Why God

[Moontanman]

So far I agree with all of this. I just don't include all religious beliefs in the list of fairy tales.

 

If I may ask how do you decide which religions are fairy tales and which are real?

[Iggy]

Your link appears to back up what Athena is "preaching."

Please, tell me exactly which claim of Athena I refuted with that link and tell me exactly where it is mentioned in this montage:

 

Her "long-winded" explanation of the perspective behind this thread was very good, and not preaching, I'd say.

 

And the more I learn about what Athena is trying to convey, in spite of the capitalized reference to the Nationalist Socialist, the more it seems to fill in some gaps in understanding how we come to find ourselves in this somewhat untenable position--with a populace ignorant of global concerns or considerations.

[edit]...or: --with a population ignorant of many abstract thinking skills.[/edit]

 

I may be off here, but I think those "global concerns or considerations" represent the "God perspective" (dissociated from any religions, as Athena emphasizes), which this thread is about: Why do we need that Global/God perspective?

 

~

 

p.s. ...from the link on the Vocation Education Act.

 

 

This means that there are over 12,000,000 people engaged in agriculture in this country who are not trained to deal with the soil in such a way as to make it produce, through scientific methods, what it should yield in order to sustain the present and future life of this Nation.

 

3. That they should be designed to prepare boys and girls over 14 years of age for useful and profitable employment in agriculture and in the trades and industries.

 

 

There is a great and crying need of providing vocational education of this character for every part of the United States--to conserve and develop our resources; to promote a more productive and prosperous agriculture; to prevent the waste of human labor; to supplement apprenticeship; to increase the wage-earning power of our productive workers; to meet the increasing demand for trained workmen; to offset the increased cost of living. Vocational education is therefore needed as a wise business investment for this Nation, because our national prosperity and happiness are at stake and our position in the markets of the world can not otherwise be maintained.

 

National grants for agriculture, and trade and industrial education are justified: (1)....

 

...national grants expended through Federal agencies for studies, investigations, and reports furthering the efforts of the States to place the work of their vocational schools on a scientific and business-like basis.

(2) by introducing into our educational system the aim of utility, ...making it purposeful and useful. Industrial and social unrest is due in large measure to a lack of a system of practical education fitting workers for their calling.

 

Every State superintendent ...and great national educational, civic, industrial, and commercial organizations, representing more than 12,000,000 people, have repeatedly gone on record as believing that a system of vocational education was absolutely necessary to the future welfare of the nation.

 

(4) to give interest and prestige in the States to the work of preparing our youth for useful and productive service.

 

European countries have gained much advantage over us because they are already in possession of this knowledge.

===

 

~ ...see, it is those damned Europeans!

It had something to do with the military I recall. Exactly what was the claim and exactly where do you think you just foiled my refutation, please?

[PeterJ]

Nor do I. It's just that the majority of those used to inform specific beliefs are, in fact, fairy tales (or, at the very least, fictions with little more than tenuous supporting evidence).

It may be a majority. I do wonder though how you know which is which.

 

Correct, and you've conceded this yourself the moment you took it out of the realm of science and facts and placed into the realm of metaphysics. If you cannot support your approach with empiricism, then you cannot claim your approach is based in science or facts.

Metaphysics, physics, biology, psychology, phenomenology, I'll take it where you like. It is not necessary to have such narrow tastes as yours. The idea that one can do physics without metaphysics is beyond my comprehension. I wonder why you insist that there is no empirical evidence.

 

You should try to stop making so many assumptions. You continue to be wrong when making assertions like this one.

It is not an assumption. This is clear from what you say.

 

This is a welcome change from your previous comments that, "I don't think much good would come of discussing it with you.

Well, we'll see. I still don't think much good will come of it. We've crossed paths before and the result has never been a sensible disussion. Where is the argument? I can't see one, just the expression of opinions. Do you not feel inclined to challenge what I say? I write it to be challenging, but it doesn't seem to work.

 

If I may ask how do you decide which religions are fairy tales and which are real?

By a number of means. Mainly its a question of consistency. Also, it is to do with whether a religious claim is consistent with reason. Only one metaphysical position is systematic and reasonable, and this serves as a good yardstick for judging the initial plausibility religious (and scientific) theories. I could talk about empriricism also, because this is the only certain way to decide, but this won't carry much weight around here. Maybe we could talk about cases and examples.

