On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:21:31 +0100, andrel wrote:

> What prompted the culture remark is that I think it is debatable whether
> e.g. 'chew every mouthful at least 5 times' or even a rule that a man
> should leave the elevator as soon as there is only him and a female left
> is an ethical rule or just a cultural. 

Well, to me, that's an easy one - both are cultural (for some definition 
of cultural).  The former may be due to past restrictions on food 
availability - chewing it a certain amount stretches the meal out, and 
generally speaking, if you take longer to eat, you'll feel full sooner 
(so I'm told - the average American takes < 20 minutes to eat a full 
meal, and there has apparently been research done to show that that might 
lead to obesity; on the other side, the French apparently take a really 
long time to eat, but often will eat portions of similar size to 
Americans, yet are much thinner.  It's largely anecdotal from what I can 
see, there may be an aspect of *what's* eaten as well, but when your 
frame of reference is limited, then you do what you can within that frame 
of reference).

As for the latter, also I'd say cultural, but suggested at that level in 
order to avoid the appearance of an ethical conundrum.  But I also have 
to admit that this sort of cultural conditioning really doesn't send a 
positive message about the male's ability to control themselves, either - 
the assumption being that if a man is alone with a woman, the man is 
going to get up to no good is a very negative cultural message.

But within the framework of that culture, I can understand the idea of 
leaving no question about whether or not the man has acted ethically in 
that situation.  I even see that sort of thing here in the US often - I 
work on a team made up mostly of women, and most of them will not close 
the door in their office if we're having a private conversation about 
something work-related.  It's not because I'm not trustworthy or 
honourable, but just because that's the cultural conditioning for them.

> Most countries and families have
> strange rules that are incomprehensible for an outsider because there
> seems no moral ground for it other than that is the way they do it.
> Patrick's definition would include all those as well. I'd like to
> reserve the concept of ethics for more important and more general rules,
> but that may be me.

It's been my experience that most people have a very difficult time 
putting themselves in someone else's shoes.  It isn't an easy thing to 
do, I'll grant, but it is possible to do it.  I'll occasionally do it 
myself when I'm trying to understand a point of view - and I often find 
that if I do that, I understand a lot better where someone's coming 
from.  I don't have to agree with their point of view in order to do so 
(which also seems to be a difficult thing for many people to do - look at 
things from a view they don't agree with).

Often times, I'll see debates along the lines of:

"So imagine that you were in the situation of keeping guns in the house 
for skeet shooting; wouldn't you want to have your kids trained on gun 
safety?"
"No, because I wouldn't do that activity."
"Well, yes, but they are, so imagine you are them, wouldn't you want..."
"No, because I wouldn't keep guns in the house"

And so on.  The question in the above hypothetical situation isn't about 
whether the person would engage in skeet shooting, it's about whether or 
not they think gun safety education is an important thing for those who 
do.

Some people will take this sort of approach to derail the conversation, 
but it seems that a larger portion really truly are not able to put 
themselves in the shoes of someone that does something they're 
fundamentally opposed to doing, even as an exercise in understanding why 
they behave the way they do.

To borrow a quote from Douglas Adams "You cannot see what I see because 
you see what you see.  You cannot know what I know because you know what 
you know.  What I see and what I know cannot be added to what you see and 
what you know because they are not of the same kind. Neither can it 
replace what you see and what you know, because that would be to replace 
you yourself."

Or there's the man in the shack (also from H2G2):  "I only decide about 
my Universe.  My Universe is is what happens to my eyes and ears.  
Anything else is surmise and hearsay."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Well, it's the same sort of thing as "Trust but verify" (or rather, my 
description of faith - be it blind or not - is along those lines).

I would tend to agree that those with strong religious beliefs (and I do 
live and work around some who have very strong beliefs - I do live in 
Utah, after all <g>) tend to trust without verification.  And for many or 
most of them, that seems to work for them.

My mom also has a fairly strong faith; the Lutheran church (which I was 
brought up in) convinced me that organized religion was largely bunk 
because I saw the infighting between the pastoral staff (I worked the 
sound booth, and a lot of time when they were around those of us doing 
the sound, they were very unguarded in their comments).  When you see 
clergy acting like "normal people", they lose their mysticism (if it can 
be called that).  I also saw a lot more of the financial side than I 
probably should have - and here in Utah, it's hard to ignore the large 
section of local (and larger) businesses that are not merely LDS-owned, 
but owned by the LDS church.  TIME magazine did a story a few years back 
on the church's financial holdings, and the number and types of 
businesses they own is truly staggering.

Not to mention that the head of the Department for Alcoholic Beverage 
Control is run, IIRC, by someone high up in the church.  And we sure do 
pay a significant "sin tax" on "drinks of boozy goodness" here as a 
result - and that money goes almost directly to the chruch.

