Actually, yes. It still means exactly the same. Although, I don't know what he meant with "raise the dead".
"... it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. "
Always nice to hear as an atheist who doesn't accept Jesus and god.
"But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. "
See my other post. And again, thanks Jesus! See you when you send me to hell to suffer for all eternity!
You can choose to interpret the bible loosely and see a veiled message in it, but then you should be consistent and perhaps realise that when a man is ready to put a bullet to your child's head that the rules aren't as strict and that god's word is more like god's vague, not accurate or perfect guideline...
...
In full context, Jesus is giving instructions to His disciples the shepperd in the Children of Israel (Jews). He says, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans."
His instructions are for His disciples to tell them (Jews, that have lost their God), not ask them, to return to God's love.
The way you put it... singling out that one passage... you make it sound like Jesus was out to kick some ass and divide families and kill people. I don't see it that way... because I read it in its full context, not just a small bit to fit whatever point I am trying to make it fit. Jesus instructs His disciples to order lost Jews to accept God, through His message... regardless of what your Father (or brother) tells you.
...
I have heard many Christians (not you.. not in this context) use this passage to justify War. Jesus is not condoneing War, here. He is instructing His deciples to spread His teachings... directly, not passively.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?
I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.
It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.
The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss
We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.
It is. It's called philosophy. Within philosophy major fields are the philosophy of science (which should be part of the curriculum for all higher education, and is, at least in Norway) and ethics.
Philosophy should perhaps be more focused on, but it's already there.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I've asked this question to one of the religious folks on this board (might have been you even), if someone held a gun to your children's heads and asked you to deny god otherwise he'd shoot your children, would you do it? The answer was "I would not deny my god."
To me, that's almost murder. What good is love your neighbour, then? What does "love your neighbour" mean when you're in a position to save 50 kids if you deny your god, but you can't because of his rules.
Now, I thought this all-forgiving, wise god would see that by denying god you are saving children and not really denying him. He'd see inside your heart that you love him, and you love the children as well. I guess it makes sense now, he doesn't like to share your love.
I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
you can't prove that though; you can say it could've been different, but you won't ever be able to substantiate that circumstance.
On a side note, you have to find what works for the child. For me, it was a spanking...a timeout or talking to didnt work or make me feel remorse or want to change. a few quick swats really did the trick. For other kids a timeout may be the way to go. I see a lot of kids who's parents try the timeout approach and the reasoning approach and those kids own the parents and can do what they want.
Proving or disproving it is really beside the point when you consider the obvious.
An example of the obvious being overlooked is your comment about being that certain kind of child for whom spankings just "work."
What you're essentially saying is that you were born needing to be intimidated with physical aggression in order to behave according to your parents' expectations. Do you really believe that?
Consider the fact that there are millions upon millions of children who eventually develop into well-adjusted, well-behaved adults without ever having been struck by their parents.
What makes you so different? Genetics?
Obviously, when you were born, you were born a child with just as much potential as any other to learn and subsequently exhibit desired behaviors.
All children are born with a need for approval from their parents. Is that something that you need proof of?
And it's that need for approval that causes children to be receptive to commands from their parents. And as long as parents are upholding their end of the bargain by showing that approval and thus nurturing their childrens' need to receive it, those children will continue to behave accordingly.
However, the probem with many parents is that they more often than not assume the role of a "disciplinarian" more than as a provider of approval and affection.
Eventually, the sacred environment of trust between parents and their children becomes diminished as children become bogged down by the imbalance between reward and discipline, and eventually the need for approval is replaced by feelings of resentment and a breakdown in communication.
And that's when spankings become the "last resort" that parents who spank claim spankings to be.
Eventually, you grew up believing that those spankings were your fault, as you were the one who did not "listen" as your parents valiantly and patiently tried the alternatives.
And I can't help but think of how sad and horrifying it is that deep down you really believe that you are to blame for your parents' short-sightedness and poor communication skills, and that you just happen to have been the sort of kid who needed to be intimidated with physical aggression in order to follow instructions.