Edited September 14, 2012 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

By a number of means. Mainly its a question of consistency. Also, it is to do with whether a religious claim is consistent with reason. Only one metaphysical position is systematic and reasonable, and this serves as a good yardstick for judging the initial plausibility religious (and scientific) theories. I could talk about empriricism also, because this is the only certain way to decide, but this won't carry much weight around here. Maybe we could talk about cases and examples.

 

 

This probably needs to be in another thread, there is a Proof of God thread, but how do you know that Zeus is not god for instance?

 

Which god can you demonstrate to be real? What is your evidence for this God?

[PeterJ]

This probably needs to be in another thread, there is a Proof of God thread, but how do you know that Zeus is not god for instance?

 

Which god can you demonstrate to be real? What is your evidence for this God?

Sorry but I can't demonstrate any God to be real. Don't believe in gods. Nor do I know that Zeus in not a God. I don't know that there's no teapot in orbit around Mars either.

[Moontanman]

I asked:

 

Moontanman, on 13 September 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

If I may ask how do you decide which religions are fairy tales and which are real?

 

You said:

 

By a number of means. Mainly its a question of consistency. Also, it is to do with whether a religious claim is consistent with reason. Only one metaphysical position is systematic and reasonable, and this serves as a good yardstick for judging the initial plausibility religious (and scientific) theories. I could talk about empriricism also, because this is the only certain way to decide, but this won't carry much weight around here. Maybe we could talk about cases and examples.

 

Then you said:

 

Sorry but I can't demonstrate any God to be real. Don't believe in gods. Nor do I know that Zeus in not a God. I don't know that there's no teapot in orbit around Mars either.

 

So I'll ask again, in a different way, How do you tell if a religion is real and not false? Which religion do you think is more than a fairy tale?

[iNow]

The idea that one can do physics without metaphysics is beyond my comprehension.

It seems we've managed to localize the root of the issue in this discussion between us.

 

It is not an assumption. This is clear from what you say.

Nice try, but this is self-evidently false. You are attempting to claim knowledge about my personal background and my personal experience that you cannot possibly have. Ergo, it is VERY MUCH an assumption on your part, and one that remains inaccurate despite your continued protestations to the contrary.

[Athena]

May I point out how the holy books are interpreted depends vary much on how one is educated, and one's culture, and if one is thinking concretely or abstractly.

 

Does anyone understand what Peter said?

 

"In metaphysics we find that my view is the only reasonable one. This does not make it true, but it makes it the most consistent with reason."

 

Metaphysics means "after physics", and begins with Aristotle thoughts after exhausting his thoughts on physics. Is anyone working with this information? What is your understanding of metaphysics? What is your understand of logic and the process of reasoning? Seriously, this is fundamental to the whole debate! And we can not intellectually continue this discussion with poorly informed people disrupting it.

 

Those fairy tells that some of you object to are not fairy tells. May I suggest we ignore arguments that do not meet a reasonable standard of accurate terminology? A more accurate term is parable. A parable is an allegorical representation of something real in life or nature, embodying a moral. Now do we discern between a parable and fact? I would hope we do.

 

If you want to argue something, argue against John Adams and his reasoning that there is a problem with godless capitalism. Not only is there a problem with godless capitalism, but there is a problem with godless science, and I asked INow to suggest a solution after he announced there are many that do not include God or religion.

[iNow]

Not only is there a problem with godless capitalism, but there is a problem with godless science, and I asked INow to suggest a solution after he announced there are many that do not include God or religion.

And I believe I responded already. I feel you are seeking a solution for a problem that doesn't truly exist.

 

My stance is that our natural predispositions, and the fact that we evolved certain tendencies within the context of being a group/tribal species, already offer and provide the "regulatory" structure you deem so important to a well functioning society... The structure whose stewardship you seem so strongly to want to assign to god or religion.

 

In short, I find the ideas of god and religion unnecessary, unwarranted, and unhelpful in this discussion.

Edited September 14, 2012 by iNow

[PeterJ]

I think we're all making some good points here. but coming at things from very different angles. I apologise if I have been a bit aggressive. I've been hoping to be challenged. No luck so far, but Athena points out rightly imho that we need to be more clear about metaphysics, so I'll say a bit.

 

For me this is all about cold logic and empirical evidence, and requires no references to the scriptures or any 'unscientific' beliefs in anything in particular. I'm all for science and for taking a scientific approach, and consider metaphysics to be a science of logic.

