nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


That's Christianity for you
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:48 pm    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you  Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Another rather desperate attempt to blame religion for..well, everything!

Although I mentioned religion as a source of such ideas, I also mentioned philosophy and politics. The fact that you ignore these without a passing word and always zero in on religion - as you did in another discussion recently, IIRC - shows how touchy you are on the issue when anybody criticises the ideology to which you happen to adhere.

Quote:
I'm afraid it doesn't hold water. You used the example of racism instead of sticking with my example of eugenics regarding disability.

A scientist might state that all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations. She might argue this because of what she has learned about genes and heredity. what is your rationale for claiming that these ideas come from 'not-science'?

Because she's committing the classic fallacy of deriving an ought (a philosophical belief, a moral prescription) from an is (a statement of scientific discovery, a description). You can't get from a factual description of genetic conditions (science) to all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations. That's a philosophical belief that science just can't give you. It's a category mistake to think that it can. It's like using a stick of celery to try to open a tin of beans: it's the wrong tool for the right job or the right tool for the wrong job, but either way, you're misapplying either one thing or the other.

For example: science (and epidemiology, and statistics) can tell you that if you smoke tobacco, there is a certain statistical likelihood that you may contract lung cancer. However, the decision to smoke or not smoke can't come from science - that's something you can only decide for non-scientific reasons because the bare bones of the science, the mere facts and figures and numbers on a page, can't give it to you. You might decide the risk is worth the short-term pleasure and go on smoking anyway, or you may simply not care. (In philosophical jargon this makes it a hypothetical imperative).
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:39 pm    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
she's committing the classic fallacy of deriving an ought (a philosophical belief, a moral prescription) from an is (a statement of scientific discovery, a description). You can't get from a factual description of genetic conditions (science) to all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations.   .


OK, I shouldn't have used the word "Should" is describing her view.

What if she simply publishes "Killing all disabled children at birth will have a positive impact on the healthcare budget, productivity and genetic robustness of this country, and will reduce the incidence of chronic pain within our population by X% within 50 years."?

Would this tell us anything about what is the case according to science?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:47 pm    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
OK, I shouldn't have used the word "Should" is describing her view.

What if she simply publishes "Killing all disabled children at birth will have a positive impact on the healthcare budget, productivity and genetic robustness of this country, and will reduce the incidence of chronic pain within our population by X% within 50 years."?

She would, as they say, have to show her working. She would have to demonstrate, clearly and precisely and explicitly, why she believes this, on what basis. That statement is a testable prediction and science is in the testable prediction business, but it's also in the business of demanding that those who frame hypotheses - especially such an extreme one as this, which wouldn't be tested of course - account for their views.

And then of course she'd be torn to shreds by people pointing out that such measures have already been tried on a widespread scale about eighty or so years ago, without the results she foresees.

Quote:
Would this tell us anything about what is the case according to science?

Nope.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:50 pm    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:


Quote:
Would this tell us anything about what is the case according to science?

Nope.


Then why do you feel that the people misrepresenting Christian thought, who may well be "torn to shreds" by the other Christians, tell us something about what is the case accordig to Christianity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Powwow
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Posts: 3793


Location: alberta canada

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker can you please provide a list of countries that were murdering all disabled children 80yrs ago?

Dear God, these poor babies. It's the ones calling for the murder of preborn and born babies that the world can do without. Vile, evil, selfish devils every one. I hate the fact they live and the babies are being snuffed.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/...-babies-not-people-can-be-killed/
_________________
"If we were to judge nature by common sense or likelihood, we wouldn't believe the world existed."   Annie Dillard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RHmsg86G0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trentvoyager
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Posts: 2570


Location: Nottingham, United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's the ones calling for the murder of preborn and born babies that the world can do without.


Can you give examples of who is "calling" for this?
_________________
Wasn't Billy Liar a great play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't worry trent, he won't
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:21 am    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Then why do you feel that the people misrepresenting Christian thought, who may well be "torn to shreds" by the other Christians, tell us something about what is the case accordig to Christianity?

Not at all sure what you're even trying to say here.

We seem to be going round in circles. Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.

On the other hand I always thought that Christianity was, is, by its adherents is considered to be a teaching or groups of teachings which it's incumbent on those who label themselves as Christians to believe, if the word is actually mean something at any rate.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:21 pm    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.


Then how does the poster in your picture say that there are things which are the case "according to science" (and subjective things, too; not hard provable facts)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:36 pm    Post subject: Re: That's Christianity for you Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.


Then how does the poster in your picture say that there are things which are the case "according to science" (and subjective things, too; not hard provable facts)?

At least some of those things on the list are not wholly subjective. There are standard metrics for assessing intelligence (things like the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, etc.) and a great many anthropologists believe that there are objective criteria for assessing female pulchritude relating to the proportions between various facial and bodily features.


_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum