Yes, but we're just back to a debate on the meaning of the word explain, how, why, etc. Which is where we started 8 years ago Platt, and I'm more interested in honesty than word games. Ian
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Glendinning" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:56 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The Moral Landscape > > > 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 > > Hi Ian, > > But it doesn't explain anything. Isn't that what science is supposed to do? > > Platt > > 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 > 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