 

First off, I believe that the universe is reasonable. This is a necessary belief for any sensible science. That is, I believe that metaphysics is a trustworthy guide to what is true. 'Metaphysics' here would be simply human reason applied to the questions of absolutes and first principles, specifically via the dialectic process as defined by Aristotle.

 

Physics has not yet shown that there is even a single fault with the conclusions of metaphysical analysis so there is no reason not to trust them. These are not just 'after' physics'. This idea is a quirk of history, the way Aristotle's works were classified. Physics stops before it can become fundamental and then metaphysics starts. But if we start from fundamentals and work back then metaphysics comes before physics. The point is only that it is outside of physics, because that is how we define physics. Theoretical physics cannot be done withour also doing metaphysics, since it is the search for a funamental theory. Any fundamental theory will be metaphysical. This is why there is not one fundamental theory in physics. It is easy to forget that Materialism and Idealism, for example, are metaphysical positions, untestable in physics and nothing to do with any scientific evidence. Anyone who concludes that Materialism or Idealism is true is doing metaphysics, not physics.

 

The reasonableness of the universe would be my first axiom for any argument about science or religion. If it is not reasonable, as e.g. Melhuish and Priest propose, then all bets are off.

 

An argument for religion may be made in four statements, where the reasonableness of the universe would be the first. This has to be an axiom because logic cannot prove anything about reality, but there seems no reason to suppose it is not true.

 

The second statement, which is a demonstrable and well-known fact, would be, in Kant's words, that 'all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. A 'selective conclusion' here would be a positive or partial metaphysical position. For example, the idea that the universe 'begins' with Something or Nothing can be refuted in the dialectic (ie in metaphysics), and so neither idea will ever work in physics, and there will never be any empirical evidence to the contrary unless the universe is paradoxical, ie. unless it disobeys the 'laws of thought' (as per Melhuish's 'Paradoxical Universe'). Likewise, if it turns out that Mind or Matter is fundamental then the universe will be paradoxical, since both idea can be refuted. Hence the 'problem of consciousness', which is really the Mind-Matter dilemma dressed up to look less like metaphysics.

 

These two statements are not even slightly contentious in philosophy or physics so should not cause a problem here.

 

But I'll save the next two statements and see if anyone wants to hear them. I'm certain that nobody can falsify either of these first two statements, despite their simplicity. Yet they take us within two steps of a formal proof that religion makes a great deal of sense.

 

But it would be religion of a very specific kind, the kind favoured by Einstein and Schrodinger, not just any old religion.

 

Briefly then, my argument would begin...

 

The universe is reasonable.

All selective metaphysical positions are logically absurd.

 

I see no possible objections, but maybe I'm being unimaginative.

 

If this seems off topic don't worry, we come back to God with the fourth statement, and can then tease out some testable predictions for physics.

Edited September 14, 2012 by PeterJ

[Essay]

And I believe I responded already. I feel you are seeking a solution for a problem that doesn't truly exist.

 

My stance is that our natural predispositions, and the fact that we evolved certain tendencies within the context of being a group/tribal species, already offer and provide the "regulatory" structure you deem so important to a well functioning society... The structure whose stewardship you seem so strongly to want to assign to god or religion.

 

In short, I find the ideas of god and religion unnecessary, unwarranted, and unhelpful in this discussion.

 

What problem doesn't exist?

 

But I agree, "I find the ideas of god and religion unnecessary, unwarranted, and unhelpful in this discussion," which is why I'm discussing the function those provide and provided in our history where we "evolved certain tendencies within the context of being a group/tribal species, already offer and provide the "regulatory" structure you deem so important to a well functioning society."

 

 

I'd like to say more, but have a busy weekend ahead: http://www.sustainab...le-living-fair/

 

But, Iggy, keeping the focus on what function a god fulfills for a society, instead of proving God exists, the quotes pulled from that pre-WWI document seemed to back up, istm, Athena's point that the focus of education changed from teaching knowledge generally to broaden the horizons of our citizens into teaching knowledge specifically for filling slots created by a technological and secular society--a society that seems to value, perhaps too much, growth over culture.