Yet at the same time, I cannot ignore the things the church has done to 
help her through some pretty difficult issues.  So for her, her faith 
works and has made her happier.  Who am I to argue with the result?

If I were to have a logical debate with her about the church or religion 
(or my father-in-law, who is an LDS Bishop), it no doubt would lead to 
anger and frustration, because I'd be challenging something that's 
working for them.

It's easy to sit back and poke at religions - I do it all the time in the 
spirit of good-natured debate, even with friends I work with (and even 
with a few who are LDS - but they've got to be people I've known for 
years before I go down that road, and they've got to know that I'm not 
begrudging them their beliefs, just that I'm interested in understanding 
more about the people around me and that any attempts to poke holes in 
their faith are part of my way of understanding more fully).

But like I wrote to Andrel a few minutes ago, I also can (and do) debate 
from both sides of an argument.  This does frustrate some who debate with 
me because they don't know if I'm debating from what I personally believe 
or if I'm exploring my own beliefs by challenging them to answer 
questions related to what I believe.

Ultimately, though, I believe each of us is entitled to our beliefs, up 
to the point that they infringe upon another person's well-being and/or 
sense of self.  (Basically, your religion stops at my nose - 
figuratively, not literally).  The local LDS ward houses know not to send 
missionaries over here, even though my stepson is still on the rolls; he 
identifies more Buddhist than anything, and they've gotten to know if 
they come round looking for Ken and he is here, he'll give them quite an 
existential debate and ask them some very challenging questions that they 
might not (or rather, will not) be prepared to answer.  The reason they 
will not be prepared to answer the questions Ken asks is because their 
life's experience has been limited by the church to the point that they 
haven't looked at why other people believe differently than they do.  
That sort of examination isn't - I don't think - forbidden, but rather it 
just never occurs to anyone at the ward level to try to understand.  They 
just come out and sell the church (which is really what the typical 
missionary from the LDS church is doing, at least in my experience).

The approach is two-fold - first, it's providing literature, but also 
just being good neighbors.  And that latter part is really cool, I have 
to admit.  I wish it didn't take a religious organization to say "you 
should be good to each other and help each other out if you are able to", 
but that's one thing I've observed out here - people help each other with 
stuff.  I'd see it in other parts of the country, too, but not to the 
extent I see here.

A friend of mine drove 45 miles (with a small trailer) to come and help 
us move, for example - and another drove his horse trailer up (after 
cleaning it out) so we wouldn't have to rent a truck.  Oh, and the first 
one?  It was his daughter's birthday - so he felt bad that he could only 
make one trip with the trailer, but most other places I've been, it 
would've been "I'd love to come and help, but it's my daughter's birthday 
that day."  I would have understood that as well - in fact, after he came 
up and told us that he could only do that, I told him he should've said 
something, and he said "it's not a problem - really, if it had been, I 
would have said something."

Yet at the same time, just culturally, we are outsiders (not LDS), and we 
did live one place where that was clearly obvious - very few people 
talked with us because we weren't part of their ward.  It's a weird 
dichotomy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:32:07 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:15:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>> Here's the other thing: Atheists can generally provide a long list of
>>> "here's things that would convince me to be religious."  Theists can
>>> rarely provide a single answer to "what would convince you you're
>>> wrong?"
>> 
>> Well, that's proving a negative (after a fashion, perhaps), which is
>> not generally regarded, AIUI, as a valid scientific approach.
> 
> Errr, not at all. Of course you can prove a negative in the scientific
> sense. "This drug does not cause cancer."

I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
something that would not be disproven over time.

In a purely logical sense, all it takes is one person getting cancer that 
can be traced back to that drug that would disprove the hypothesis that 
the drug doesn't cause cancer.

That's the problem with proving a negative - logically, you cannot test 
every possible test case to come to such a conclusion.  The fact that the 
drug industry lists most of the little side effects anyone saw in their 
clinical trials attests to that.

Then add to that the exceptions to that statement:  If it's taken beyond 
the guidelines the drug company determined from their clinical trials, 
might that cause cancer?  Did they test it?  If so, how?

And so on.

Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logically 
and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or that 
Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't 
fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as I 
know you know).

The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could've 
been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
communications device.  Doesn't matter what it was - we, as people, tend 
to describe things in terms that we can understand.  So when, in Genesis, 
the description of creation is described as 6 days long, are we defining 
that as human days?  Or is "day" a term used because the time periods 
involved were (and are) truly unfathomable?  If the earth shows geologic 
evidence of a collision 4.5 billion years ago with another planet (and 
some suggest that evidence does exist), that might be the dawn of day 1.  
Day 2 may well have come much longer than 24 of our hours after it.

Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it 
didn't happen?  Not really, no.

> I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very
> quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.

I'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.  
You and I do come at this from similar perspectives, but I'm not sure 
what would be on my list - never really thought about it.

