Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (8/25/14 - 8/31/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
Translations: Gintama 507 (2)
Lying isn't exactly right or wrong. I think it's to be avoided because it confuses situations and can turn blame towards you. But "right" and "wrong"? I'm no cosmic overseer who can determine which is which. But neither can I trust in someone claiming to be such a cosmic overseer. You cannot make an absolute statement. You can only make a probabilistic one.
Why in the world are you bringing in subjectivity ?
---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------
Moral epistemology deals with things like whether one thing is good or bad. What makes things inherently GOOD or BAD. IF the values are subjective then should there exist any form or unified law and all sort of things like that.
But i wasnt TALKING about morality as a whole i was SIMPLY talking about Catagorical Imperative
When did i bring in debate between subjectivity or objectivity. I was commenting on my objections ON catagorical imperiative ONLY. You can agree or disagree but what is ensuing is any thing but a discussion on the catagorical imperative.
Last edited by shaheer; February 28, 2013 at 03:41 AM.
Yeah, an Atheist can claim objective morality, but it would sound a little silly right? I mean sure there are a few religious sects that are Atheistic but they still claim some form of spiritual presence in the place of a god (usually, I can't possibly know every exception out there and I'm sure there are a few. For the most part, and I may be over-generalizing but I doubt I am, Atheists do not subscribe to the notion of a higher power dictating moral law. Now in my eyes, as I once again imagine is true for most Atheists, I don't see the categorical imperative as anything different than people who say God created morals. To me, anything that claims an absolute cannot claim to be a framework for morality. I reject the notion of absolute all together. The closest thing are the natural Laws of Science, but I suspect they too will one day be met with exceptions. As far as why something is good or bad, well, there isn't a reason. We're creatures seeking purpose in a universe lacking it.
That response cover the points you were talking about? If not, it can just work as a stand alone comment.
2. I said probabilistic. Probabilistic is not subjective. It's a likelihood of different events. The determination of the likelihoods is a rather deep process.
Maybe that's the wrong way to view it. An electron's location cannot be pinpointed without losing perspective of how fast it is going. We can only determine the probability of where it could be. We can't pinpoint a generalized blanket "moral" without losing perspective of different situations. We can only determine the likelihood.Quote:
So, I want to discuss the implications and dimensions of the following statement: "I believe in evolution". Should the word evolution(a theoritical, systematic and objective framework of explanation) be used in the same context, meaning and sentence as the word believe, which implies subjectivity and bias ? The statement itself contradicts the principles of scientificness and borders on blind faith. What are your thoughts ?
That's just poor word choice and more of a matter of semantics than anything else.
When someone says that they "believe" in evolution, they do not mean they take it as an article of faith. Evolution is a scientific law, backed by a large body of publicly available scholastic inquiry, lab work, and field study built over more than a century of study. Science does not ask taken as a matter of faith. Instead it asks to be taken with healthy skepticism. Science is a process, results must be repeatable, and data must be shared publicly. Hypotheses, theories, and laws can be studied, challenged, and confirmed by anyone with sufficient expertise. Faith is neither asked for, or given. It is a wholly empirical and objective process. Evolution itself is built on archaeological evidence, genetic research, and DNA mapping. Evolution and climate change are in the unenviable position of inviting skepticism from the religious and political communities. The public has been forced to choose what they believe in. When someone says that they "believe" in evolution, it means that they have chosen an objective, empirical body of scholastic knowledge, rather than blind faith.
Science can be biased or at least, subjective to what we understand and experience.
---------- Post added at 11:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------
Last edited by DLord.Van.Buuren; July 15, 2013 at 01:37 AM.
Funnily enough, science itself can be objective, but the scientists are more likely to be subjective. But no matter how you go on about it though, everything is subjective - it's based on what we know, like, hate, or accept. Scientists are no different - some scientists can understand evolution while others can refuse it despite proof, some may do so due to their religion.
Also, did you know that science and religion did get along with each other? Science was never about proving or disproving the existence of God, it was about finding out more about the world around us, to gather knowledge.
That's because the roots of religion are actually considered protoscience. Divinity gets thrown in the there just because things truly were inexplicable at that time. Many things pre-Age of Enlightenment or lacking the scientific method, were shaky as well.
If I recall my reading, the concept of God/spirit came from elders who tried to explain how things happened, like why the sun rose or how it changes into a moon. They didn't know and to avoid losing face, they said it was the spirit, spirits, God, or Gods who did all of that. Didn't know that the roots of religion were considered protoscience though, always thought they were associated with God and controlling others.
If monotheism did come after polytheism, what inspired it? Was it because people didn't want to bother remembering the names of all the gods? Thought the Bible would be too big or take too long?
I think it's a fact that science explains life better than any religion could. There are lots of evidences for evolution, and a successful experiment was done to show or figure out how life was created. I honestly think those whose are stubbornly ignoring these facts and continuing to believe in God/Gods are doing so out of selfishness, because they don't want to risk Hell or think God will give them everything.q