Hi Platt, you said "[Emergence] only describes what happened".
Which is good surely, ie it's honest and empirical ? Any explanation that doesn't would therefore be dishonest. Ian On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Well said. Science constantly ascribes the creation of new patterns to > "emergence" which doesn't explain anything. It only describes what happened. > > Best, > Platt > > > On 19 Oct 2010 at 22:14, 118 wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> Steve: >> >> This is a typical Platteral shift. The question was not about whether >> >> religions have any true moral beliefs. Of course they do, and since >> >> religions contradict one another's moral teachings they also obviously >> >> have a lot of false moral beliefs. If there are any people of faith >> >> who are not deceived (if one religion actually is true), then there >> >> are certainly millions who are deceived. >> >> >> > >> > Mark: >> > Steve, I think you are confusing truth with belief. I believe I like >> > pistachios, that does not make it true. It is only true that I believe >> > that. All religions are true in that sense. The deception is realized >> when >> > one changes his/her mind, it does not exist before that. >> >> >> Steve: >> I understand completely that believing something is not the same as it >> being true. But in your odd example, I can't see how you could believe >> that you like pistachios when you don't really like them. >> >> >> >> >> Steve: >> >> The question is what is the basis for moral truth? Is it (1) the >> >> authority of prophets and clerics? Or is it (2) the fact that some >> >> things are better than others and therefore the distinction between >> >> good and bad is open to rational inquiry? >> >> >> >> > Mark: >> > Yes Steve, that is the question, but you are missing a few choices in the >> > multiple choice question. If I had to choose from the above I would say >> > number 1. The so called authority of prophets and the resulting clerics >> is >> > arrived at through rational inquiry, it is not just made up out of >> nothing. >> > They are directly addressing the question of moral truth, so the >> underlying >> > premise to their answers provides more basis. >> >> >> Steve: >> Such authorities generally conflate morality with "the will of God" >> and claim special divine revellation rather than a reasoned argument >> in support of their "moral" pronouncements. They speak on God's behalf >> about how to please God rather than speaking on the topic of how to >> maximize human well-being. >> > > Mark: > OK Steve, instead of saying "the will of God" I were to say: "the will of > the primary physical forces which have expressed themselves through a big > bang, and, coupled with random chance make this anthopocentric universe > possible", would that be more acceptable? It sure has a lot more words, but > it still doesn't explain a thing. Or perhaps I could say that by "the will > of the evolutionary process, which selects in favor of those of the species > which collect in groups and express moral tendencies, as demonstrated though > an analysis of bones through the ages". Is that better? No matter what one > says it is the will of, it is simply a description, not a truth. I can > think of a hundred ways to describe our moral behavior, this doesn't mean > that I understand it, it just means I have strung a bunch of words together > and by virtue of them supporting each other I have created one big God. > >> >> It is clear that we simply aren't talking about the same thing when we >> use the word "morality." I doesn't look to me as though you could >> possibly contribute anything to a discussion of morality (any one that >> I am interested in) if you don't see morality as being concerned with >> conscious experience but rather as whatever a given ecclesiastical >> authority decides God wills. >> > > Let me say, that I follow no-one. My conscious experience dictates all. I > derive things empirically through experience. I am not one of those theists > that believes everything the physics textbooks tells me, nor am I an > agnostic waiting to really see the electron before I believe in it, nor am > I an atheist that needs to deny some phantom, that I have created, in order > to justify my behavior. So you may be right if a discussion on morality > means creating a moral system scientifically and then forcing it on people, > we have nothing to discuss. The whole concept of defining morality in such > a way smacks of a highly dogmatic Religion which will be forcing us wear > burkas because it has been scientifically proven to be highly moral. Such > an encapsulation of morals is not only dangerous, it is immoral. > > Cheers, > Mark > >> >> Best, >> Steve >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