> I have never met an theist who could give a single example of anything
> that would convince him *his* religion is wrong. (Note: there have been
> such theists in history - people conquered by christians, for example
> who decided that meant the christian god must be stronger than their
> own.)  I guess you could call the original christians such theists, and
> probably the original muslims, mormons, etc. On the gripping hand,
> they're all followers of JHVH, so it's not real clear this was actually
> changing their minds.

I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would really 
have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must have 
meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that happens 
in the world (and that happened to them).

> Hence, all the arguments that "atheism is just another religion" is
> wrong, because atheism, not being based purely on faith, is open to
> change via argument or evidence.  At least mine is.

Well, depending on what your list of proof consists of.  I do know some 
atheists whose list consists of things like "God can do something that's 
impossible" - and with that, there's a certain degree of faith that that 
will never happen - and it's that faith in the impossible not happening 
that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

> (There's actually a number of interesting SF books I've read wherein
> God's existence is scientifically proven.)

I like what Adams (an avowed atheist) wrote about it, as a conversation 
between man and God:

God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without 
faith, I am nothing.
Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and so 
therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)

Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition 
is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's 
evidence, you don't need faith.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
>>> says...

[snipped some old context].

>>> **instead** of theirs.
>> Sorry Patrick for not using the words with exactly the same meaning as 
>> you. I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being an atheist is 
>> simply part of who I am. It is in every cell of my body, in every 
>> thought that even remotely touches ethics, in how I interact with others 
>> and in all my scientific work. In short it is part of me the same way as 
>> believe in a God is for some others, that is why I said it is a 
>> religion. If some moron rejects that word because in his views that 
>> implies that it has to be unfounded, so be it. If you think it is an 
>> irrational emotional thing, think again. Besides if you think that for a 
>> true believer in God that is only for emotional reasons and that that 
>> can't be rational, you can not be more wrong than that.
>>
[snipped a large text that is largely based on your idea on what a 
religious person or an atheist should believe. Interesting but irrelvant.]
> 
> Let me put it another way. If, by your definition, atheism, which only 
> demands that you either reject, or strongly suspect the nonexistence of, 
> gods, is a religion, 
I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious 
way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical 
says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can 
from here on deduce anything.
[snipped some invalid conclusions].

I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I 
hope not).

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> In article <4753b011$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
>>>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>>>> Ethics is almost entirely 
>>>>> arbitrary, aside some fundamental survival derivatives.
>>>> I would disagree, but that's OK.
>>>>
>>> I would disagree too. You don't learn ethics by someone *telling* you 
>>> that its bad, you do so by testing the boundaries of what, first, you 
>>> parents allow, then society, and concluding, based on evidence, that 
>>> there are **consequences** for acting unethically. Its only arbitrary in 
>>> the sense that "sometimes" the rules are based on irrational projections 
>>> of imaginary consequences, or misinterpretations of the magnitude, 
>>> nature, existence or even the actual cause of real consequences.
>>>
>> That is not ethics, that is culture. You learn ethics by finding out why 
>> the universe exist and what it's ultimate goal is. Use that as a basis 
>> to explain mankind's existence and its final purpose. From that you can 
>> derive what you as a person should do. At least that is how I did it 
>> (granted, I still have to fill in some minor details).
>>
> One of us is using a completely crazy definition of what "ethics" means, 
> and since yours is nothing like what *anyone* I have ever talked to 
> uses, I don't think its mine. Just saying...

Mine wasn't a definition. It was a procedure to arrive at a set of 
morals. If you follow ethics through the ages you will see that in most 
cases ethics are passed down from one generation to another with or 
without minor changes. There are however discontinuities as a result of 
people (prophets) that follow my recipe.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That is not ethics, that is culture. You learn ethics by finding out 
>> why the universe exist and what it's ultimate goal is. ... At least 
>> that is how I did it 
> 
> Wow. Fill me in. How did you figure out the purpose of the entire 
> universe and its ultimate goal?
> 
> Seriously. I want to know. I'm not mocking you.
> 
You forgot the last part '(granted, I still have to fill in some minor 
details)'. This is one of those minor details. ;)

