cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[alexey]

And what about serail killers that get neurophysiological benefits from killing people?

Science has a lot more to say about psychopathy.

---------- Post added April-29th-2012 at 11:58 PM ----------

You referred to respecting property, contract law and property rights are part of that. The devil is in the details right? These details bother you so you want to turn it around. Why? I'm simply exploring this morality you're sharing with the same tone you offered mine.

Your moral code has no foundation, everything is up for discussion. You seem to think this is a strength so I'm eager to engage this strength until I get an answer i want. There is really no code just group agreement... So why not engage it to ensure the outcome suits me? This is what people do. Was my premise not reasonable?

You are correct however, in my code offers no discussion. I insider that a strength. It offers forgiveness (in the next life) for those willing to repent but the rules aren't up for debate by those living within them.

We know that human beings evolved to have a strong desire for social cohesion and an ability to reason through moral questions.

We have evolved to work together. We are not just going to run in every direction like ****roaches if we suddenly find out that there is no transcendental being which knows when we are masturbating.

If you would like to discuss situations, please lay out your way of thinking through them first. I suspect there may be little difference between the way we do it.

[Prosperity]

science describes phenomena based on past experiences. There is nothing that can be learned through science that gives you an "ought" or "should" statement. You say humans evolved to be social beings. So what? That does not provide an individual any guidance. Why should the individual do what is in the best interest of the species? Just because? You can describe the world as much as you want, but at the end of the day even the most accurate description will leave you with a missing "ought."

FWIW the underlying principal of religions, or at least some, is that following them leads to happiness for the individual and the species.

[Destino]

No one is claiming that oceans would rise as humans toss themselves off cliff in sheer confusion at the prospect of no God. Your evolved ability to work together on a massive scale however is on display with governments. Maybe in a million years we'll be better at working together and this morality by science and reason will make some sense... Global warming might be sorted out by then to. Before you complain that global warming was figured out long ago, remember that moral codes have to be popularly accepted. Meaning that the public at large and not just by those that did the heavy sciencing required to put it together.

Religions literally do nothing else and take a look at how much in fighting they experience WITH a creator concept.

[alexey]

science describes phenomena based on past experiences. There is nothing that can be learned through science that gives you an "ought" or "should" statement. You say humans evolved to be social beings. So what? That does not provide an individual any guidance. Why should the individual do what is in the best interest of the species? Just because? You can describe the world as much as you want, but at the end of the day even the most accurate description will leave you with a missing "ought."

FWIW the underlying principal of religions, or at least some, is that following them leads to happiness for the individual and the species.

You are right in that science alone would be insufficient. You need reason to take the data provided by science and derive you ought and should statements.

You have the same offer - present a difficult moral situation, describe how you would think through it, realize you are doing the vey thing I am talking about - applying reason.

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 06:54 AM ----------

[

No one is claiming that oceans would rise as humans toss themselves off cliff in sheer confusion at the prospect of no God. Your evolved ability to work together on a massive scale however is on display with governments. Maybe in a million years we'll be better at working together and this morality by science and reason will make some sense... Global warming might be sorted out by then to. Before you complain that it is..l moral codes have to be popularly accepted, not just by those that did the heavy sciencing required to put it together.

Religions literally do nothing else and take a look at how much in fighting they experience WITH a creator concept.

Removal of religious foundation for moral codes is necessary for them to be widely accepted.

[aREDSKIN]

Religious organizations are the only organizations in the United States that are allowed to discriminate on issue they wish, all the while receiving a tax exemption, not only on income but on property taxes and probably sales taxes as well.

It's time to take away the tax exemption from religious organizations, especially those that insert themselves into the political process. And that goes if even one congregation/parish inserts itself into the political process, the whole organization loses the tax exemption.

This is a reasonable and fair response.

[Destino]

Removal of religious foundation for moral codes is necessary for them to be widely accepted.

They are already widely accepted. Much more widely accepted than cultural, political, and national ethical codes. Your statement is false.

[alexey]

They are already widely accepted. Much more widely accepted than cultural, political, and national ethical codes. Your statement is false.

How about I propose an hypothetical now.

You hear God's voice saying that you must follow Abraham and kill your son. You have no doubt that this is a voice of God and the command is valid.

You, with your morals from God, would have a moral conundrum.

I, with my morals based on knowledge and reason, would go get my brain scanned for tumors.

[PeterMP]

How about I propose an hypothetical now.

You hear God's voice saying that you must follow Abraham and kill your son. You have no doubt that this is a voice of God and the command is valid.

You, with your morals from God, would have a moral conundrum.

