On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote: > First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless >place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No >one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder >spree,
Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness and instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
>Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of >Scripture
>AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
>Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts >A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a >history of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and >the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were >not wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much >about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
> First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless >place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No >one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder >spree,
AIG is an organization of professional liars who make their money getting the religiously credulous to give them money to spread their lies. They are profoundly unethical and cannot be trusted about anything at all. Only fools believe what AIG tells them.
> about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
> First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
NEW WAY OF RESPONDING:
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
Theories postulating a special moral sense which either enables us to perceive special moral qualities of virtue and vice in action (which thereupon affect us favorably or unfavorably), or else simply arouses feelings of approval or disapproval in us on contemplating the ordinary qualities of actions (it is not always clear which alternative is intended).
These theories were popular in the 18th century, and are associated especially with Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) and Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746).
Though sometimes classed as a version of intuitionism, the theories stood in contrast to contemporary intuitionism which claimed that we intuit moral facts about actions, rather than being sensitively affected by their qualities.
On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of > right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible > principles of action.
What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
> Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of > Scripture
> AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
> Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
> A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a > history > of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and > the Creation Museum...
Proving the dishonesty of creationists is not hate speech.
duke wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet > <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>> First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless >> place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No >> one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder >> spree,
> Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness and > instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
What about those of use who have NEVER sinned? Does your sky pixie intend to give us a "Get Outta Hell Free" card?
Besides, NO ONE could love YOUR god... and I seriously doubt your neighbors feel anything but contempt and embarrassment for you.
>> Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of >> Scripture
>> AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
>> Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
>> A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a >> history >> of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and >> the Creation Museum...
>Proving the dishonesty of creationists is not hate speech.
Creationists hate to have their lies pointed out to them. They think that they have the right to lie about science without having anyone point out their lies to the world.
> one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder > spree,
> and all that is stopping you is your self-interest
"all"?
You *are* compelled to be nice, since you depend on cooperation with others, who would of course be pissed at bad conduct. That seems to be sufficient explanation for observed moral behavior.
On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of > > right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible > > principles of action.
> What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
> MG
Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat adjustment box, or thermostat. Individual temperaments and sensory experiences can adjust the temperature of the response but the adjust- ability is trapped within a limited range of options. In short it comes out as a strong feeling, feelings based upon past trials and similar situations stored in a way that functions fine outside of the domains of a theory of mind and conscious experience; but through science are beginning to be seen with more and more advanced brain scanners. Thats what dogmas are up against now, a rapidely advancing technology, quickly making apparent the working of human subjective experience.
...innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political practice flow.
Philosophers themselves, most of whom lack an evolutionary perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences and not their origins. Thus John Rawls opens his influential A Theory of Justice (1971) with a proposition he regards as beyond dispute: "In a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." Robert Nozick begins Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) with an equally firm proposition: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its omcials.may do." These two premises are somewhat different in content, and they lead to radically different prescriptions. Rawls would allow rigid social control to secure as close an approach as possible to the equal distribution of society's rewards. Nozick sees the ideal society as one governed by a minimal state, empowered only to protect its citizens from force and fraud, and with unequal distribution of rewards wholly permissible. Rawls rejects the meritocracy; Nozick accepts it as desirable except in those cases where local communities voluntarily decide to experiment with egalitarianism. Like everyone else, philosophers measure their personal emotional responses to various alternatives as though consulting a hidden oracle.
That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain, most probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to decode their significance through the reconstruction of the evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.
Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are the very core of our humanity. They and not the belief in spiritual apartness distinguish us from electronic computers. At some time in the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain-in this ultimate, biological sense-because we must consciously choose among the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our biological properties to precise steering based on biological knowledge.
Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a complicated arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject, always the philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study human nature as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. I can conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences of genetic history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for our own physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum choices among the competing criteria of progress.
...by appealing to the core principles of neurobiology, evolutionary theory, and cognitive science, practitioners of a new human science can reach a deeper understanding of why we feel certain courses of action to be intrinsically correct. They can help us to understand why we have moral feelings. For now, though, the scientists can offer no guidance on whether we are really correct in making certain decisions, because no way is known to define what is correct without total reference to the moral feelings under scrutiny. Perhaps this is the ultimate burden of the free will bequeathed to us by our genes: in the final analysis, even when we know what we are likely to do and why, each of us must still choose.
