Author | Thread |
|
12/03/2005 02:51:01 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: I'll give this one more try. I think I'm talking past you two at this point. Perhaps our worldviews are so different we can't begin to understand the other position. |
Exactly. The end.
|
|
|
12/03/2005 02:54:33 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by wavelength: Originally posted by DrAchoo: I'll give this one more try. I think I'm talking past you two at this point. Perhaps our worldviews are so different we can't begin to understand the other position. |
Exactly. The end. |
Wave, I went to a LOT of trouble in the wee hours to back up your assertions re: quantum mechanics and "truth". Perhaps a nod in passing to acknowledge my labors? Even though that aspect of the htread has dropped like a lead balloon? Do I get credit for a partial thread-kill here? jejejeâ¢
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 14:54:48. |
|
|
12/03/2005 02:57:05 PM · #128 |
Oh, yes, I did intend to send you a PM. Wonderful stuff Bear, I really couldn't have explained it better myself. :o)
|
|
|
12/03/2005 03:33:17 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: I'll give this one more try. I think I'm talking past you two at this point. Perhaps our worldviews are so different we can't begin to understand the other position. |
That may be so about our understanding. I understand your arguments and would argue them that:
"If we say that morality is "outside God", then we are saying there is something God did not create and why not make that thing God instead of our current one?"
If you are calling God the creator, why did morality have to be created by anything other than humans? If you are calling God another name for the absolute moral truth - well that's fine - that's semantics and we aren't talking about a Christian God or a Greek God. We are talking about a thought process - morality. Is God = absolute morality? That's a definition we could set, but then God =/= Jesus' father.
Originally posted by DrAchoo: At the same time, it is logically consistent to say:
a) Zud exists and he is the source of morality.
b) My morality is closer to Zud's than your's.
c) My morality is better than your's. |
It's logically consistent if a and b are true, C is true - I don't disagree. It's based on the truth of the first two - so C isn't true unless you can PROVE that a and b, specifically a. You can be logically consistent and be wrong.
Originally posted by DrAchoo: This reality either contains a personal God who is the source of morality or it doesn't. |
Defining God as absolute morality, yes it does. Defining God as the creator - well that's a different argument.
Originally posted by DrAchoo: If it doesn't, then it also doesn't matter one wit, there is no God who is the seat of morality. |
The mixing of God and "absolute morality" as a definition of God is what is confusing in your argument. If you define God as absolute morality of COURSE your argument is true - but what does it mean? Absolute morality = absolute morality. So? That doesn't answer why it has to be something outside of humanity that created it.
----
The problem, Dr. isn't that I disagree with what you said - as long as you are defining "God" as "Absolute morality"
This:
"If we say that morality is "outside God", then we are saying there is something God did not create and why not make that thing God instead of our current one?"
If we make absolute morality God, then both God and absolute morality exist. I agree. But why make a leap that's unnecessary? Why "name" morality God? It's possible I suppose, but again, it's semantics. God to most people means a creator - some "power" that we should all fear and respect and worship. Why? Why "worship" morality? Definitions are where things get tricky and you are right when you said we may never be able to explain our views to the other - I don't think you're confusing, I think you're confusing the issue. lol
At any rate - that's about it for me as well. I don't have a need to be summarily dismissed any longer. :) If we are not listening, or capable of listening, we simply are not.
|
|
|
12/03/2005 03:51:43 PM · #130 |
I get a better idea now of what you mean. I'll agree that a god and morality can be separated. An impersonal god could be the creator of the universe, but like the blind watchmaker, wind his invention and just let it be. Such a god would not be the seat of morality and thus we would be back in the position I place secularists.
I guess, at the bottom, I would consider morality to be "how one interacts with another properly". This is why I would say for God to be the seat of morality, he needs to interact with us. In this way we have an example to judge by, like a child watching a parent.
Anyway, I think this is the longest thread I've seen on this site that hasn't degraded into a flame war and yet still discussed something of consequence. Bravo to all. These are all big questions and I don't pretend to be the cornerstone of truth.
I leave you with another ethical question:
Let's say you are having a really bad day. You click on to DPC and start voting on pictures. The pictures are excellent and far better than you could ever hope to acheive. The one you are currently looking at, for example, is wonderful, but doesn't the model look like that woman who cut you off on the way home? You see your own entry is sitting at a 3.9.
Are you justified in voting 1?
;) (that was satire for those who didn't recognize it...) |
|
|
12/03/2005 03:58:20 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by bear_music: [snip]
Furthermore, no matter how much we BELIEVE in our own "system", we cannot prove the system by using the system itself to generate a proof; the proof (if indeed it exists) has to come from outside the system. All logical systems are self-referential; you have to accept their premises on faith, because you cannot prove any system's postulates from within the system.