 

I agree that simple adding "God" into the equation isn't going to bring forth a solution that takes care of the problems that develop with "godless capitalism;" but even Adam Smith warned about those dangers. Something needs to address those problems, and by looking at the function provided by the fetters of religion and the regulations of government in our history, maybe we can learn something.

 

Tariq Ramadan points out that fundamentalist (literalists, as he also mentions) are a source of problems in both the Eastern and Western Worlds. Literally, these are fairytales we're talking about; but as parables they have value. Wisdom, history, and experience can help us learn.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Essay

[iNow]

What problem doesn't exist?

I was referring specifically to Athena's regular assertion (I may lose some accuracy due to paraphrasing, but...) that laws have no weight or power unless rooted in god(s) and/or religion(s).

[Iggy]

But, Iggy... the quotes pulled from that pre-WWI document seemed to back up, istm, Athena's point that the focus of education changed from teaching knowledge generally to broaden the horizons of our citizens into teaching knowledge specifically for filling slots created by a technological and secular society--a society that seems to value, perhaps too much, growth over culture.

Nothing to do with any reason I posted the link then. Fair enough... you're in good company, and bravo for having the courage to pick a post that starts "First, I don't care what some random naval surgeon said in 1917. It wastes my time to read it..." as a springboard for an unrelated segue.

[Athena]

Please, tell me exactly which claim of Athena I refuted with that link and tell me exactly where it is mentioned in this montage:

 

 

It had something to do with the military I recall. Exactly what was the claim and exactly where do you think you just foiled my refutation, please?

 

The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced liberal education the German model of education for technology, and that is why discussions of God go so poorly. If everyone had a liberal education that would thinking about this subject very differently and have no problem understanding parables are not fairy tells. A mod came down on me for mentioning this in this thread, but the understanding is crucial to the whole argument.

People are interpreting the bible concretely and when this is done, what the bible says is absorb. To correctly understand the bible it must be interpreted abstractly, because it is not a book of facts. Much of it is allegorical.

 

Now this change in education is a problem on both sides of the argument. Christians interpreting the bible concretely are like fundamentalist Muslims. They don't get the allegorical message, but take everything literally. Then like the Texas Republican 2012 agenda, they oppose education for independent thinking, the causes us to question what we are told and what we believe. Both sides of argument are less capable of seeing the other side and are more intolerant, such as not understanding parables are allegorical and are not to be taken as literally truth.

 

In 1917 we were mobilizing for war and added vocational training for military reasons, and 1958 the Industrial Military Complex was being established.

 

I was referring specifically to Athena's regular assertion (I may lose some accuracy due to paraphrasing, but...) that laws have no weight or power unless rooted in god(s) and/or religion(s).

 

Here is an example of the education problem. My thread on logos went terribly, and this discussion is not doing much better, because we are not using an understanding of logos to interpret the word God, and if I use the word "logos", no one has a clue what that word means. In every discussion of God, the atheist focuses on the God of Abraham, to argue God does not exist. I believe the God of Abrahman is a false God, because this God violates the laws the nature. I have said, even the gods are subject to the laws of nature. For years of liberal education there was a thrill that science would reveal God, because Newton's explanations were telling us about logos. The universe is order by laws, as the ancient Greeks believed. This is to understand logos. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.

[iNow]

How is this a problem with OUR education and not YOURS? Is it not the responsibility of the author to ensure their message is properly understood by their audience?

[Athena]

And I believe I responded already. I feel you are seeking a solution for a problem that doesn't truly exist.

 

My stance is that our natural predispositions, and the fact that we evolved certain tendencies within the context of being a group/tribal species, already offer and provide the "regulatory" structure you deem so important to a well functioning society... The structure whose stewardship you seem so strongly to want to assign to god or religion.

 

In short, I find the ideas of god and religion unnecessary, unwarranted, and unhelpful in this discussion.

 

 

Your reasoning is used by ancient people around the world, and is fundamental to democracy, rule by reason. However, for the Greeks and some Romans, this also goes with an understanding of logos, and with an understanding that we are not born knowing everything we need to know. Now liberal education had us thinking about such things, but education for technology does not. Socrates big concern was getting people to think about what they think and developing their conscience. Con- coming out of, and science- knowledge. The bible is largely parables, allegorical explanations of life. It is not the sole source of life lessons, but for sure we need those lessons.

