Jericho's Philosophy Corner

[Prinapocalypse]

Forgot to mention something in my post earlier:

Is there some sort of absolute moral standard?

Basically if there is a God and depending on which religion God is actually associated with (if any), then there is an absolute moral standard.

But if there is actually no God, then there is no absolute moral standard.

And seeing as there's really no real way to ever prove whether there is, or isn't, it's all about opinions.

And my apologies if I offended anyone with the above post, that's not my intention.

[lopez]

What is good and what is bad? Is there some sort of absolute moral standard? What difference does it make whether something we do is bad or good? What if we feel we have no choice but to do something bad? If so, are we still responsible? Which matters more, the intention or the action? Should the question of what is good and what is bad be left up to individuals?
Also, how should it be decided? Should what is bad and what is good be determined by the situation, by laws, by tradition?

There are many contexts for defining good/bad, but there is also a universal standard (The Golden Rule = "equality") that almost every competent person inherently follows.

Killing someone will always be "bad" no matter what the rationale is behind the kill. Protecting/saving/rescuing people from physical harm will always be "good", regardless of ideology, status, nationality, creed, etc...

Basically, treating people how you would want to be treated transcends good/bad. I've de-escalated many "bad" situations with simple gestures and a basic respect for the individual in question, regardless of my person/religious/cultural/ethnic/etc... beliefs.

[vampko]

Killing someone will not always be 'bad'. Murdering, yes. But, killing? What if it's an accident? What if it was in self-defense? And yet there are those who believe killing others is a testament to the good that you can do. Which even can make murdering someone good in someone's eyes.

And then there's vigilantes.

[JerichoDeath]

Killing someone will always be "bad" no matter what the rationale is behind the kill. Protecting/saving/rescuing people from physical harm will always be "good", regardless of ideology, status, nationality, creed, etc...

Of course, I did see the immediate contradiction in this: to protect some people from harm, others can be killed

Anyway, I'll take my time and respond to this latest fill, but before I do, I will go ahead and make that general subject of Redhorse-san's the main topic for now.
The Question of "Is there and Absolute Moral Standard, and if so, What is it?".

It's a good question. Plus, it's also a question that is one that I've had some of the stronger debates in my Philosophy classes over.

[dood]

All of these big words and deep meanings give me a head ache. I am not even kidding I am that stupid. But I think that everything is predestined already. I don't think there is a way to change what will happen.

[vampko]

All of these big words and deep meanings give me a head ache. I am not even kidding I am that stupid. But I think that everything is predestined already. I don't think there is a way to change what will happen.

Then why bother doing anything? Why bother trying? If it's all pre-destined, what's the point? Just do whatever you feel like doing.

[dood]

All of these big words and deep meanings give me a head ache. I am not even kidding I am that stupid. But I think that everything is predestined already. I don't think there is a way to change what will happen.

Then why bother doing anything? Why bother trying? If it's all pre-destined, what's the point? Just do whatever you feel like doing.

I don't quite know what to say to be honest. All I do is just live so yeah.

[Redhorse]

I thought this was interesting to think about.

[vampko]

If nothing else, it convinced me I really wanna play Umineko now...

Also, the part where it states that it's not logical to believe that God exists, was interesting. Because logic can bring you to that conclusion. Why is it that it's considered 'illogical' for people to believe in a creator, when it's logical to believe in happenstance creating everything that is in existence? And yet we still lack what created that happenstance, and what created that which created that happenstance, and the cycle never ends.

Yet, people will call you a fool for believing there is a power beyond our understanding at work, when that's exactly what the scientific community believes.

[Redhorse]

If nothing else, it convinced me I really wanna play Umineko now...

Also, the part where it states that it's not logical to believe that God exists, was interesting. Because logic can bring you to that conclusion. Why is it that it's considered 'illogical' for people to believe in a creator, when it's logical to believe in happenstance creating everything that is in existence? And yet we still lack what created that happenstance, and what created that which created that happenstance, and the cycle never ends.

Yet, people will call you a fool for believing there is a power beyond our understanding at work, when that's exactly what the scientific community believes.

Once again. this strikes me as broad and not entirely correct. Just as religious people shouldn't be stereotyped into little groups, scientists shouldn't either. I believe Saturnine gave an example about this earlier, but here's another one that may or may not be relevant:

On January 24, 1936, Albert Einstein wrote the following letter to a sixth-grade student, Phyllis Wright, in response to her question as to whether scientists pray, and if so, what they pray for.

Dear Phyllis,

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people.

For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e., by a wish addressed to a supernatural being.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of the laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith.

All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.

But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve.

I hope this answers your question.

Best wishes,

Albert Einstein

[vampko]

My experience with the scientific community (keep in mind I am NOT talking about Scientists in general. Nor science in general) has pretty much been what I stated. Even in my college classes they make you seem like an idiot if you want to believe in something besides a form of evolution.

I know that the entire Scientific Community can not be pigeon-holed into that, but at the same time, that's the only sort of experience I've had.

I've also seen countless examples of religion being ridiculed and looked down upon. I realize my experiences don't account for the entire world. But, I think, generally, it can be found that stating there is a higher power out there, will get shot down as being 'illogical'. Just like what was done in this piece that you shared with us.

[Prinapocalypse]

I thought this was interesting to think about.

An interesting article, although the author kind of seems to contradict themselves at a couple points.

They talk about the "later Queen problem", mentioning how there could easily be information that can not be discovered in the book without guessing and yet later near the end of the article they seem to act like you should disregard that possibility, since there's no way to prove it.

That's what my impression of it was, anyway. Perhaps I misinterpreted the article though.

[Redhorse]

My experience with the scientific community (keep in mind I am NOT talking about Scientists in general. Nor science in general) has pretty much been what I stated. Even in my college classes they make you seem like an idiot if you want to believe in something besides a form of evolution.

I know that the entire Scientific Community can not be pigeon-holed into that, but at the same time, that's the only sort of experience I've had.

I've also seen countless examples of religion being ridiculed and looked down upon. I realize my experiences don't account for the entire world. But, I think, generally, it can be found that stating there is a higher power out there, will get shot down as being 'illogical'. Just like what was done in this piece that you shared with us.

Those are your classes. I don't think, if you are taking a class, people are going to appreciate it if religion is brought up. Because religion isn't something factual you need to learn about in college, and if you want to discuss it that is what church is for. There are reasons they need to be kept separated.

Then I don't see how this can be stated like fact, really, if it's only backed up by a small amount of evidence.

It will because it is possible to interpret it that way. I am curious as to why you (not just you, actually) are bothered by this at all.
faith is really a form of knowledge. Like faith, it would be odd to claim to know something while holding that it may in fact be false. When someone says they know something, we typically may ask them how they know it. So asking is a request for the reasons or evidence one has for what is said to be known. If a person is unable to provide reasons or evidence, we have cause to doubt their knowledge. If I were to say; "I don't just believe that there is life on other planets in the universe, I know it", I will be obliged to offer my evidence. If I cannot give adequate evidence, you are within rights to say that I don't "know" that at all.

Faith seems to differ from knowledge in this respect. While some religious people do point to miracles, prophesies, and sacred texts as evidence of articles of faith, it remains that much of what faith holds is essentially mysterious. To treat religious faith as a kind of knowledge akin to scientific knowledge or historical knowledge changes the nature of what many people seem to express in their having faith. A deep faith in the love of God is not a matter of having employed a systematic testing procedure. On some accounts, for that matter, faith is precisely what one holds to in the absence of evidence and proof. This view fits some aspects of faith. If we had proof that God existed, there would be no need for faith. An incident consistent with this notion of faith is described in the New Testament (John: 20.)

Also, that was not the point of the letter...
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

edit:

They talk about the "later Queen problem", mentioning how there could easily be information that can not be discovered in the book without guessing and yet later near the end of the article they seem to act like you should disregard that possibility, since there's no way to prove it.

Well, the point to the problem is that there isn't anything you can do about it. It should be disregarded because there really isn't any way to go against the "later Queen problem". The only thing you can really do about it is acknowledge that it exists.

edit 2:
For clarification, since I figure I can never clarify enough, my responses aren't upset, angry, or condescending in the least (these are the three conclusions jumped to the most often in these sort of discussions). As always, I am in a state of a sort of silly excitement when it comes to talking about these things ~ However, there exists the possibility that that may be hard to tell, since I don't use many smileys when I am serious.

[JerichoDeath]

On the off-chance that someone misinterprets the concept of "Logic" or "Rationality":
The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

[Prinapocalypse]

Well, the point to the problem is that there isn't anything you can do about it. It should be disregarded because there really isn't any way to go against the "later Queen problem". The only thing you can really do about it is acknowledge that it exists.

That is the way science looks at it, I guess. Science tends to disregard other possibilities, unless science is proven wrong.

And that's also the main thing I dislike about it. I prefer to keep a much more open mind to such things and leave such things to personal opinion.