Of course there is slightly more to it. Some historical background: once 
(~25 years ago) I decided to find out if I could take the nonexistence 
of God as an axiom and see if you could still get a decent ethics system 
from that. To my surprise I could do that, the logic may not convince 
anybody else but it was OK for me at that time. Later I noticed that I 
started behaving 'ethical', following my own rules. That was a bit 
surprising too, because that really meant a change of behaviour. I was 
e.g. extremely introvert, I am still not exactly extrovert, but I came a 
long way. I am also much more friendly, laid back and tolerant for other 
peoples behaviour than I was. Other changes are more subtle and not so 
much noticeable for others. Over the years my views have changed 
slightly but not the basic ones. In particular I kept the axiom of the 
non-existence of God. Everything that I do or think somewhere rests on 
that axiom. Just as much as other people may found their behaviour on 
God's existence. In contrast to the atheist that Patrick seems to know I 
am totally not evangelistic. If you believe in God, that's fine by me. 
That does not mean that I as a person am not a convinced (read: 
'axiomatic') atheist.
The logic may be a bit different than usual, but I knew that I really 
struck gold when I discovered that my behaviour towards other people 
with the same believe as mine would become undefined. So the other 
reason that I am not evangelic is that I prefer not to enter that moral 
minefield. (I know that that last bit is probably incomprehensible if 
you don't fully understand my (twisted) logic, but I am afraid I can not 
explain it for the same reason :) ).
Having solved this puzzle, I got back for an attempt to find an idea 
that would answer the ultimate answer and could serve as a basis for the 
no-God axiom. I found a couple and the one that is most likely to me has 
the peculiar side effect that I now fully believe in predestination and 
as a philosophical point of view I don't believe that time exists (yes, 
I struck gold again). Reason number three for not being evangelistic: 
  you'd think I am completely nuts. I might be, but I am perfectly happy 
as it is.
Note to Patrick: you might think that if I tell you I am an atheist that 
you know what I think and how I should behave. Believe me, you haven't 
got a clue.

Post a reply to this message

>> Matthew 22:34-40
>> But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees,
>> they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question,
>> testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment
>> in the law?" Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God
>> with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is 
>> the
>> first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love
>> your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the
>> Law and the Prophets."
>
> I fail to see the relevance.

Oh, it's just that Jesus did talk about the commandments and the law
quite a bit.  It's legitimate to say that's clarification instead of 
historical
context.

> I was speaking of the ten commandments, as given to Moses. Certainly, 
> something that comes later can dispute or clarify such commandments. But I 
> don't know what context God's words to Adam could have that isn't in 
> Genesis, given there was nobody else in the entire world at the time.

Genesis was written by Moses, before that time it was oral history.
The penatuch (the first five books) is written in an early legal format
where the same conclusions are reached in several ways. The creation
story is meant to give context to the establishment of the law.

> Jesus says which of the commandments are more important. How does that 
> help Moses interpret them? How does that help anyone before Jesus 
> interpret them?
>
> (This is turning into a pretty silly discussion at this point. :-)

Well, athiests find God silly, so the idea that Moses talked with
God seems silly to them, and the idea that Jesus was raised from
the dead seems silly to them.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:40:30 -0800, Tim Attwood wrote:

> Oh, it's just that Jesus did talk about the commandments and the law
> quite a bit.  It's legitimate to say that's clarification instead of
> historical context.

Huh?  The 10 Commandments needed clarification?  I thought God was 
supposed to be infallible?  Omnipotent, Omniscient, and all that?

(Not trying to pick a fight here, I *really* don't understand what you're 
saying here)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> Genesis was written by Moses, 

Well, it was written *down* by Moses. It was obviously originally God's 
words, as I can't imagine who else would know what happened before Adam 
was created.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
> cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
> something that would not be disproven over time.

We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision. 
You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things 
don't have certain properties.

> In a purely logical sense, 

Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also. 
There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic, 
almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a 
universally-quantified negative that can be proven.

> Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logically 
> and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or that 
> Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't 
> fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as I 
> know you know).

I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they 
truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.

> The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could've 
> been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
> communications device.

I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually 
satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without 
consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)

> Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it 
> didn't happen?  Not really, no.

That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that 
things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example, 
it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what 
genesis says (iirc).

>> I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very
>> quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.
> 
> I'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.  

Sure.

God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really 
was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in, 
incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)

A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who 
always won wars of oppression against them.

Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying 
they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.

Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.

Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and 
spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly 
after.

A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.

A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of 
touch.

Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move 
a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll 
believe faith can move mountains.

A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a 
disaster or even lightning.

>> I have never met an theist who could give a single example of anything
>> that would convince him *his* religion is wrong. (Note: there have been
>> such theists in history - people conquered by christians, for example
>> who decided that meant the christian god must be stronger than their
>> own.)  I guess you could call the original christians such theists, and
>> probably the original muslims, mormons, etc. On the gripping hand,
>> they're all followers of JHVH, so it's not real clear this was actually
>> changing their minds.
> 
> I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would really 
> have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must have 
> meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that happens 
> in the world (and that happened to them).

I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.

I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans. 
(I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some 
leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)

> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening 
> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also 
have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But 
if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink 
those too.

> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without 
> faith, I am nothing.
> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and so 
> therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)

The flaw there is that it's using logic.

> Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition 
> is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's 
> evidence, you don't need faith.

Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence 
in the world isn't going to help.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message