Of course, I didn't make any of this up. This is well-documented child psychology doctrine, and the proof of its validity is the fact that children really do respond to positive reinforcement more than spankings, and that the notion of "children walking all over their parents" because they aren't being spanked is a complete myth that has never been substantiated.
It doesn't take a social scientist to know that when you randomly select a child with severe behavioral problems, it's an absolute certainty that the child was either physically or emotionally abused, or severely neglected.
The odds that the child simply "wasn't spanked" are slim to none, and you will never find evidence to the contrary. Like I said, it's nothing other than a fairy tale invented for the sake of justifying a deplorable solution to one of society's many long-standing problems, which is absence of trust between parents and their children.
Again...you won't find any of that in the bible, and the idea that a certain percentage of the population consults the bible for child-rearing guidance is downright scary.
...
In full context, Jesus is giving instructions to His disciples the shepperd in the Children of Israel (Jews). He says, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans."
His instructions are for His disciples to tell them (Jews, that have lost their God), not ask them, to return to God's love.
The way you put it... singling out that one passage... you make it sound like Jesus was out to kick some ass and divide families and kill people. I don't see it that way... because I read it in its full context, not just a small bit to fit whatever point I am trying to make it fit. Jesus instructs His disciples to order lost Jews to accept God, through His message... regardless of what your Father (or brother) tells you.
...
I have heard many Christians (not you.. not in this context) use this passage to justify War. Jesus is not condoneing War, here. He is instructing His deciples to spread His teachings... directly, not passively.
I was responding to this:
However, religion, like politics, will prompt someone to turn on someone else, even a loved one, at the drop of a hat. I've seen siblings stop talking altogether because of something as stupid as religion.
Would you choose Jesus over your brother? Would you blow up a bus or an office in the name of an invisible man? Would you kill someone for not agreeing with your book of fairytales?
Even if full context I don't think it changes anything about my point. Religion, any religion, will divide people, families included - not always of course but in some cases.
To me it's clearly there.
And I entirely disagree that I made it sounds like "Jesus was out to kick some ass and divide families and kill people."
See the "Would you blow up a bus or an office in the name of an invisible man? Would you kill someone for not agreeing with your book of fairytales?" in the original question?
I left that out because I don't think this passage supports violence, but I do think many christians will choose Jesus over their brother. In fact, it's exactly what Jesus expects.
I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.
Well, I hope no one will ever be in that situation. If you'd refuse to deny your god, you're just as guilty of murder in my eyes.
It's a gamble with someone else's life. You're hoping on a miracle when a simple lie could save them. Sure, god would send you to hell where you will suffer the most horrible pains for eternity, but you saved your children.
I'd call someone who does that a martyr... God would call him a fool.
Well, I hope no one will ever be in that situation. If you'd refuse to deny your god, you're just as guilty of murder in my eyes.
It's a gamble with someone else's life. You're hoping on a miracle when a simple lie could save them. Sure, god would send you to hell where you will suffer the most horrible pains for eternity, but you saved your children.
I'd call someone who does that a martyr... God would call him a fool.
i guess we'll not agree on this one. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say what God would call that person.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It is. It's called philosophy. Within philosophy major fields are the philosophy of science (which should be part of the curriculum for all higher education, and is, at least in Norway) and ethics.
Philosophy should perhaps be more focused on, but it's already there.
Peace
Dan
Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.
Also, I think that there is confusion regarding the meaning of ethics and the meaning of morality. Thus further evidence for the need for an empirical science of morality.
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
Well, I hope no one will ever be in that situation. If you'd refuse to deny your god, you're just as guilty of murder in my eyes.
It's a gamble with someone else's life. You're hoping on a miracle when a simple lie could save them. Sure, god would send you to hell where you will suffer the most horrible pains for eternity, but you saved your children.
I'd call someone who does that a martyr... God would call him a fool.
Collin ...
I have a few questions that you may or may not want to answer as they are personal ...
Do you truly believe there is a "hell"?
A physical hell? A mental hell? A spiritual hell?
Do you believe that God actually condemns one to "hell"?
You believe God would actually call someone a fool?
Do you believe in love, or the power of love?
Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.
Also, I think that there is confusion regarding the meaning of ethics and the meaning of morality. Thus further evidence for the need for an empirical science of morality.
Fair enough.
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
The definition definitely puts the dicipline of philosophy inside the science term. Philosophers do nothing but rigorously and systematically study not only domains of knowledge, but the fundament of knowledge itself.
Morality is a difficult concept to study. You can study behaviour, under the assumption that action = thought, but that will not catch the essence of the term, which at least to me, happens on the level of thought. And we are very adept at thinking one thing and doing another. If behaviour satisfies you, then behaviourist psychology is where you should turn. A well developed field in psychology.
Alternatively, you can study histury, and through anecdotes and accounts determine something about people's morality. But the same problem as above appears again, and when it comes to reading accounts, the interpretation is invariably coloured by which angle and perspective the researcher have.
So it's not easy to determine anything about "morality", even if you somehow entangle it of the several ambiguities that surrounds it. And if you are satisfied with a highly simplified approach and operationalization, then it's already being done in psychology.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.
The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort. I think that such studies must form the foundation of such an effort as creating a science of morality.
I have a few questions that you may or may not want to answer as they are personal ...
Do you truly believe there is a "hell"?
A physical hell? A mental hell? A spiritual hell?
Do you believe that God actually condemns one to "hell"?
You believe God would actually call someone a fool?
Do you believe in love, or the power of love?
I don't believe in god or anything supernatural. When people debate god they don't have many sources, I have the same source; the bible. It says quite clearly that those who reject Jesus will go to hell, and god sends them there. To me it sounds like this hell is physical and mental, I don't know what you mean by spiritual hell.
Psalms 14:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.
With sincere respect to your beliefs and feelings, i mean no malice to you when i say this, but how does your god decide who he is going to allow to live or die?
I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.
...
I feel the same way. I would denounce my God to some fucking asshole threatening to kill people on my account. The bottom line.. kids don't die.
And if God judges me as Evil because I chose the lives of others over my beliefs.. then He is not my God. He would be a conceited asshole that is not worthy of my faith in Him
...
I don't believe that is the case.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.
The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort. I think that such studies must form the foundation of such an effort as creating a science of morality.
But how rigorously "scientific" would such an endeavour be? Sounds to me like a philosophical project (meaning of meaning, "science" of art), with some perception psychology added to the mix.
I'm not questioning whether it would be a useful or interesting project, but I question how much "science" it really entails, or whether it is merely rigorous use of philosophy fields like ethics, meaning and the nature of objects we perceive. I am hard pressed to see any really useful operationalizations that really covers the rather vague and lofty concept of morality.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But how rigorously "scientific" would such an endeavour be? Sounds to me like a philosophical project (meaning of meaning, "science" of art), with some perception psychology added to the mix.
I'm not questioning whether it would be a useful or interesting project, but I question how much "science" it really entails, or whether it is merely rigorous use of philosophy fields like ethics, meaning and the nature of objects we perceive. I am hard pressed to see any really useful operationalizations that really covers the rather vague and lofty concept of morality.
Peace
Dan
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
I would agree with with your definition to a certain extent, but I would take it as a less formal definition of science, perhaps applied science versus natural science. Science, in general, refers to a system of acquiring knowledge and this system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
As to your original point, I think that morality can be derived logically, as a matter of practicality. Maybe it can even be tested to see if it works, if it is scientific in nature. From a 'scientific' view perhaps one can look at it from an evolutionary stand point. Developing a level of altruism allowed humans to work together and outcompete other tribes. Basically everyone enters a social contract since birth, that we impose on ourselves.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
Then frankly, I think a better word for what you're doing is philosophy, and hence you're about establishing an authoritative philosophy of morality. Which is a noble endeavour, certainly.
But science to me, and I suspect many others, entails experimentation and operationalizations that can be tested against real circumstances and offers possibilities of prediciton of events. The closest you will get to that, is likely behaviourism with the strengths and weaknesses that follows from strictly behavioural studies. But I dont think that's what you're really about.