[snip]
But that's not the only geometry. There are other, non-Euclidean geometries, and they have different postulates and they are internally consistent and they have specific, real-world uses that are valid; they are also "true". Two of these geometries are Spherical Geometry and Hyperbolic Geometry. And they do not agree with Euclidean Geometry. In fact, they cannot be brought into agreement with it, because they use different postulates. And in terms of Euclidean Geometry, of course, Spherical Geometry is not "true" (and vice versa) but they coexist in the real world with practical applications of each evident everywhere. These are coexistent truths.
You might say "Yes, but that's math, and we're not talking about math!" just as you did, basically, about Quantum Mechanics. But math is the language that we use to describe reality, and it is a much more precise language than words can ever be. Physicists are now working at deeper and deeper levels to understand the underlying basis of material reality, and it is simply TRUE, whether you and I can comprehend it or not, that at a core level "reality" is based on uncertainty, and this has profound implications for the nature of "truth" as we conceive it.
Robt. |
I actually agree with you about self-referential systems in as much as Iâve read on the topic. I also have a copy of Douglas Hofstadterâs Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid sitting on my shelf. (Though, admittedly, I do have to go back and reread through the first half of the book and continue on from where I left off when I moved on to other things during my first reading.)
The point I eventually planned to lead to before you caused me skip ahead in my argument has to do with wavelengthâs assertion that âquantum physics prove that only and (sic) outside observer to space-time can prove truthâ and that âpure truth can only come from ⦠God.â Wouldnât you agree that, since the only evidence we have for the asserted existence of an external entity to our universe (âGodâ) exists only, as far as we are able to tell, within the self-referential system itself, any claims with regard to âpure truthâ imparted by an external entity made within the system itself are fundamentally flawed? We are unable to step out of the system and all known claims to knowledge from outside the system come from within the system itself. Any claims to âpure truthâ from outside the system made within in the system are, by their nature of being made within the system, unreliable. The claims may, in fact, be âtrueâ, but we are unable to tell if they are or not due to the closed nature of the system.
|
|
|
12/03/2005 04:03:25 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Anyway, I think this is the longest thread I've seen on this site that hasn't degraded into a flame war and yet still discussed something of consequence. Bravo to all. These are all big questions and I don't pretend to be the cornerstone of truth. |
We don't need to flame - we just disagree. We are logically consistent in both of our heads and probably both decent humans by a fair standard. :)
I agree - they are big questions and I am not the cornerstone of the truth either. I do not make such pretenses at grandeur - just a line into a different realm of reasoning.
|
|
|
12/03/2005 04:06:55 PM · #133 |
mavrik -- I gotta ask, what is a RamaChristian. I have never seen or heard the term before, and I googled it and still couldn't find anything (though admittedly found a couple of other interesting sites).
And I'm not asking him so that this thread can degenerate into a this religion vs that one, I genuinely want to know 'cause that is one I've never heard of before. (If you want to argue about religion, go to another rant. ;) ).
If you want, you can pm me so that this doesn't hijack the thread.
And I'm glad to see it hasn't turned into one of those big ole nasty arguments too. Good questions, and I've enjoyed/learned from each of the responses.
edited to add -- Maybe I need to move this to General Discussion. hahahah
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 16:07:35. |
|
|
12/03/2005 04:10:08 PM · #134 |
Karma - it's a term I made up so you can't find it.
RamaKRISHNA was a philosopher/writer who wrote about many paths to reach the same summit - you can take a lot of views of the world and maybe everyone is partially correct. I agree.
I changed it to RamaChristian because I grew up with Christian stories. When I explain things, I can do so via the Bible or via refuting the Bible. My background IS christian. So in a fun wordplay, I call myself a RamaChristian. Cuz that's who I am. :)
M
|
|
|
12/03/2005 04:15:26 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by mavrik: Karma - it's a term I made up so you can't find it.
RamaKRISHNA was a philosopher/writer who wrote about many paths to reach the same summit - you can take a lot of views of the world and maybe everyone is partially correct. I agree.
I changed it to RamaChristian because I grew up with Christian stories. When I explain things, I can do so via the Bible or via refuting the Bible. My background IS christian. So in a fun wordplay, I call myself a RamaChristian. Cuz that's who I am. :)
M |
I kinda suspected something like that. I knew the Rama part. And I knew the Christian part. I just didn't know the two went together.
Okay, so my knowledge of little known religious beliefs isn't lacking. Thanks for answering.
;)
Back to your regularly scheduled rant. |
|
|
12/03/2005 04:17:53 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by mavrik: Karma - it's a term I made up so you can't find it.
RamaKRISHNA was a philosopher/writer who wrote about many paths to reach the same summit - you can take a lot of views of the world and maybe everyone is partially correct. I agree.
I changed it to RamaChristian because I grew up with Christian stories. When I explain things, I can do so via the Bible or via refuting the Bible. My background IS christian. So in a fun wordplay, I call myself a RamaChristian. Cuz that's who I am. :)
M |
AKA - Unitarian Universalist Church. Everybody's right! Lets go have some beers! Yay!
|
|
|
12/03/2005 04:42:59 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by wavelength: AKA - Unitarian Universalist Church. Everybody's right! Lets go have some beers! Yay! |
Bingo! I go to a UU church. Treat people nicely. Be good. Respect other people's beliefs. Let's get a beer!
My name for it - "To Whom It May Concern Church"
|
|
|
12/03/2005 05:00:46 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by mavrik: Originally posted by wavelength: AKA - Unitarian Universalist Church. Everybody's right! Lets go have some beers! Yay! |
Bingo! I go to a UU church. Treat people nicely. Be good. Respect other people's beliefs. Let's get a beer!
My name for it - "To Whom It May Concern Church" |
When I was little I thought it meant you got everyone's holidays off from school ... |
|
|
12/03/2005 07:10:04 PM · #139 |
OK, this is only a joke so don't jump all over me!
Q - How do you get a Unitarian Universalist out of your neighborhood?
A - Burn a question-mark on their fromt lawn................. |
|
|
12/03/2005 07:14:39 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by frychikn: OK, this is only a joke so don't jump all over me!
Q - How do you get a Unitarian Universalist out of your neighborhood?
A - Burn a question-mark on their fromt lawn................. |
ROFL
I'll ask RevDave if he's ever heard that one. :)
M
|
|
|
12/03/2005 07:17:33 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by frychikn: OK, this is only a joke so don't jump all over me!
Q - How do you get a Unitarian Universalist out of your neighborhood?
A - Burn a question-mark on their fromt lawn................. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LMAO |
|
|
12/03/2005 08:56:45 PM · #142 |
Interesting reading. The thread needs a photo...
 |
|
|
12/03/2005 09:48:12 PM · #143 |
Take the drug and send him a $200 hooker. |
|
|
12/03/2005 10:22:47 PM · #144 |
I looked back through the thread and I realized that no one had brought up what the impetus was behind the problem posed before the forum. I remember reading and discussing it in either my Psychology or Sociology 101 course in college. The problem is called âHeinz Steals the Drugâ and was developed by the psychologist/philosopher Lawrence Kohlberg to study the stages of moral development in children and adolescents â an expansion of the work done by child psychologist Jean Piaget.
For Kohlberg, how someone answers whether âHeinzâ should have stolen the drug is secondary to the reasoning behind the answer. âYes. Heinz was justified in stealing the drug because â¦.â or âNo. Heinz was not justified in stealing the drug because â¦â Kohlberg then divided the reasoning into the following six stages of moral development (which he later modified):
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) (up to age 9)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
Level 2 (Conventional) (age nine+ to adolescence)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(a.k.a. The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(a.k.a. Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional) (adulthood)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
Here is a site which discusses his work and what is meant by the above list in more detail:
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Disclaimer: I have not read through the above link in its entirety, so I make no claims as to its accuracy and, having written this post, I feel the need to add the Kohlberg is not without his critics whose arguments can be found through a quick internet search.
|
|
|
12/03/2005 10:46:50 PM · #145 |
@Milo655321
I believe my teacher used this question as a segway into Kohlberg's stages, we havnt actually learned them, nor his reasoning, but that should be coming up in the next weeek.
Thanks for the link, will read. |
|
|
12/03/2005 10:48:10 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by maxj: @Milo655321
I believe my teacher used this question as a segway into Kohlberg's stages, we havnt actually learned them, nor his reasoning, but that should be coming up in the next weeek.
Thanks for the link, will read. |
"Segway" is an alternative means of personal locomotion. "Segue" is the word you're looking for.
R. |
|
|
12/03/2005 11:16:46 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Segway" is an alternative means of personal locomotion. "Segue" is the word you're looking for.
R. |
haha, thank you very much. |
|
|
12/04/2005 10:51:56 AM · #148 |
|
|
12/04/2005 11:53:16 AM · #149 |
|
|
12/04/2005 12:01:18 PM · #150 |
Sitting here today, I'd have to say I would not condone the man's actions if he stole the medicine (much like I didn't condone the actions of the looters after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) but I can understand that necessity overrides logic many times. That being said...if it were my child who needed medicine and would die without it, I'd steal it if I couldn't find a way to pay for it. I'd rather go to jail that watch one of my children suffer. I'm sure that's flawed logic and I'll burn in hell or something for saying it, but I doubt there are other mothers on this site that wouldn't agree with me.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:15:28 AM EDT.