Is Science Broken?

[seer]

Who has the power and authority to break Creation and Humanity?

That is not the point Shuny, you asked why we got off the topic of this thread - it was in large part due to you. And and again, men either have the God given freedom to disobey God or god created us to murder, rob, steal and lie. That is your position - not mine.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the point Shuny, you asked why we got off the topic of this thread - it was in large part due to you. And and again, men either have the God given freedom to disobey God or god created us to murder, rob, steal and lie. That is your position - not mine.

You liked the diversion. Of course God gave the freedom to disobey God, but that is God's choice and nothing is broken.

Creation, humanity and science has never been and never will be broken. Problems in science have been corrected using the methods of science in the past, present and future. The track record of science is good and the knowledge of science increases with time.

[seer]

You liked the diversion. Of course God gave the freedom to disobey God, but that is God's choice and nothing is broken.

It is broke when we choose not to follow the law of God.

Creation, humanity and science has never been and never will be broken.

Ok, then when men rob, murder and rape they are doing what God intended, what God created them to do.

[shunyadragon]

It is broke when we choose not to follow the law of God.

Your hedging, Of course when humans choose not follow the law of God, they break the law of God. That does not translate into a broken humanity nor Creation.

Ok, then when men rob, murder and rape they are doing what God intended, what God created them to do.

OK, if you believe that, that's your problem!!!!

I do not believe that.

[seer]

Your hedging, Of course when humans choose not follow the law of God, they break the law of God. That does not translate into a broken humanity nor Creation.

OK, if you believe that, that's your problem!!!!

I do not believe that.

You do not believe what? I say that God does not want men to misuse their freedom, and sin. You say what? That God does want men to misuse their freedom and sin? And when they sin, is that what God intended for humanity?

[shunyadragon]

You do not believe what? I say that God does not want men to misuse their freedom, and sin. You say what? That God does want men to misuse their freedom and sin? And when they sin, is that what God intended for humanity?

No, I never in any post claimed that God wants men to sin. Please reread my posts based on what I said, and not what you claim I said.

[seer]

No, I never in any post claimed that God wants men to sin. Please reread my posts based on what I said, and not what you claim I said.

OK, is sin is not brokenness then what exactly is it? Wholeness?

[shunyadragon]

OK, is sin is not brokenness then what exactly is it? Wholeness?

Neither! In a previous post I cited a Baha'i reference concerning this. You at times selectively cite the Baha'i writings, but apparently do not read what I post. I may cite it again.

[seer]

Neither! In a previous post I cited a Baha'i reference concerning this. You at times selectively cite the Baha'i writings, but apparently do not read what I post. I may cite it again.

Either men are doing what God intends when he sins or he is not doing what God intends. Which is it?

[Carrikature]

Well you have never been clear to me in the past - if memory serves. So what do you believe?

Just a general link for reference: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html

Axioms:
#1: The intent of ethical discussions is to establish a set of universal behavioral guidelines.
#2: Proposed guidelines should entail actions that people can and will follow.
#3: Individuals seek to preserve their own life and maintain their autonomy.
#4: Individuals do not have innate obligations to other individuals.
#5: All actions have consequences.
#6: Values and priorities vary from person to person.
#7: Self-defeating actions should not be pursued.


The primary approach to normative ethics boils down to three types: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics. Deontology fails primarily because it violates Axiom #4. The exception here is Natural Rights Theory, which I think is mostly on the right track but violates #1. Consequentialism violates #1 and #2, though the principles of utilitarianism are used in day to day life. As a descriptive system, it mostly works. As a normative system, it ends up failing. Virtue Ethics violates #1. As much as I think eudaimonia is a general goal, it's more or less impossible to establish its form to meet #1. The same goes for any other system of virtues. That said, I think the bigger problem here isn't the virtues themselves but what they look like in practice. Common sense refers to an assumed set of shared values and behaviors, but that assumption is often downright wrong.

I reject objective moral claims at least in part because they ignore situational nuances. The classic question asks if it's ok to lie to a Nazi soldier about the fugitives you're hiding. The OT prohibition is on murder, but murder is another way of saying unjustified killing. We can look at self-defense and possibly Just War as a means for justifying killing in certain cases. Those justifications are far from universally recognized, though, which violates Axiom #1. Ideas like consequentialism and the categorical imperative work in principle but not in practice. Consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, have even more problems since they're effectively impossible to assess in real time. Even Divine Command Theory has its problems, which Leonhard illustrated earlier in this thread. For that matter, Leon's posts detailed very well the general issues with objective moral claims from a theistic viewpoint. I don't think it works the way most people want/need it to, and I certainly don't think theistic support of objective claims meets Axiom #1 (even if we granted Christianity).

I don't usually like using keywords, but I'll do so here for the sake of brevity. You could consider me a moral anti-realist of the non-cognitivist (expressivist) persuasion. Use the link for those terms. You could consider me an existentialist without all the angst. Both of those reasonably approach my take on things.