 

Children who grow up with abuse, tend to be abusive, how do you propose to deal with this? Romney answered a college student's question about he was to fund his college education and Romney said, "get a loan from your parents" as though all young people can do this. Romney may understand business transactions, but he understanding of life seems questionable. That is true for all of us. Our brains are really very limited, and for this reason only a handful of people will be really close to us. Once we get past 600 people in our life, we tend to objectify people, as extensions of cash registers, telephones, buses. We dehumanize them, because we can recognize them all as human beings. That is we do not personally come to know everyone, and how we treat people we know is different from how we treat people we don't know, and we are trying to have a democracy where we each make decisions that effect the lives of everyone else. We might want to know something besides our very limited person experience of life, before we go about making decisions that will effect everyone else. This is the main presidential debate today. Which runner up for president has the best your understanding of your families needs and how to meet them? How do these men understanding the cosmos and human nature and economics and world problems? What study is big enough to meet all our needs? How do we determine what is true and what is not?

 

How do we develop and exercise good moral judgement? What happens if we do not?

 

How is this a problem with OUR education and not YOURS? Is it not the responsibility of the author to ensure their message is properly understood by their audience?

 

Our education is everyone's education problem, and I write because I am very afraid that unless we immediately return to liberal education, my great grandchildren will not have desirable lives. I have witnessed what the change in education has done to the country, and the 1970 youth crisis was not the fault of parents, but the result in the change in public education. The corruption of Enron and banking is intolerable! Some improvements in education have been made since then, but it is not enough and it is still corporate power that controls education, and this is not what is best for humans and democracy. As the author I am doing my very best to ensure my message comes across. How might I do better?

 

I have to run, but I wanted to respond to what Essay said about the need for soil education. A farming community near to where I live, had a high school focused on farming. That is not what the government is funding, and for budget reasons, that education was dropped. Some of us think including Gaia in education would be a huge step forward, but I am afraid Christians would prevent this.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Athena

[iNow]

The bible is largely parables, allegorical explanations of life. It is not the sole source of life lessons, but for sure we need those lessons.

I don't disagree with you regarding the importance of early lessons and explanations of life. I merely disagree that we need some god(s) or religion to achieve it in the way you suspect.

 

How do we develop and exercise good moral judgement? What happens if we do not?

 

Since "good" and "bad" and morals themselves are dependent upon the culture in which you're exploring them, I suggest that the development of those morals derives directly from actual interactions and exchanges within that culture... between the self and other members of the society itself. When we act outside the local norms of the group, feedback is given and we adjust our future behaviors as a result of that feedback. If we do not develop this understanding of what is considered to be proper behavior within the group then we will quite likely be ostracized and lack access to the resources required for good health and future offspring.

 

Our education is everyone's education problem, and I write because I am very afraid <...> As the author I am doing my very best to ensure my message comes across.

And my point was that you were trying to blame your audience for failing to understand your message when you as the author are the sole owner of that particular responsibility. My point was others would potentially understand you better if you moved away from your predilection towards using terms differently than how they are used in common parlance.

Edited September 15, 2012 by iNow

[PeterJ]

I see no point in discussing religion, God, morals and so forth in these terms, other than for entertainment.

[Athena]

What problem doesn't exist?

 

But I agree, "I find the ideas of god and religion unnecessary, unwarranted, and unhelpful in this discussion," which is why I'm discussing the function those provide and provided in our history where we "evolved certain tendencies within the context of being a group/tribal species, already offer and provide the "regulatory" structure you deem so important to a well functioning society."

 

 

I'd like to say more, but have a busy weekend ahead: http://www.sustainab...le-living-fair/

 

But, Iggy, keeping the focus on what function a god fulfills for a society, instead of proving God exists, the quotes pulled from that pre-WWI document seemed to back up, istm, Athena's point that the focus of education changed from teaching knowledge generally to broaden the horizons of our citizens into teaching knowledge specifically for filling slots created by a technological and secular society--a society that seems to value, perhaps too much, growth over culture.

 

I agree that simple adding "God" into the equation isn't going to bring forth a solution that takes care of the problems that develop with "godless capitalism;" but even Adam Smith warned about those dangers. Something needs to address those problems, and by looking at the function provided by the fetters of religion and the regulations of government in our history, maybe we can learn something.

 

Tariq Ramadan points out that fundamentalist (literalists, as he also mentions) are a source of problems in both the Eastern and Western Worlds. Literally, these are fairytales we're talking about; but as parables they have value. Wisdom, history, and experience can help us learn.

