RoR: Forum

Good article, Craig.

And this is a good question:

Why is it that those who are intricately familiar with the scientific method, with minds capable of comprehending highly specific details and abstract concepts, are incapable of understanding that an arbitrary decision in ethics leads to illogical and incorrect results, in the same fashion that an arbitrary decision in science leads to illogical and incorrect results?

Are they actually incapable -- or just unwilling?

Post 1

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 8:19am

On a tangent:

I am often amused by the superficial similarity between the nullset in mathematics and the concept of God: every possible statement one can make about either of them is trivially true (except, of course, that the null-set is non-empty). But neither explains anything.

So I prefer using expressions like 'null-set knows' instead of 'Lord knows!'

coaltontrail

Post 2

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 6:32pm

Coalton,

Thats awesome, never thought of that. Well said.

Eric.

Post 3

Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 5:29am

Craig,

Good article, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I just wanted to make a quick observation. Pretty much everyone in this country is familiar with the scientific method, and with it a rudimentary understanding of noncontradiction. But, they choose to violate it when the results they would get undermine the way they think reality should work. Hence, theists posit the existence of a God that cannot exist. Environmentalists harp on fears and concerns that are not corroborated by the evidence available in the world around them. Physicists contemplate bizarre changes to our theories of reality because they can't explain the measurements they get again and again. It's simply subjectivism, the same plague that has ruled the world for millennia. But we're getting there, little by little. It takes time for a radical change in worldview to take hold, but it will eventually, I hope...

Kevin

Post 4

Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 5:42pm

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I don't have any more to offer. I tend to think that if people on the Left became aware of the natural requirements that Life demands of us, and became aware that these requirements WERE a moral code for each of us, that we would see some progress. As it is, most on the Left seem to believe that ethics is a myth, and that all values are equal. Apparently, they don't understand that Life demands that we value some things above others.

Craig

Post 5

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 11:38am

The title of this article assumes that a simple ERROR in thought has occurred in the case of most people. Assuming that one chooses to live as a human being, the results we see today are indeed errors. But what if one has not chosen to live as a human being but instead to live as a parasite on those who have accepted the responsibility of being one's own highest value? In this context, what we see today is not merely an error in thought, but the logical consequence of defaulting on the responsibility of maintaining one's life. Not everyone who breathes, eats, and walks is a Human Being who Chooses to be alive. There is a fundamental choice which will determine all other choices in the course of one's life. This is the choice of life or death. The least intelligent of Humans are capable of understanding this idea and acting to maintain their lives. Maybe, those who "know" a lot of "stuff" are not so intelligent after all. Intelligence is not what one knows, but HOW one knows it.

-"Mankind will never destroy itself. Not so long as it does things such as this"-Roark

"This" being the forum to discuss ideas and the knowledge that there are others who exist because they CHOOSE to be HUMAN.

Post 6

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 1:36pm

When trying to understand how people--and I mean, otherwise intelligent people skilled in abstract thought--nevertheless believe in a god(s), this is the only situation I've been able to see:

Start with the assumption that a "god" exists. Initially, this is fine...inasmuch as it's true that something exists, as opposed to nothing. Unfortunately, if the notion of god's existence is justified only by the fact that existent objects do, in fact, exist, then the defintion of god should not overstep the bounds of "existence." Unfortunately, the word "god" has a definition tacked onto it in order to support their beliefs in the traits of this being. Suddenly, the notion that things exist no longer support the concept of god anymore...however, since god must exist (since things exist), they have to find a way to logically prove this being...naturally, since the traits of god took it out of the totality of existence, they can't do that. God, once defined as more than existence, is unprovable.

Somewhat-intelligent pantheists seem to understand this, and equate god with the universe. One of two things then happen: they're really atheists for all intents are purposes, or they have to "pump up" god up to a coincidence-of-opposites entity; i.e., contradictions must logically exist in order for their god to exist!

Post 7

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 5:33pm