We cannot live by scepticism alone

_{Mario Lopez

March 5, 2009

Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Comments

"So what would have to change in the future to make you, jerry, change your mind?" Maybe some evidence which you and many others like yourself have said exists but which they can never present. Or is all that you have is just some teapot orbiting earth. That is what it looks like to me. George you are just like all the rest who have come here. All talk but no walk. Come back when you have some evidence or you find your teapot somewhere between here and Mars. Good luck and keep the faith. Someday someone might find some evidence to support your beliefs.jerry_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB, if your 15 minutes are not up, could you do me the favor of linking to your proof of the truth of objective morality? The philosophical world and I thank you in advance.David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Ah George, I have only about fifteen minutes and, alas I must return to duty. -----“And you call that book “the bad behaviour book” do you?” Bad behavior book? It is a book of good and bad behavior. Obviously, it begins with very bad behavior, it is called the “fall.” -----“And you know that Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament quoted extensively from the OT text too? Hardly what you would expect if it was “all bad”, is it?” Well, yes, the Old Testament contains prefigured typologies of Christ and the apostles so naturally they would quote from it. The book does, after all, contain 459 prophecies about Christ, so it makes sense to refer to it. Also, it does reveal the natural moral law in its own way. It is, after all, celebrated as the word of god. It is not, therefore, “the book of bad behavior,” so to speak. It is a record of salvation history, which must deal with and address bad behavior. It is a very good book and a very holy book, it just happens to deal with a lot of gritty issues. You were expecting Deepok Chopra? Part of God’s word includes a record of man’s mischievous behavior and God’s attempt to deal with it, sometimes quite harshly, but most of the time, quite gently. The road to sanctity is taken one step at a time. Sometimes God’s mercy shows its face, and sometimes God’s justice shows its face. Your attempt to characterize my description of the Old Testament as “all bad” does not serve you well. In point of fact, the book is all good. -----I ask you to do the same. Don’t link me to ““Illustrations of the Tao”, present the objective moral law in your own words. Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor, thou shalt not play dumb. -----“And after that, address my railway dilemma. Why do people behave in ways that appear to go against your “objective moral law”. I thought we already covered that. As a general rule, they go against it because they prefer to be a law unto themselves. Why do you embrace moral relativism? It isn’t all that complicated. You would rather not submit to the natural moral law, so you pretend not to know what it is or else imply that we can’t know it. It is inconceivable that someone with your education level could not know unless he didn’t want to know. With regard to dilemmas, I am sure I have heard them all before. We did the same thing in my freshman sociology class. They are all, as I pointed out earlier, individual circumstances that are informed by but not explicitly addressed by the natural moral law. (Who do we save, the Rabbi or the Old Lady etc). The principles involved may be justice, compassion, mercy and so on. It is not possible to have fifteen trillion commandments to cover for every combination and permutation involved in moral choices. The idea is to understand the vices and the virtues and then try to develop the virtue of prudence, which calls for wise applications of general moral principles to individual situations. ----“Why is it sometimes OK to save 1 person and sacrifice 5 and sometimes OK to sacrifice 5 to save one? If objective moral laws were in play you would expect 5 to be saved, every time.” Now here you have hit upon something really good, and you deserve full credit for making this observation. One good moral answer is this: We are all in this together, and we all live and die together. Very good, really! ----“And yet that is not how people answer.” You are on a roll, you really are. The vast majority of individuals in the free world have succumbed to moral relativism. Survey after survey confirms it. The academy has been imposing the tyranny of relativism for decades and it has finally reached the man on the street. So, the average person responds by agreeing to the utilitarian terms presented. Of course, it is also important to realize that the exercise itself is meant to promote utilitarianism and relativism. (Yes, I know the difference---really). Asking people, “which one among many they will save,” forces them to choose on the basis of a utilitarian standard, meaning natural law is ruled out apriori. Thus, the only way out is for the poor respondent to protest, “I don’t accept your premise.” Indeed, few understand the premise that has been foisted upon them. In any case, I am beginning to have high hopes for you.StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