The challenge to science and philosophy to solve this dilemma is very great—in our opinion, there is none greater. Society, through its laws and institutions, already regulates behavior. But it does so in virtual blind ignorance of the deep reaches of human nature. By relying on moral intuition, on those satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people remain enslaved by their genes and culture. Their minds develop along the channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they exercise free will in moment-by- moment choices, this faculty remains superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their own lives. They will then be in a better position to choose ethical precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the precepts.
On Nov 2, 6:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of > > > right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible > > > principles of action.
> > What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
> > MG
> Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat > adjustment box, or thermostat.
No lets not say that, why? Simply because technology and thermostats man can access, try again.
> On Nov 2, 6:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > ...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of > > > > right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible > > > > principles of action.
> > > What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
> > > MG
> > Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat > > adjustment box, or thermostat.
> No lets not say that, why? Simply because technology and thermostats > man can access, try again.
> MG
You can access it (inaccessible principle of action) but the trauma injuries to your head will finish you off.
> Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of > Scripture
> AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
> Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
> A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a > history
> of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
> the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were > not
> wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
> about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
> First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
> place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
> one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder > spree,
> and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
> destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
> system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
> There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
> local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
> probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
> ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
> Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
> (i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
> there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means > that
> there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as
> revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there > is
> nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like
> humanism and evolution.
> Please pray for P.Z. Myers and others like him, who seem to be
> struggling spiritually; otherwise, there would be no reason for the
> continued attacks on Christianity. If they were really being > consistent
> with his atheistic beliefs, then why would they really care what > others
> believe—especially if there is no such thing as right and wrong in
> their own view?
> The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals
> that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that
> knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy > (Romans
> 1). Since Professor Myers also wants to silence his opposition, this
> also shows that, even though he gives “lip service” to the idea that
> there is no such thing as right and wrong, deep down, he really does
> believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, actively defending
> what he thinks is “right.”
> For the Christian, though, we should not be surprised (1 John 3:13),
> but saddened by attacks and for those that continue to reject the > Lord
> Jesus Christ. But the Lord is patient:
> The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
> slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any > should
> perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
> In the same way that Jesus Christ saved Saul (later named Paul), who
> was arguably one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians in the
> first century, Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against
> Him. Who knows? If that were to happen, perhaps P.Z. will be more apts > n > to go by Paul as wello
' First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
>place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No el >one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder >spree, '
There most certainly IS a moral law that is inscribed on all of our hearts, its just that we all have the option of suppressing the moral law so we can do/act/live/say whatever we feel like. Evidence for the moral law is our RE-action to when we do something wrong...we try to cover it up or make excuses . Plus, when someone commits a moral infraction against us, our RE-action demonstrates that we are absolutely offended . If there was no absolute moral law written on our hearts, we would have no reason to cover up a wrong we do , or, to feel indignant when we are slighted. Where does this moral law come from ? It doesnt or cant come from materials or chemicals -- it can only come from a Moral Law PRESCRIBER who put it into the fibre of our beings so we would (hopefully) allow it to remind us when we do something wrong and AVOID doing so. Of course this is the chief problem today in america....a good percentage of the population willfully chooses to suppress whats right from wrong on a regular basis which is why we have a Nation of incivility/immorality/hedonism/ and narcissism ...and, why this will utterly ruin America in time. Whats the answer ? Ask God to forgive you for violating his moral laws , recieve the price paid for your sins by Christ, make him your Lord, and ask God to help you to live a righteous life . Only by having Gods spirit living in you , is victory possible and for you to not have to account for your past immoral sins. God loves you and has made a way possible., if you are willing to recieve it .
On Nov 1, 9:28 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
> <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote: > > First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless > >place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No > >one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder > >spree,
> On Nov 2, 6:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > ...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of > > > > right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible > > > > principles of action.
> > > What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
> > > MG
> > Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat > > adjustment box, or thermostat.
> No lets not say that, why? Simply because technology and thermostats > man can access, try again.
> MG
Because it is an agreed upon convention to represent the way our brain works through the best available scientific method. The basic method that rules the day is the derivation of the best theory that can predict when regularities of activity will occur in the future.
Here are the four methods your stuck with when you decide to terminate the infinite regress of justification trees at some "unknown" level of detail. The inductive method through probabilities.
Mill's Methods
Mill's methods are some methods used to formulate hypotheses of certain phenomena. It is clearly a species of inductive arguments as we shall see. More precisely the methods, first proposed by British philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, are used to find causes of the phenomena to be explained. All of Mill's methods share the same characteristics in that they separate the phenomena into two parts, namely the parts to be explained, or the effects, and the antecedent phenomena which include the likely causes of the effects. The method is conducted by observing the effects and then reason to the likely causes by observing common features, different features, features that vary with each other, and so on. According to Mill, there are five of his methods:
1. Method of Agreement 2. Method of Difference 3. Method of Agreement and Difference (Joint Method) 4. Method of Residue 5. Method of Concomittant Variation
---------------------------------------- 1. Method of Agreement ----------------------------------------
Here is what the first method, Method of Agreement, does. First you have a phenomenon you would like explained, for example a group of students in a certain school all having diarrhea and vomiting. You want to know what caused the symptom. You know that the symptom could only be caused by food. So you list all the food eated by the affected student up to the time when they were attacked, and suppose this is the result:
A B C D ==> j h l k E F A G ==> k o m n H I J A ==> q r s k
The capital letters on the left hand side represent the antecedent conditions, and the small letters on the right show the phenomena on the effects side. Thus, in case of the students having diarrhea, the left hand side represents the food eated by the students, and the right hand side show the symptoms that they have. Suppose that each capital letter represents a kind of food, and the small letters on the right hand side represent a symptom. Then we can see that the phenomena on the left hand side have one thing in common, A. And similarly for the phenomena on the right hand side, the symptom k. Thus we can conclude, using the First Method, that A is the likely cause of k.
--------------------------------------- 2. Method of Difference ---------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the second method:
A B C D ==> j k l m B C D ==> m l j
Suppose we have only two events which are alike in all aspects but one. Then it is likely that the part that is the difference on the left had side is the cause of the part that is missing on the right hand side.
The third method has nothing but a joint consideration of the first two methods in finding likely causes. Let's look at this diagram
A B C D ==> k l m o A E F G ==> l p n r A H I J ==> q u r l
H I M N ==> q r z y O P Q R ==> x w n r
--------------------------------------------- 4. Method of Residue ---------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the fourth method:
A B C D ==> o p q r
We know already that A ==> p B ==> q C ==> r
Thus, we can conclude that D is the likely cause of o, because the pair is the only one left from the matching of causes and effects which we know already. That is why this method is called the Method of Residue.
---------------------------------------------- 5. Method of Concomittant Variation ----------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the last method:
A B C D1 ==> w x y z1 A B C D2 ==> w x y z2 A B C D3 ==> w x y z3 A B C D4 ==> w x y z4 A B C D5 ==> w x y z5
The phenomena are alike except only that there is a variation in the degree of D on the left hand (causes) side, and the same for z on the right hand side. Since everything else is equal we conclude that here D is the likely cause of z.
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet > <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>> First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless >>place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No >>one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder >>spree,
> Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness > and > instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
> The Dukester, American-American > ***** > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > *****
Love a serial mass murdering killer like God? Ha hahahah hahahah.... haha you gotta be kidding us.
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote: > Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against > Him. Who knows?
I do.
Having just come from a meeting with Christ and some others, I call tell you everyone is, in fact, saved. IOW, no one needs to be saved, the saving issue is a done deal, Always has been. Believe or not, sinner or not, whatever or whatever else. It's old business.
It may be worth mentioning also that Christ is an atheist, of sorts. Which may sound funny, in a way, but if you really think about it this makes sense since he does not 'believe' anything. No need to.
Anyway, just to let you know the pressure to be saved and to save others is off. Now you can go back and just live as you may. One less thing to worry about, eh?
Oh yes, about morality. This was brought up briefly in the meeting. You may want to just look at the end of Monty Pythons film "The Meaning Of Life" which is nothing more than a (yet another) basic repackaging job of what most everyone already knows and has known since people could 'know'.
Sorry if this all seems so dull and void of conflict but there it is anyway.
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:28:06 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet ><soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>> First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless >>place where most things wouldn?t mind killing you if you let them. No >>one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder >>spree,
> Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness and > instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
Your sky pixie doesn't get a vote, Dreck.
-- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Texas 3, Houston 1 (October 30) NEXT GAME:Thursday, November 5 vs. Manitoba, 5:05
|