I think you are taking a philosophical approach (which is kinda inevitable when talking of vague, immaterial concepts like morality), but want to be informed by science while doing so. This is what any philosopher worth his robe does, and hence it is better described as philosophy.
You can gain knowledge without it being science, you know.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
In full context, Jesus is giving instructions to His disciples the shepperd in the Children of Israel (Jews). He says, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans."
His instructions are for His disciples to tell them (Jews, that have lost their God), not ask them, to return to God's love.
The way you put it... singling out that one passage... you make it sound like Jesus was out to kick some ass and divide families and kill people. I don't see it that way... because I read it in its full context, not just a small bit to fit whatever point I am trying to make it fit. Jesus instructs His disciples to order lost Jews to accept God, through His message... regardless of what your Father (or brother) tells you.
...
I have heard many Christians (not you.. not in this context) use this passage to justify War. Jesus is not condoneing War, here. He is instructing His deciples to spread His teachings... directly, not passively.
Hail, Hail!!!
It is. It's called philosophy. Within philosophy major fields are the philosophy of science (which should be part of the curriculum for all higher education, and is, at least in Norway) and ethics.
Philosophy should perhaps be more focused on, but it's already there.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.
Proving or disproving it is really beside the point when you consider the obvious.
An example of the obvious being overlooked is your comment about being that certain kind of child for whom spankings just "work."
What you're essentially saying is that you were born needing to be intimidated with physical aggression in order to behave according to your parents' expectations. Do you really believe that?
Consider the fact that there are millions upon millions of children who eventually develop into well-adjusted, well-behaved adults without ever having been struck by their parents.
What makes you so different? Genetics?
Obviously, when you were born, you were born a child with just as much potential as any other to learn and subsequently exhibit desired behaviors.
All children are born with a need for approval from their parents. Is that something that you need proof of?
And it's that need for approval that causes children to be receptive to commands from their parents. And as long as parents are upholding their end of the bargain by showing that approval and thus nurturing their childrens' need to receive it, those children will continue to behave accordingly.
However, the probem with many parents is that they more often than not assume the role of a "disciplinarian" more than as a provider of approval and affection.
Eventually, the sacred environment of trust between parents and their children becomes diminished as children become bogged down by the imbalance between reward and discipline, and eventually the need for approval is replaced by feelings of resentment and a breakdown in communication.
And that's when spankings become the "last resort" that parents who spank claim spankings to be.
Eventually, you grew up believing that those spankings were your fault, as you were the one who did not "listen" as your parents valiantly and patiently tried the alternatives.
And I can't help but think of how sad and horrifying it is that deep down you really believe that you are to blame for your parents' short-sightedness and poor communication skills, and that you just happen to have been the sort of kid who needed to be intimidated with physical aggression in order to follow instructions.
Of course, I didn't make any of this up. This is well-documented child psychology doctrine, and the proof of its validity is the fact that children really do respond to positive reinforcement more than spankings, and that the notion of "children walking all over their parents" because they aren't being spanked is a complete myth that has never been substantiated.
It doesn't take a social scientist to know that when you randomly select a child with severe behavioral problems, it's an absolute certainty that the child was either physically or emotionally abused, or severely neglected.
The odds that the child simply "wasn't spanked" are slim to none, and you will never find evidence to the contrary. Like I said, it's nothing other than a fairy tale invented for the sake of justifying a deplorable solution to one of society's many long-standing problems, which is absence of trust between parents and their children.
Again...you won't find any of that in the bible, and the idea that a certain percentage of the population consults the bible for child-rearing guidance is downright scary.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I was responding to this:
Even if full context I don't think it changes anything about my point. Religion, any religion, will divide people, families included - not always of course but in some cases.
To me it's clearly there.
And I entirely disagree that I made it sounds like "Jesus was out to kick some ass and divide families and kill people."
See the "Would you blow up a bus or an office in the name of an invisible man? Would you kill someone for not agreeing with your book of fairytales?" in the original question?
I left that out because I don't think this passage supports violence, but I do think many christians will choose Jesus over their brother. In fact, it's exactly what Jesus expects.
naděje umírá poslední
Well, I hope no one will ever be in that situation. If you'd refuse to deny your god, you're just as guilty of murder in my eyes.
It's a gamble with someone else's life. You're hoping on a miracle when a simple lie could save them. Sure, god would send you to hell where you will suffer the most horrible pains for eternity, but you saved your children.
I'd call someone who does that a martyr... God would call him a fool.
naděje umírá poslední
i guess we'll not agree on this one. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say what God would call that person.
Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.
Also, I think that there is confusion regarding the meaning of ethics and the meaning of morality. Thus further evidence for the need for an empirical science of morality.
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
Collin ...
I have a few questions that you may or may not want to answer as they are personal ...
Do you truly believe there is a "hell"?
A physical hell? A mental hell? A spiritual hell?
Do you believe that God actually condemns one to "hell"?
You believe God would actually call someone a fool?
Do you believe in love, or the power of love?
The definition definitely puts the dicipline of philosophy inside the science term. Philosophers do nothing but rigorously and systematically study not only domains of knowledge, but the fundament of knowledge itself.
Morality is a difficult concept to study. You can study behaviour, under the assumption that action = thought, but that will not catch the essence of the term, which at least to me, happens on the level of thought. And we are very adept at thinking one thing and doing another. If behaviour satisfies you, then behaviourist psychology is where you should turn. A well developed field in psychology.
Alternatively, you can study histury, and through anecdotes and accounts determine something about people's morality. But the same problem as above appears again, and when it comes to reading accounts, the interpretation is invariably coloured by which angle and perspective the researcher have.
So it's not easy to determine anything about "morality", even if you somehow entangle it of the several ambiguities that surrounds it. And if you are satisfied with a highly simplified approach and operationalization, then it's already being done in psychology.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.
The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort. I think that such studies must form the foundation of such an effort as creating a science of morality.
Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
naděje umírá poslední
I don't believe in god or anything supernatural. When people debate god they don't have many sources, I have the same source; the bible. It says quite clearly that those who reject Jesus will go to hell, and god sends them there. To me it sounds like this hell is physical and mental, I don't know what you mean by spiritual hell.
Psalms 14:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Isn't the bible the word of god?
Yes, I believe in love.
naděje umírá poslední
With sincere respect to your beliefs and feelings, i mean no malice to you when i say this, but how does your god decide who he is going to allow to live or die?
I feel the same way. I would denounce my God to some fucking asshole threatening to kill people on my account. The bottom line.. kids don't die.
And if God judges me as Evil because I chose the lives of others over my beliefs.. then He is not my God. He would be a conceited asshole that is not worthy of my faith in Him
...
I don't believe that is the case.
Hail, Hail!!!
I thought I came here to stay
We're all just visiting
All just breaking like waves.."
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/15/06
I'm not questioning whether it would be a useful or interesting project, but I question how much "science" it really entails, or whether it is merely rigorous use of philosophy fields like ethics, meaning and the nature of objects we perceive. I am hard pressed to see any really useful operationalizations that really covers the rather vague and lofty concept of morality.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.
I would agree with with your definition to a certain extent, but I would take it as a less formal definition of science, perhaps applied science versus natural science. Science, in general, refers to a system of acquiring knowledge and this system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
As to your original point, I think that morality can be derived logically, as a matter of practicality. Maybe it can even be tested to see if it works, if it is scientific in nature. From a 'scientific' view perhaps one can look at it from an evolutionary stand point. Developing a level of altruism allowed humans to work together and outcompete other tribes. Basically everyone enters a social contract since birth, that we impose on ourselves.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
But science to me, and I suspect many others, entails experimentation and operationalizations that can be tested against real circumstances and offers possibilities of prediciton of events. The closest you will get to that, is likely behaviourism with the strengths and weaknesses that follows from strictly behavioural studies. But I dont think that's what you're really about.
I think you are taking a philosophical approach (which is kinda inevitable when talking of vague, immaterial concepts like morality), but want to be informed by science while doing so. This is what any philosopher worth his robe does, and hence it is better described as philosophy.
You can gain knowledge without it being science, you know.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965