jerry
With all the money and people and time, all they have are no answers or conflicting answers not partial answers. Yes they are still searching and no one is telling them to stop. Maybe they will find something some day.
Whatever. I must have imaginged those two and a half million google scholar results you ignored upthread.
But until that time the public and the students should be told they do not have anything instead of pretending they do.
Are they pretending to teach for 4 year courses at university then? Closing the doors, and then turning the TV on? Are researchers going into to work, closing the blinds and settling back with the latest paperback?
So since you agree that they do not have anything of yet then you should agree with me that the textbooks should be rewritten to reflect the current state of knowledge.
No, I never said that. Alot has been said, discovered, proven. In comparison with what awaits to be discovered, I suspect not so much. That does not mean we are not well advanced in knowelege. Deciding what knowledge the facts represent can take some time to sort out!
If you want to understand how it could be done then read about synthetic biology to get some ideas.
Everytime somebody like you says this it makes me laugh. We all know that your designer is god. Yet here you are making out like god had to call down to the glassware shop to get some flasks. Yes, I could read about synthetic biology "to get some ideas". I thought the idea was that the "designer" was somewhat more advanced them humans will be in perhaps 50 years time.
When and how often will probably come in the future when more is known about genomes and how they changed over time.
Yet in advance of actually knowing a single thing about how the "designer" operated or when it operated or what it operated on you are happy say with absolute certainty that the designer did it and no naturalistic machanism (in a field that's only really existed in it's current form with powerful computers, sequences etc) could possibly have done it. Sounds more like faith to me then anything based on observable reality. Sounds like you'll never change your opinion no matter what is discovered as you made up your mind already when the preponderence of evidence was way way against you. So what would have to change in the future to make you, jerry, change your mind?George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped (#241): "Jerry is simply saying that the factual evidence uncovered by modern biology does not show that DESIGN is an invalid hypothesis." False, Jerry DID NOT say that. He said that the vast majority of pro-evolution papers support design. If Jerry meant to say what you have said then he would have said what you now have said. Because his ego will not allow him to admit to any type of error or accept correction, or yourself for that matter, you are playing the "misunderstanding card" and insulting intelligence. If Jerry meant what you now have said then he is guilty of very poor communication. "Now…the researchers themselves certainly do (given there mistaken ideological position) BUT the evidence itself does not. To the contrary, the evidence shows that DESIGN is (far and away) the most plausible hypothesis of all (which also has the evidentiary bolstering aspect of being parsimonious with other data). ID is ABOUT the evidence." The fact that the evidence supports ID and not evolution is not in dispute. We know the evidence supports ID and not evolution. We know there is one set or database of evidence and two interpretations (Design and Evolution) that seek to destroy one another. You are evading the fact that Jerry plainly supported the corruptive nonsense of Atheist-evolutionist Allen MacNeill (#182). He implied that Allen MacNeill teaches evolution produces design. The implication is gross distortion of the objective facts since Darwinism maintains that design does not exist in nature. Jerry conveniently forgot to say that MacNeill accepts Dawkins 1986: design is an illusion produced by unguided material force. "Illusion" means design does not really exist. MacNeill has duped Jerry. How else do we explain an alleged IDist (= Jerry) doing the bidding of an Atheist-evolutionist? RayR. Martinez_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

mullerpr [234], I said I'd get back to you. You ask,
This thought force [sic] me to ask you to name the theologian that argues that God goes out of his way not to be understood by man?
I'm not sure by the phrasing if you have someone in mind or if you think there's no such theologian. A little looking brought me to Martin Luther, whose idea of the Deus Absconditus or hidden God you may be referring to. Luther seems to take his ideas from 1 Corinthians ("For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe"). Alistar McGrath explains Luther's theology thus:
This revelation must be regarded as indirect and concealed. This is one of the most difficult aspects of the theologia cruces to grasp: how can one speak of a concealed revelation? Luther’s allusion to Exodus 33.23 in Thesis 20 is the key to understanding this fundamental point: Although it is indeed God who is revealed in the passion and the cross of Christ, he is not immediately recognizable as God. Those who expect a direct revelation of the face of God are unable to discern him in his revelation, precisely because it is the posteriora Dei which are made visible in this revelation. In that it is God who is made known in the passion and the cross of Christ, it is revelation; in that this revelation can only be discerned by the eye of faith, it is concealed. The ‘friends of the cross’ know that beneath the humility and shame of the cross lie concealed the power and the glory of God -- but to others, this insight is denied.
Is that what you're after? Back to the Abraham issue, it was long held among early Jewish scholars that the messages of the Hebrew scriptures were concealed and cryptic. See Kugel, The Bible as it Was -- a really wonderful book. I'm not a theologian, nor even particularly interested in theology. But it's worth knowing that those early Jewish scholars were deeply divided over how much Abraham knew, or whether Isaac knew, etc. (Of course, they were operating on the assumption that the Bible is divinely inspired.)David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