 

You speak of the function of religion. Alain de Botton has created "Religion for Atheists" so that there is a religion that performs the functions of religion for atheist.

 

http://www.alaindebo...om/Religion.asp

 

Liberal education transmitted a culture, and we stopped doing this when we began educating for a technological society with unknown values. This destroys our social structure, and perhaps we can develop a better culture and better social structure, but this sure isn't going to happen if we do not talk about it. There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. If the culture is destroyed, what is left?

 

What is your understanding of God? Where does it come from? I ask because just the functions or religion are not enough. It is pretty important to have a workable concept of the cosmos as well. Having a workable understanding of cosmos is essential to good moral judgment.

 

I don't disagree with you regarding the importance of early lessons and explanations of life. I merely disagree that we need some god(s) or religion to achieve it in the way you suspect.

 

 

 

Since "good" and "bad" and morals themselves are dependent upon the culture in which you're exploring them, I suggest that the development of those morals derives directly from actual interactions and exchanges within that culture... between the self and other members of the society itself. When we act outside the local norms of the group, feedback is given and we adjust our future behaviors as a result of that feedback. If we do not develop this understanding of what is considered to be proper behavior within the group then we will quite likely be ostracized and lack access to the resources required for good health and future offspring.

 

 

And my point was that you were trying to blame your audience for failing to understand your message when you as the author are the sole owner of that particular responsibility. My point was others would potentially understand you better if you moved away from your predilection towards using terms differently than how they are used in common parlance.

 

 

I would not say morals are not dependent on culture. I would say morals are dependent on understanding the cosmos. Cultures that have an incorrect understanding of the cosmos self destruct. What makes the difference between right and wrong is when things are right they go well, and when things are wrong, there is destruction.

 

Morals can develop through cultural experience only if the young respect the elders and the elders pass on necessary information. Without this, there is the "Lord of Flies".

 

We have thousands of years of human experience to learn from, and who is taken advantage of this?

 

Education for technology brought Germany to the NAZI experience and the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology. What moral might we learn from this? What Hitler called the New World Order, Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, and Bush once again called it the New World Order, and the Neo Cons acted on their plans for the New Century American Project. What morals have we learned? Acting to comply with group norms is what happened in Germany, and we had education that prevented that. I answer to God, not the group that sets the norms, and this was the American difference! Your understanding of morals worries me.

 

As for my responsibility, how well do you understand Einstein? Without a background in science and math, who can understand him? Now was it his responsibility to communicate so that everyone could understand him, or do we have some responsibility for learning what we need to learn to understand him? Without liberal education you can not be expected to understand why God is important and what God has to do with our liberty. You do not know about Stoicism or logos, nor the difference between a fairy tale and a parable. Maybe if this discussion goes on for six years, enough well be said for people to understand what is being said. However, I am no more responsible for your ability to understand than Einstein.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Athena

[iNow]

Oh... my. Well... At least you're not suffering from self esteem issues.

[Athena]

I see no point in discussing religion, God, morals and so forth in these terms, other than for entertainment.

 

I didn't mean this to be just entertainment. I had given up on these discussions, and then thought I conceived of a better way to talk about why God is important. I was inspired by another forum and the subject of language. It is language that separates us from all the other creatures and makes it possible for us to reason and to have rule by reason. It is language that makes us political creatures. It is our capacity for math that really makes us divine. Why God? Because we can imagine a God, and we can imagine a better life, and what we can image, we can manifest as long as our understanding of the cosmos, logos, God is correct, and we follow the laws created long before humans walked the earth.

 

Oh... my. Well... At least you're not suffering from self esteem issues.

 

Is this a compliment or a personal attack that is against the rules? It sure is not on subject. If you disagree with my reasoning, copy and paste and state why you disagree.

[iNow]

I would not say morals are not dependent on culture. I would say morals are dependent on understanding the cosmos.

And yet cultures with zero concept of anything more than their local hut still display moral behaviors, as do non-human animals. I don't think many non-human animals have an understanding of the cosmos, so I find this assertion of yours plainly ridiculous.

 

Education for technology brought Germany to the NAZI experience

And this too is ridiculous on its face. You ignore the social and economic ails... you ignore the human tendency toward tribalism... the tendency toward scapegoat behavior... and you oversimplify by blindly placing blame on the education approach taken. This point of yours has been debunked repeatedly, yet you continue to repeat it as if it remains valid and accepted as truth.

