. Science can tell you absolutely nothing about the value of human life, for example. It can tell you all the biological functions, its gestation period, average life span, way it ends, you cannot possibly use science to give you a value of a human being though. The most basic moral questions cannot be answered through science.

And yet, to people like me and Bacle, the same can be said of religion. The difference is, at least science is honest about the questions it cannot answer, and doesn't tell you lies so that you can feel better believing them.

This is not to say that everything religion has to offer is a lie, because most of it has kernels of truth scattered throughout; like with the prohibition against the eating of pork, which was simply considered unsafe to eat at the time, and it was decided that they should tell people god said they're not allowed to eat pork. Because trying to explain it any other way would have run into issues of noncompliance; either due to them not understanding, or not believing you. I'd imagine we'd have far less anti-vaxxers today, if we were to make them believe that god said they'd burn for eternity if they didn't take their vaccines.

 

[FriedCFour]

And yet, to people like me and Bacle, the same can be said of religion. The difference is, at least science is honest about the questions it cannot answer, and doesn't tell you lies so that you can feel better believing them.

No, religion can easily guide morality. It is literally impossible to use science to make for morality. Just try and answer the trolly problem using only science. Go on.

 

[Bacle]

No, religion can easily guide morality. It is literally impossible to use science to make for morality. Just try and answer the trolly problem using only science. Go on.

You only need math to solve the trolley problem, not religiously based morality.

1 dead vs 10 dead is stupid simple math.

Also, science doesn't need to hijack holidays or convert people via the sword. Or guilt trip people over the actions of people thousands of years ago.

 

[Terthna]

No, religion can easily guide morality. It is literally impossible to use science to make for morality. Just try and answer the trolly problem using only science. Go on.

I just said science is honest about the questions it cannot answer; why are you acting as if I said it had all the answers? The question of what is moral is one best posed to philosophers, not scientists. As for religion guiding morality, "because god said so" is not an answer, it's a threat.

You only need math to solve the trolley problem, not religiously based morality.

1 dead vs 10 dead is stupid simple math.

Also, science doesn't need to hijack holidays or convert people via the sword. Or guilt trip people over the actions of people thousands of years ago.

Well sure, if you're going to approach it from the perspective of utilitarianism; but there's also other perspectives to consider. The facts are the facts, true; but how you act on those facts is another issue entirely. What is also a fact is that by pulling the lever, you become responsible for the death of that one person, who would otherwise have not died; some would argue that, by not pulling the lever, the result is not something you are responsible for.

 

[Deleted member]

You only need math to solve the trolley problem, not religiously based morality.

1 dead vs 10 dead is stupid simple math.

That's called Utilitarianism, which is a Philosophy not related to Mathematics or Science.

Also, science doesn't need to hijack holidays or convert people via the sword. Or guilt trip people over the actions of people thousands of years ago.

Like Communism, the so-called "scientific socialism", systematically altered how it taught thousands of years of history to promote to people that it was inevitable, and forced kulaks onto collective farms with the sword, and atheisized holidays like Christmas to forcibly promote the New Soviet Man?

 

[FriedCFour]

You only need math to solve the trolley problem, not religiously based morality.

1 dead vs 10 dead is stupid simple math.

Also, science doesn't need to hijack holidays or convert people via the sword. Or guilt trip people over the actions of people thousands of years ago.

What is the value of 1 life vs 10 lives. How do they all have equal value? Scientifically show the value in a human life.

Also, you are effectively paraphrasing stalinists and maoist talking points right now, and its not science vs religion. The vast majority of scientists were religious.

 

[Bacle]

I just said science is honest about the questions it cannot answer; why are you acting as if I said it had all the answers? The question of what is moral is one best posed to philosophers, not scientists. As for religion guiding morality, "because god said so" is not an answer, it's a threat.

Exactly. Science doesn't have all the answers, but at least it's honest about that fact.

Well sure, if you're going to approach it from the perspective of utilitarianism; but there's also other perspectives to consider. The facts are the facts, true; but how you act on those facts is another issue entirely. What is also a fact is that by pulling the lever, you become responsible for the death of that one person, who would otherwise have not died; some would argue that, by not pulling the lever, the result is not something you are responsible for.