"the current evolutionary synthesis has partial answers and is searching for more details." With all the money and people and time, all they have are no answers or conflicting answers not partial answers. Yes they are still searching and no one is telling them to stop. Maybe they will find something some day. But until that time the public and the students should be told they do not have anything instead of pretending they do. So since you agree that they do not have anything of yet then you should agree with me that the textbooks should be rewritten to reflect the current state of knowledge. It can change when they find something relevant. George, you list a bunch of silly questions. If you want to understand how it could be done then read about synthetic biology to get some ideas. Nobody in biology does not say it cannot be done. When and how often will probably come in the future when more is known about genomes and how they changed over time. Or as you seem to hope, there will not be any need since a naturalistic mechanism will be discovered.jerry_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Not even a link to your "proof" of objective morality? What's a relativist to do? Best, DavidDavid Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
See you next time StephenB.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

George: David: Play time is over today, I have to go back to work. I hope to deal with your irrelevant and irrational eruptions later. Meanwhile, if there are any adult supervisors available, please take over until I get back.StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB, you write
I am not currently proving that objective morality is true.
On that we agree.
I did that a long time ago and you missed it.
Ha! Where? I'm plenty arrogant, but I don't put myself ahead of the great philosophers, who have never resolved this debate. You on the other hand have "proved" that objective morality is true. What hubris! No wonder you're so above us all.
I am currently showing, as I have done in the past, that you don’t accept it and are looking for a thousand ways to rationalize that fact.
What's to show? I don't accept that objective morality -- or objective anything -- exists. You have not proven that it does, although you have repeatedly asserted that it does. Assertion is not proof. It's not even evidence.
Hence, you say that child prostitution is wrong but not objectively wrong.
Since neither "child" nor "prostitution" are objective categories, I'm sticking with my position. Can you define "child," "prostitution," and "child prostitution" objectively? Until the category is objectively defined, it can't be objectively valued. It can, however, be relatively valued in such a way as to support current laws.David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Did you know that the early Christian Church used the Septuagint, the oldest Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, as its religious text until at least the mid-fourth century. And you call that book "the bad behaviour book" do you? And you know that Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament quoted extensively from the OT text too? Hardly what you would expect if it was "all bad", is it?
No, you will look it over, decide that you don’t like it, and reject it. The intellect provides the target but the will shoots the arrow. The will has the option to tell the intellect to go take a hike.
You have a high opinion of youself don't you? Up in comment 264 you said
Present the dilemma in your own words. Right now, am too busy providing remedial education for moral relativists to chase down web sites. Besides, I need to get back to work very soon.
I ask you to do the same. Don't link me to "“Illustrations of the Tao", present the objective moral law in your own words. And after that, address my railway dilemma. Why do people behave in ways that appear to go against your "objective moral law". Why is it sometimes OK to save 1 person and sacrifice 5 and sometimes OK to sacrifice 5 to save one? If objective moral laws were in play you would expect 5 to be saved, every time. And yet that is not how people answer.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

The Bible makes the transition from bad behavior to good behavior. ---"Does it now? Does it really…" Well, yes it does. What do you think the words, "you have heard it said, but I say unto you" mean ----"Did your “objective morality” only exist when the New Testament came about then? I thought it was eternal and unchanging?" It is, but bad habits are hard to break. Believe it or not, people refuse to act on what they know to be right because they prefer to do what is wrong. ----"Therefore your “objective morals” were not in play when the OT was in force were they?" Sure they were. But the natural moral law requires reflection and submission of the intellect and will. Most prefer to be a law unto themselves. ---"Oh? I thought they could use your objective morality to better themselves? What stopped them doing that?" It's a little thing called stubbornness. We have the same thing today. Besides, the human conscience presents the natural moral law in an imperfect way. That is why moral instruction is needed as a supplement. ----"Either your objective morality has been available all the time to everybody or it has not. If not, how is it eternal or objective?" You are correct. ---"Perhaps you could tell me what your “objective morality” consists of?" That's a fair question. One good source would be "Illustrations of the Tao," easily googled. ----"Then I’ll read it and be convinced. Won’t I?" No, you will look it over, decide that you don't like it, and reject it. The intellect provides the target but the will shoots the arrow. The will has the option to tell the intellect to go take a hike.StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