 

As for my responsibility, how well do you understand Einstein? Without a background in science and math, who can understand him? <snip> I am no more responsible for your ability to understand than Einstein.

So, in response to my comment that if people are failing to understand you the onus is on you to alter how you present your information, you've instead chosen to compare yourself to Einstein. This is ludicrous. Further, Einstein DID ensure he used language in ways that was part of accepted parlance in order to ensure others could comprehend his points, so there's always that.

[Iggy]

In 1917 we were mobilizing for war and added vocational training for military reasons...

That's already refuted. You know what Homer said about Athena in the Odyssey? "The minds of the everlasting gods aren't suddenly changed".

 

If you can't change your mind on the simplest conclusion when you get new information how can you advocate liberal education? Obstinately holding to a regimented view is everything you rail against and it's all you're doing.

 

Read the relevant chapter in the report. The 1917 vocational education act is founded on non-military concerns.

[PeterJ]

I didn't mean this to be just entertainment. I had given up on these discussions, and then thought I conceived of a better way to talk about why God is important. I was inspired by another forum and the subject of language. It is language that separates us from all the other creatures and makes it possible for us to reason and to have rule by reason. It is language that makes us political creatures. It is our capacity for math that really makes us divine. Why God? Because we can imagine a God, and we can imagine a better life, and what we can image, we can manifest as long as our understanding of the cosmos, logos, God is correct, and we follow the laws created long before humans walked the earth.-

Did you really mean to say it is our capacity for math that really makes us divine? This is a very odd idea. Logic would say that either we share an identity with the Divine or we are not divine.

 

I understand that you meant this to be more than entertainment, and I'm all for talking about these issues. Just not in such an unscientific and endlessly inconclusive way. I think a discussion on a science forum should be more concerned with facts and data. Maybe it's just me though.

Edited September 16, 2012 by PeterJ

[Athena]

And yet cultures with zero concept of anything more than their local hut still display moral behaviors, as do non-human animals. I don't think many non-human animals have an understanding of the cosmos, so I find this assertion of yours plainly ridiculous.

 

 

And this too is ridiculous on its face. You ignore the social and economic ails... you ignore the human tendency toward tribalism... the tendency toward scapegoat behavior... and you oversimplify by blindly placing blame on the education approach taken. This point of yours has been debunked repeatedly, yet you continue to repeat it as if it remains valid and accepted as truth.

 

 

So, in response to my comment that if people are failing to understand you the onus is on you to alter how you present your information, you've instead chosen to compare yourself to Einstein. This is ludicrous. Further, Einstein DID ensure he used language in ways that was part of accepted parlance in order to ensure others could comprehend his points, so there's always that.

 

I believe it is scientifically incorrect to say animals have morals. That is because they do not have language, so they can not think about morals, and make moral judgements. Keep in mind, it is unlikely we will ever give dogs voting rights, and yet native Americans saw wolves as an excellent example of family values. Dogs are loyal and that is a virtue. Careful breeding lead to domesticated dogs. The book "Science of Good and Evil", calls biological programming of social animals, the pre morals. The same biological programming that preconditions us for moral judgment, works fairly well for humans in small groups, but not in large groups. In small groups, informal agreements about how to behave, work just fine. In large groups where is impossible to have personal relationships with everyone, religion and government with formal codes of conduct become necessary. Why religion? Because religion unites abnormally large groups of people with a shared identity and code of conduct. Around the 20th century, secular education used literature to transmit cultural values, and this effectively replaces the need for religion as the source of culture, however, education stopped serving this purpose when liberal education was replaced with education for technology. Education for a technological society with unknown values, does not transmit culture, and the result is social break down. This is both good and bad.

 

Whoo, how many science subjects do you discuss like an authority, without reading one book in that field of science? Yeah, right, go into the math or physics thread and tell everyone your ability to understand them is their responsibility. I think someone might tell you to take college class or at least read a book. What books have you read that prepare you for this discussion? How much have read about the history of education? Perhaps you read of zoology or psychology? How much have read of history of Germany? Perhaps you are ready to compare Greek and Rome philosophy with German philosophy? How many books on religion have you read? I don't think there is one science forum where a person would dare to argue without any back ground in the science. Ask questions yes, but argue no.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Athena