I, with my morals based on knowledge and reason, would go get my brain scanned for tumors.

There's nothing about believing in God that doesn't allow a person to go to doctors, get brain scans, and even see psychiatrist if they hear voices.

[alexey]

There's nothing about believing in God that doesn't allow a person to go to doctors, get brain scans, and even see psychiatrist if they hear voices.

What if God created that tumor in order to communicate with you?

[PeterMP]

Science has a lot more to say about psychopathy.

It does, but it doesn't have anything to say about its value to the human race over the long term.

Psychopathy might be an evolutionary step that is required for the long term success of the human race. We can't and don't know.

Human reason does an absolutely abisimal job of determining long term consequences in complex situations.

Your arguments are tied to those related to social darwinism, which most people that seriously think about evolution reject.

There is no good or bad in terms of evolution. Only survival and we don't know long term what is going to allow survival. And this goes for at the species level or the societal level.

(Out of curiosity what does your reason tell you about people carrying out a medical proceduere that we know produces less healthy kids and where the long term consequences on their children and grandchildren are unknown (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml) when there are a large number of children that could be adopted?)

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 10:08 AM ----------

What if God created that tumor in order to communicate with you?

What happens if God created the brain tumor to communicate with you?

Has anybody ever claimed they had a brain tumor so that God could communicate them, and the tumor couldn't be medically treated?

Are you just going to make ridiculous stuff?

[Prosperity]

You are right in that science alone would be insufficient. You need reason to take the data provided by science and derive you ought and should statements.

You have the same offer - present a difficult moral situation, describe how you would think through it, realize you are doing the vey thing I am talking about - applying reason.

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 06:54 AM ----------

[

Removal of religious foundation for moral codes is necessary for them to be widely accepted.

Umm the only one saying there isn't any reasoning involved in my/our ethics is you. Of course I reason, but my reasoning is based on fundamental principles and axioms, and so is yours. There is NO logical system which stands on logic alone. Every logical system needs rules which have to be assumed to be true. And that doesn't even include the emotional component of ethics.

And no I wouldnt kill my son if I thought God might have told me to. Though I would probably doubt it was God in the first place.

[alexey]

It does, but it doesn't have anything to say about its value to the human race over the long term.

Psychopathy might be an evolutionary step that is required for the long term success of the human race. We can't and don't know.

Human reason does an absolutely abisimal job of determining long term consequences in complex situations.

Your arguments are tied to those related to social darwinism, which most people that seriously think about evolution reject.

There is no good or bad in terms of evolution. Only survival and we don't know long term what is going to allow survival. And this goes for at the species level or the societal level.

(Out of curiosity what does your reason tell you about people carrying out a medical proceduere that we know produces less healthy kids and where the long term consequences on their children and grandchildren are unknown (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml) when there are a large number of children that could be adopted?)

I am not arguing for things you seem to be arguing against.

My position is that we have natural abilities to figure these things out. These abilities are not dependent on religion or belief in God. More over, these beliefs can actually interfere with the process and screw it up.

What happens if God created the brain tumor to communicate with you?

Has anybody ever claimed they had a brain tumor so that God could communicate them, and the tumor couldn't be medically treated?

Are you just going to make ridiculous stuff?

I wanted to show that there is a possiblity of a direct conflict between iron-age morals taught by books of your faith and modern morals that you would want to follow.

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 10:23 AM ----------

Umm the only one saying there isn't any reasoning involved in my/our ethics is you. Of course I reason, but my reasoning is based on fundamental principles and axioms, and so is yours. There is NO logical system which stands on logic alone. Every logical system needs rules which have to be assumed to be true. And that doesn't even include the emotional component of ethics.

And no I wouldnt kill my son if I thought God might have told me to. Though I would probably doubt it was God in the first place.

I am saying that reasoning is the only thing involved for you as well as for me. And hopefully your religion will not get in the way. You don't have to worry about me in that regard.

[Larry]

It does, but it doesn't have anything to say about its value to the human race over the long term.

Psychopathy might be an evolutionary step that is required for the long term success of the human race. We can't and don't know.

OT, but I've been having that theory for a while, on another topic. Specifically, the theory about whether there is a "gay gene".

If seems pretty obvious to me that a gay gene would be counter-evolutionary. That, if there were such a gene, evolution would have removed it from the gene pool.

But then I remember back to high school biology, and the example of sickle cell anemia.

This is a genetic condition, of African people, that causes (or used to, I assume it's treatable, now) that causes people to die in their 40s.

And the instructor's question was "why would evolution produce such a gene?"