mullerpr
I think I have proven the case for the existence of objective moral values within the Bible’s context, that was my objective.
If they were objective they would not be withing the Bible's context. Try again. When you come back please tell me the context that makes this moral:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Jerry
Because of the finite time involved ID says it is not possible to produce the appropriate events.
And you know this because understanding of biology is complete at this time? DNA was only discovered a generation ago! In any case, when prominent ID proponents such as Kariosfocus misrepresent even such simple things as Dawkins' Weasel then I do have to wonder, if the argument is so clear cut, why he feels the need to do that.
The current evolutionary synthesis says it happened but has yet to produce any evidence that it did happen by naturalistic means.
Then I guess it's a draw currently, as ID says it was design but has yet to produce any eivdence that it did not happen by naturalistic means. I mean, I've not heard any positive evidence for the ID side whatsoever, only arguments like yours.
on the microbe to man scenario how many such events had to happen and how much time is necessary for each and is there any evidence that they could happen in that time
Why don't you tell me at what points the designer intervened? Once only? Once a year? Once a decade? Once a century? If evolution does not posess the mechanism to get from microbe to man then you believe the designer helped. When? How? You have no answers whatsoever to these questions, whereas at least the current evolutionary synthesis has partial answers and is searching for more details. What have you got? Only negative arguments.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

George, Slavery in Biblical times is the argument not your current, for the moment, subjective moral sensibilities. I can not argue on that behalf. Constructs of corporal punishment then and now are a completely new subject where we have to search for objective realities. But you have to excuse me if I am not willing to jump with you from one subjective stereotype you manage to conjure up to the other. I think I have proven the case for the existence of objective moral values within the Bible's context, that was my objective. The Bible is about God's interactions with man in his fallen and redeemed state, if you expect the moral high ground in all aspects of the old testament then you don't need Christ who came to fulfill the law in its redeeming power. It is early in the morning (01:00) on my part of the world so I will step down from my soap box and let you enjoy the rest of your day.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

George, You are starting to go off the deep end. Yes I knew what the comment was about. I have seen it used several times before. But you obviously do not know what the debate is about or else you would not have brought up this non sequitur. You think it is relevant which shows your lack of understanding. Evolution is the issue at hand and that is what the current debate is mostly about here though people get off on many non ID debates having mainly to do with morality. It is all over this site at the moment and comments are flying back and forth so fast that no one can read them all. Evolution is also the only ID issue that I am interested in personally though the fine tuning of the universe is also of interest. I am interested in the proposition that naturalistic processes can produce complex novel capabilities in an organism or not. ID says it cannot do so on an ongoing basis because there are not enough time and reproductive events to do so. It does not say that none have arisen but if they did, they are few. In other words on the microbe to man scenario how many such events had to happen and how much time is necessary for each and is there any evidence that they could happen in that time. Because of the finite time involved ID says it is not possible to produce the appropriate events. The current evolutionary synthesis says it happened but has yet to produce any evidence that it did happen by naturalistic means. So if you want to bring up teapots in space like it means something, then I am afraid you are not well informed and such things just make it easier for ID to convince others of its proposition. When people start using irrelevant arguments it makes it easy for us.jerry_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

mullerpr
This is another absurd argument. It is like saying Copernicus would have nothing to say if it were not for a geocentric theory.
Hardly. I'm sure Copernicus would have come up with a positive theory of his own, even if there was no prior work to base it on. He might have come up with the geocentric theory! What postive arguments does ID have that are not based on what evolution cannot do? If evolution was disproved tommrow that would not change the status of ID in any way whatsoever. Even Behe called his book "The edge of evolution".George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
And I strongly doubt that Mr Dawkins will ever publicly admit to his oracular, foresighted search tactics that he passed off as a true representation of what RV + NS (especially the selection part) is supposed to be able to do. But that is what he plainly did back to the 1980’s, as can be seen by inspection of his examples as they zero in step by step on eh preselected solution. (You might want to look at Dembski and Marks on active information to see a more general analysis on the cost of search, here and here.).
I'm sorry, was that your answer? You refuse to defend yourself and send me to some creationists instead? The fact that you knowingly mis-represent the Weasel example as what "RV + NS (especially the selection part) is supposed to be able to do" when in fact it's a simple teaching example used to introduce the concept is beyond my understanding. It's like saying that "Your first ABC book" is poor literature. Is that the best you've got? I note, once again, you said previously
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.
Once again, I CHALLENGE YOU to show me where Mr Dawkins says this is how weasel works. Where does Mr Dawkins say "once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations"? I've offered $100,000 for a charity of your choosing if you can provide me with a reference (book, paper by Mr Dawkins). Lying is a sin, be it by omission or directly making misstatements you know to be false. How does that fit with an objective moral law?
You need to be a bit more skeptical of the claims and magic-show demos of Darwinist advocates
You should take your own advice. You made a claim. I'm asking you to defend it. You stand to gain an awful lot if you do. Apart from anything else, you'll shut me right up!George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