Ultimately the breakdown in ethical philosophy, in my opinion, is in the way we communicate. There are tons of unstated value and priority statements rolled into "ought", but they're never stated. Frankly, you might even be aware of those statements yourself, especially if you live among people who roughly share the same values and priorities you do. This is where people shift into moral relativism thinking that moral right can only be determined in terms of culture. They mistakenly think that values and priorities are established by a society rather than at an individual level. Obviously your culture influences your personal values/priorities, but they are not identical.

The system I prefer is fairly simple. The first step is to determine your values and priorities (#6). One should then evaluate methods for achieving them. Special consideration should be given to #5, particularly in light of #3 and #6. When your actions infringe upon other people, those people will react against you. Things like murder and theft quickly engender incarceration (at best), which violates your own #3. Such actions are effectively self-defeating, which violates #7. It's useful to have some general understanding of what values/priorities other people hold. These are pretty basic and fairly universal:



And that's pretty much it. By basing the guidelines on your own values and priorities, I'm ensuring that #1 and #2 are met. Nothing is explicitly required of an individual, so #4 is met. Ideally, you'll work through your values and priorities ahead of time to help you follow them in the moment. That's the real trick of proper behavior, anyway.

Then what is the reason for morality if not for survival?

The governing of interactions between members of a population. That includes, but is not limited to, ensuring survival.

That is not the point, but it is obvious that in the animal kingdom the weak and infirmed are allowed to die. And why is more reproduction the goal? What if that causes resources to become scarce and lead to wide spread starvation? But my point is and was - actual behaviors are incidental to the whole discussion of survival. Which was Jon's point.

I don't know that we can say reproduction is the goal. It's certainly the ultimate test of environmental fitness, though. A species that does not manage to reproduce is a species that ceases to exist.

Some behaviors may be incidental to survival, but others definitely are not. If kindness and altruism increase reproductive success, we will see those behaviors proliferate. That seems to be what JonF was actually saying.

[seer]

Just a general link for reference: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html


And that's pretty much it. By basing the guidelines on your own values and priorities, I'm ensuring that #1 and #2 are met. Nothing is explicitly required of an individual, so #4 is met. Ideally, you'll work through your values and priorities ahead of time to help you follow them in the moment. That's the real trick of proper behavior, anyway.

OK, thank you sharing your views. I'm not sure what value they have though. How your view is meaningful beyond it being your personal preference? And couldn't all that you said be encapsulated in the Golden Rule? I have often said on these boards Carrikature that mankind has never been bereft of good moral theories, getting men to follow them has always been the trick. So going forward we could consider you a "moral anti-realist of the non-cognitivist (expressivist) persuasion" even though you really don't care for the label.

The governing of interactions between members of a population. That includes, but is not limited to, ensuring survival.


I don't know that we can say reproduction is the goal. It's certainly the ultimate test of environmental fitness, though. A species that does not manage to reproduce is a species that ceases to exist.

Well that was Jon's point, that it all was in service of reproduction.

Some behaviors may be incidental to survival, but others definitely are not. If kindness and altruism increase reproductive success, we will see those behaviors proliferate. That seems to be what JonF was actually saying.

Yes, and like I said if removing the weak and infirmed, or allowing them to die because resources have become scarce then in that context it would be "good." And Leonhard did not stop at the Divine Command Theory, he went on to explain his view - which I assume you had no real problem with since you only briefly touched on eudaimonia. I think that could be fleshed out more, especially as related to the first axiom.

The system I prefer is fairly simple. The first step is to determine your values and priorities (#6). One should then evaluate methods for achieving them. Special consideration should be given to #5, particularly in light of #3 and #6. When your actions infringe upon other people, those people will react against you. Things like murder and theft quickly engender incarceration (at best), which violates your own #3. Such actions are effectively self-defeating, which violates #7. It's useful to have some general understanding of what values/priorities other people hold. These are pretty basic and fairly universal...

How for instance was it self-defeating for the Europeans in what they did to the Native Americans?

[shunyadragon]

Either men are doing what God intends when he sins or he is not doing what God intends. Which is it?

Neither, humans have the will, to some extent free, to obey God's will, and disobey God's will. This is the nature of human existence as God intended. It is not broken.

[shunyadragon]

How for instance was it self-defeating for the Europeans in what they did to the Native Americans?

The unfortunate destructive Christian Manifest Destiny

[seer]

Neither, humans have the will, to some extent free, to obey God's will, and disobey God's will. This is the nature of human existence as God intended. It is not broken.

If human nature is as God intended then that includes sin, since human nature includes sin. In other words when men sin, I say that are not doing what God intends, what do you say?

[seer]

The unfortunate destructive Christian Manifest Destiny

Nonsense, where does the New Testament say that? And it was widely disputed in its time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

And as usual your weak and insipid attack on Christianity had nothing to do with my discussion with Carrikature.