You say utilitarianism, I say basic common sense.

People are going to die either way, so might as well minimize the body count.

That's called Utilitarianism, which is a Philosophy not related to Mathematics or Science.



Like Communism, the so-called "scientific socialism", systematically altered how it taught thousands of years of history to promote to people that it was inevitable, and forced kulaks onto collective farms with the sword, and atheisized holidays like Christmas to forcibly promote the New Soviet Man?

Yes, because if you want morality separate from religion, of course communism or socialism is the only answer.

Can you strawman what I've said any harder?

What is the value of 1 life vs 10 lives. How do they all have equal value? Scientifically show the value in a human life.

10 is greater than 1, basic fucking math.

Trying to drag me down that philosophical rabbit hole of 'value of a life' isn't a game I'm going to play.

 

[FriedCFour]

10 is greater than 1, basic fucking math.

But why does that matter?

Trying to drag me down that philosophical rabbit hole of 'value of a life' isn't a game I'm going to play.

Im trying to explain why science has nothing to do with morality. What games will you play?

 

[Bacle]

But why does that matter?

10 lives, 10 families, 10 futures vs 1 life, 1 family, 1 future

I do not need any religion or 'labelled' philosophy to tell me why saving 10 lives is better than saving 1.

Im trying to explain why science has nothing to do with morality. What games will you play?

I won't play philosophical games that are more about navel gazing and virtue signalling than about common sense and practicality.

 

[FriedCFour]

10 lives, 10 families, 10 futures vs 1 life, 1 family, 1 future

I do not need any religion or 'labelled' philosophy to tell me why saving 10 lives is better than saving 1.

So what you are going with is a gut feeling that all lives are equal, which is decidedly unscientific, and is likely something you've absorbed culturally through christianity, as it is relatively unique in ascribing all humans equal value.

I won't play philosophical games that are more about navel gazing and virtue signalling than about common sense and practicality.

But do you still think you can arrive at moral conclusions with science? Or would you rather just call me a fundie and tell me my morality and religion is somehow in conflict with a document made by men who prayed daily for guidance from God in writing it?

 

[Terthna]

You say utilitarianism, I say basic common sense.

People are going to die either way, so might as well minimize the body count.

But why are they going to die; who tied them to that track? That's what I think about, when it comes to thought experiments; what sort of monster would do that to people, and how could such a situation have been prevented from happening in the first place?

When it comes to the decision itself, I would simply refuse to make one. Because by making a decision, to doom one to save five, I would be assuming responsibility for the result, and absolving whoever set up that situation of at least some of the guilt.

 

[Scottty]

Taking your unexamined intuitions and declaring them "science"?

The Trolly Problem gets more interesting if we add ways in which the people on the tracks are not equal.

 

[Lanmandragon]

You only need math to solve the trolley problem, not religiously based morality.

1 dead vs 10 dead is stupid simple math.

Also, science doesn't need to hijack holidays or convert people via the sword. Or guilt trip people over the actions of people thousands of years ago.

That 1 is your mom and the 10 are total strangers. You can hear her crying and begging you specifically to save her. Not just easy math now.

 

[Bacle]

But why are they going to die; who tied them to that track? That's what I think about, when it comes to thought experiments; what sort of monster would do that to people, and how could such a situation have been prevented from happening in the first place?

When it comes to the decision itself, I would simply refuse to make one. Because by making a decision, to doom one to save five, I would be assuming responsibility for the result, and absolving whoever set up that situation of at least some of the guilt.

I get where you are coming from with that answer, but 1 vs 5 or 1 vs 10 is still something where I will always pick the 5 or 10 over the 1.

That 1 is your mom and the 10 are total strangers. You can hear her crying and begging you specifically to save her. Not just easy math now.

Well considering:

A) My mother died in October.
B) She would have never asked me to save her over 5 or 10 other people.
C) I would never put the lives of any family members of mine over 5 or 10 strangers.

My decision is still the same.