George #262: "If evolution as a concept did not exist what would ID say then? Do you have anything to say about ID that is not based upon evolution at some level?" This is another absurd argument. It is like saying Copernicus would have nothing to say if it were not for a geocentric theory. As I mentioned much earlier, George, you have to measure your creative energy levels very well because it seems as if the wheels are coming off.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

mullerpr
Simply quoting the text is not new insight. You need to show us you were able to understand it in the context that it was written.
It seems quite clear to me
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Perhaps you would care to educate me as to the context of that? What, exactly, can you say that makes that alright? What possible excuse is there for that behaviour? Please go right ahead. I'm waiting to be enlightened.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB
How conveniently you confuse civil law with morality.
How convinent you find a way to squim out of facing the issue.
In any case, you have no standard by which you can criticize slavery in any case since you don’t acknowledge any objective standard for justice.
List for me the objective standards for justice and I'll tell you if I acknowledge them or not.
Present the dilemma in your own words.
The words I used are the standard form. There is no reason to change them. As you seem to think they are on a website I'll repeat them again (there is a website but that's a seperate issue).
Scenario 1 You’re standing beside a set of train tracks and you see a train coming. There are five people working on the track and they’ll be killed if the train keeps coming. You can’t warn them and they can’t see the train. There’s also another side track and on this track there is only one person. Same scenario, you can’t warn them and they can’t see the train. Beside you is a lever that will direct the train off the track with five people onto the track with only one. Do you pull the lever?
and
Scenario 2 You’re on a bridge overlooking a single train track. In one direction you see the train coming. In the other direction you see the same five people working on the track but this time instead of the other person being on a side track they’re standing next to you on the bridge overlooking the track. If you push the person off the bridge the train will hit them and stop before it reaches the five people down the track. Do you push the guy off?
It's quite straightfowards.
Besides, I need to get back to work very soon.
Again, how convinent.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Lots of conversations going on here, but it would be great if y’all such as at 237 might sometimes—even though vehemently disagreeing—still register just a glimmer of understanding of what has been said. We need responsible Devil’s advocates. And I’m not for niceness—the good folk are typically way too nice—but one does tire of boneheaded sarcasm that concedes not a hint of comprehension.Rude_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

George said #254: "Pretend as much as you like that the slaves loved it. You are wrong." The fact George is that you are the one pretending "sex slaves" and more into what is written in the Bible. You even pretend on behalf of the slaves. That is the modern skeptics thing. How many patronizing views of people has followed exactly the same type of argument into a subjective stereotype that has no bearing on the actual actors' own reality? Ask me I live in Africa where every Western skeptic wants to think on our behalf instead of walking the path to objective truth with us. You just cannot see that your method will always misconstrue the objective realities of any construct. Simply quoting the text is not new insight. You need to show us you were able to understand it in the context that it was written.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

----George: "Please address the application at hand (the railway example) using your natural objective moral law." Present the dilemma in your own words. Right now, am too busy providing remedial education for moral relativists to chase down web sites. Besides, I need to get back to work very soon.StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

----George; "As I’ve just pointed out, biblical era slave owners were entitled to do things that if done in the western world today would put you in jail for a very long time." How conveniently you confuse civil law with morality. How conveniently you ignore my point at 242 where I explained the gradual transition from barbarism to civilization. In any case, you have no standard by which you can criticize slavery in any case since you don't acknowledge any objective standard for justice.StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Jerry
What a stupid comment.
From you I consider that a compliment of the highest order.
ID makes some predictions about evolution and the ability of naturalistic processes to form complex novel capabilities
If evolution as a concept did not exist what would ID say then? Do you have anything to say about ID that is not based upon evolution at some level?
and you talk about teapots in space.
I was alluding to a famous example. I guess if you were better read you'd have got it. Bertrand Russell's teapot:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapotGeorge L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
In any case the natural moral law is a general rule to which individual applications must be addressed.
Please address the application at hand (the railway example) using your natural objective moral law. Please explain the results obtained in the two examples given. I will then give you the answer you are asking for.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

"It’s also not incompatible with a teapot in space hypothesis, where the teapot is guiding evolution via mechanisms that in effect look exactly like unguided evolution." What a stupid comment. ID makes some predictions about evolution and the ability of naturalistic processes to form complex novel capabilities and you talk about teapots in space. Maybe you should read more before you comment here.jerry_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Do you always evade my questions by hiding behind my statements to others?
It should be noted that you answered my moral dilemma question with
In any case the natural moral law is a general rule to which individual applications must be addressed.
Which is very similar to saying "water is wet". Now, I have given you the perfect example (which has been studied at length) regarding moral dilemmas. If you really believed in what you say you would jump at the chance to subject your "objective moral law" to an objective test. If it proves your case you then have emprical evidence for next time! Why do you refuse to address the issue?George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply