Text 3929, 257 rader
Skriven 2006-07-15 16:44:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4402.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <hpjgb2t0q37gmofuis9ffk9vgergdua653@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <4omla295r32jn0s9fa1714rofoce6fm1a5@4ax.com>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:11:50 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ftgbb2ddup0evl172hee5orr4mek7jihil@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:43:43 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not exactly apples to apples; one was a philopsohy, the other was the
>>>>>>>level of "science" at the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me that both philosophy and science have advanced since that
>>>>>> time (and that much of what was once considered the province of
>>>>>> philosophy is now the province of science -- "natural philosophy" --
>>>>>> instead). And I don't think you'd find support for the concept of
>>>>>> inherent rights among contemporary thinkers.
>>>>>
>>>>>I consider philosophy the search for "Why?" rather than "How?" and I'm 
>>>>>not
>>>>>certain it's advanced.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the distinction here. I want to know "why"
>>>> the sky is blue and things fall down rather than up. And science does
>>>> that. I want to know why we exist, and to an extent I would never have
>>>> believed possible science does that as well, explaining as it does why
>>>> something can come from nothing, indeed /has/ to come from nothing;
>>>> which leads me to believe that the distinction between something and
>>>> nothing, between existence and nonexistence, is a local rather than a
>>>> global one, important in the minds of men but not of angels or of God.
>>>
>>>"Why" a sky is blue is more accurately rephrased "How does the sky appear
>>>blue?"
>>>
>>>The "Why?" questions imply meaning, How implies technique, ability,or
>>>knowledge.  "Why are we here?"  "Why is it wrong to kill?" "Why is it 
>>>wrong
>>>to treat <pick your favorite oppressed class> like crap?  Why can't I do
>>>whatever I want to do?  Why do I feel guilt for some actions?
>>
>> I don't think I would make that distinction. To me, the question "Why
>> are we here?" is no different than the question "Why is the sky blue?"
>> It's not that I don't see your point or the distinction you're making,
>> but rather that I discarded what I regard as the illusion of purpose
>> many years ago.
>
>There's two ideas of purpose.  You may or may not hold a concept of
>a greater purpose above your own, and then there's the ideas that you
>might decide your life has a goal or purpose.
>
>If the latter is illusion, then you're fooling yourself? :)

Seems to me that a goal and a purpose are two different things, in
that you can have the first without having the second (or, I suppose,
the second without having the first). Then too, "greater purpose" can
be local or it can be global. My greater purpose, forex, might be as a
carrier of DNA, or it might be as a thermodynamically-driven chemical
reaction that creates order from chaos or chaos from order, depending
on whether you look at it from the future or the past. Or it may be
something devised by a deity, albeit such explanations tend to be weak
on what purpose the deity serves herself -- more a putting off than a
solving.

>> It seems to me sort of a pathetic fallacy thing -- an
>> attempt to endow nature with human motivations. Even in the case of
>> good and evil, I'm inclined to take the Jeremiahesque view (remember
>> the lecture about fractals?).
>
>Actually, I have to admit I missed it. :(
>
>> And, you know, some people get upset at the prospect of being without
>> purpose or meaning, but I haven't found that it makes any difference:
>> there's still good and bad, there are still things to be done, whether
>> I view myself as a child of God or a dance of energy-absorbing
>> molecules.
>
>I never said that purpose or meaning has to be external.  An athiest
>(back to the original topic!) might still consider themselves as having
>a purpose...as defined by themself.

But I think that's substantially different than a purpose that arises
from the nature of things.

>>>Science is the Latin word for knowledge.  Knowledge isn't philosphy,
>>>although unless you're an idealogue it will certainly play a major part.
>>>Unless you're brainwashed, people have each have an individual philosophy.
>>>Science isn't that subjective.
>>
>> I think there's a substantial difference between the term "a
>> philosophy" and "philosophy." True philosophy seeks -- at least, did
>> before the post-modernists -- objectivity. It seeks to answer natural
>> and moral questions in a logically rigorous way. By way of contrast,
>> an individual philosophy implies the subjectivism of imperfect and
>> incomplete knowledge.
>
>A person may strive to have a completely objective view of their own life 
>and the context in which it is lived.  Consider the song by Kansas...
>"Dust in the wind" may be considered a rather objective perspective towards 
>a particular philosophy. The fact that an individual subscribes to such a 
>philosophy does not negate its objectivity or diminish its validity as 
>philosophy.
>
>I see no reason to suggest that "True philosphy" is not subjective through 
>imperfect and incomplete knowledge.

Neither do I, but I think it's nevertheless distinguishable from a
personal philosophy, because it seeks to uncover truth.

Personal philosophy: I don't pick fights with strangers.

Erroneous objective philosophy: If I pick fights with strangers, I get
creamed.

Correct objective philosophy: If I pick fights with strangers, it's
likely that I'll be creamed.

>Trying to define morals strictly within the bounds of logic is a little like 
>trying to describe sex to a child using pictures in a book.

To be sure, but are subjective impressions part of philosophy, or
something that's examined by philosophy?

>>>Science can't answer why you should be nice to the person you meet on the
>>>street that you're unlikely to ever see again.
>>
>> Two questions: Should you?
>
>That's a moral question and relates to the definition of philosphy as "A 
>system of values by which one lives."  It's certainly possible to construct 
>a scenerio in which one's actions may be logical but not moral, or illogical 
>and moral.

I don't think I recognize that definition. Philosophy is a lot broader
than that. Ethics or moral philosophy might be closer.

Agree with the second point.

>> And can't it?
>
>You can certainly use science to provide evidence of consequences... but 
>morality judges whether those consequences are good or bad ones.

Why can't science examine what makes those consequences good or bad?
It seems to me that both psychology and neuroscience have done that,
as more recently has evolutionary biology and even mathematics.

>> The first seems to me
>> uncertain from a philosophical perspective: you take it for granted
>> that you should, and philosophers can provide a fairly elegant
>> framework for the criteria you would use, but I don't think that
>> modern philosophers, or most philosophers after Nietzsche, would take
>> it for granted that you should.
>
>>
>>>From a scientific perspective, the problem would in large measure boil
>> down to the role of cooperation in evolution.
>
>Only on a large scale.  Just to clarify, your position is that science is 
>only capable of answering moral questions on an evolutionary level?

I'm not sure what you mean by moral questions. As you point out below,
science doesn't attempt to assign moral values. It can tell us where
our moral values come from, examine the process whereby we form them.
It can even recognize that some acts are moral and some amoral within
a given context and aid in the refinement of moral strictures and
judgment, by for example refining the primitive incest taboos into
modern ones based on a knowledge of genetics. But by the same token,
science recognizes that moral systems are at least to some extent
contingent, personal, and arbitrary. It can suggest changes only
within the context of externally-supplied parameters.

>If a species (including the homo sapiens) dies out...for any reason... is 
>that moral or immoral from a scientific perspective?  Nope.  It's simply a 
>fact.  Science doesn't assign moral values...it simply provides a 
>rationalization for moral values.

Probably true, although I would argue that modern philosophy does the
same.

>>>  Science can't measure
>>>whether I look at my life as being a good or wasted life.
>>
>> Again, can't it? At the very least, it could ask (and I'm sure 
>> psychologists have).
>
>What measurement would science possibly use to quantify how I measure my 
>life?
>Anyone can ask...that doesn't make it science.

But asking questions can be a part of science. Psychologists, for
example, ask them all the time, and I'm sure they've asked questions
about the very phenomenon you describe.

>>> It doesn't matter
>>>how much scientific knowledge is accumulated, it won't be able to address
>>>those questions.  If it can't be expressed in numbers, it's not science.
>>
>> I would argue that philosophy can be expressed in numbers, that
>> anything can be expressed in numbers.
>
>How much... in numbers...do I love my wife & kids?
>How much ... in numbers ... do I value the sound of my son laughing?
>How much...in numbers... does it matter to me that my kids are growing up to 
>be good people that think for themselves?
>How would you measure the things that I've done that I'm proud of and the 
>things that I've done that I'm not proud of and quantify them?
>What scale can you apply to this that has any meaning to me?

Again, I think psychologists have devised many scales. They tend to be
self-centering and normalizing, e.g., "Rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how
much you love your wife and kids, with 1 being not at all and 10 being
extremely."

And then you could ask the same thing about the other questions using
the same scale, and compare them to get an idea of the relative
importance of these things to you. It's crude, but it works.

>>As a physicist, forget which
>> one, once observed, mathematics is formalized thought. It's probably
>> not an overstatement to say that the universe is made up of numbers.
>
>The physical universe can be measured in numbers.
>The consequences of some events can be measured in numbers.
>Many things can't be.

I believe that insofar as some things can't be measured at all. But
that doesn't include how much you love your wife and kids. Some day,
we will be able to point to the individual neurons and the strength of
the synaptic connections. Even now, we can detect metabolic activity
in areas of the brain that are triggered by love, as well as hormone
levels. And before that, we could ask questions of the sort I
mentioned above. And ultimately, it all comes down to physics and
math.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)