And the answer was that the same gene that causes people to die in their 40s, also causes them to be immune to malaria. That, up until very recently, for people in Africa, having the sickle cell anemia gene was an evolutionary advantage.

I find myself wondering, if there is a "gay gene", if maybe it's a similar thing: Something that conveys an evolutionary disadvantage, but also an advantage in some other area? (Insert gay stereotype joke here.)

Anyway. OT.

[PeterMP]

I am not arguing for things you seem to be arguing against.

My position is that we have natural abilities to figure these things out. These abilities are not dependent on religion or belief in God. More over, these beliefs can actually interfere with the process and screw it up.

You have faith in human accurately analyzing complex systems and figuring out working solutions over longish periods of time?

Why?

[Larry]

You have faith in human accurately analyzing complex systems and figuring out working solutions over longish periods of time?

Why?

Thousands of years of history? :whoknows:

(Actually, I assume your post was sarcasm. I just figure I'd bite.)

[alexey]

You have faith in human accurately analyzing complex systems and figuring out working solutions over longish periods of time?

Why?

Choosing the only available path is not a matter of faith.

[PeterMP]

OT, but I've been having that theory for a while, on another topic. Specifically, the theory about whether there is a "gay gene".

If seems pretty obvious to me that a gay gene would be counter-evolutionary. That, if there were such a gene, evolution would have removed it from the gene pool.

But then I remember back to high school biology, and the example of sickle cell anemia.

This is a genetic condition, of African people, that causes (or used to, I assume it's treatable, now) that causes people to die in their 40s.

And the instructor's question was "why would evolution produce such a gene?"

And the answer was that the same gene that causes people to die in their 40s, also causes them to be immune to malaria. That, up until very recently, for people in Africa, having the sickle cell anemia gene was an evolutionary advantage.

I find myself wondering, if there is a "gay gene", if maybe it's a similar thing: Something that conveys an evolutionary disadvantage, but also an advantage in some other area? (Insert gay stereotype joke here.)

Anyway. OT.

There are all sorts of genes that get propogated through the system that don't allow people to reproduce.

Evolution isn't a perfect system or create perfect organisms.

If it was, we wouldn't have any genetic basis for childhood cancers, which clearly isn't the case.

The idea that evolution is perfect and completely removes any gene that isn't an advantage quickly (especially at the time scale that humans evolve) is a misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution is an on going process at any point and time and conditions X, there are going to be genes that are not well evolved and therefore are evolutionarily not advantageous.

No species is a perfectly evolved species.

Evolution does not produce things. Evolution is a random process that selects things.

A gay gene can easily be explained if there is some random probability that the mutation will occur, that it is recessive in some manner (just because you have a single gene you aren't gay), but certain combaintions of things would cause you to be gay, and there isn't strong pressure to remove the individual elements that have the combinatorial affect in individuals that only have some of the elements.

An individual can have one element of the gay combinatorial system (and all genetics in human is combinatorial because we have two genes for most things) and not be gay, but when all of the elements come together a person is gay.

And this assumes that nobody that is gay has ever had a child (which actually seems unlikely as I myself know 2 people that decided they were gay later in life after having a normal family and kids).

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 10:43 AM ----------

Thousands of years of history? :whoknows:

(Actually, I assume your post was sarcasm. I just figure I'd bite.)

I think history can be just as easily viewed as a random walk.

What did we actually figure out in terms of understanding the future in complex systems?

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 10:43 AM ----------

Choosing the only available path is not a matter of faith.

Why is it the only available path?

[alexey]

Why is the only available path?

Are you asking me why the only path to behavior is activity that takes place in the brain?

[PeterMP]

Are you asking me why the only path to behavior is activity that takes place in the brain?

I'm asking why the only path in terms of longer term societal growth is the result of behavior we have deemed "good" based on activity in the brain.

At best, couldn't we be agnostic about the process?

[Larry]

I think history can be just as easily viewed as a random walk.

What did we actually figure out in terms of understanding the future in complex systems?

Well, I think we're a lot better about predicting the next lunar eclipse than we used to be.

Gravity. Coriolis forces. Weather.

Optics. Aerodynamics. Thermodynamics. Chemical reactions. Heredity.

Used to be, slavery was moral. Now days, it isn't. I think we can agree to call that progress.

Do you, of all people, actually want to seriously try to claim that humanity, over time, hasn't made progress by applying reason to complex systems, to arrive at knowledge?

[PeterMP]

Well, I think we're a lot better about predicting the next lunar eclipse than we used to be.

Gravity. Coriolis forces. Weather.

Optics. Aerodynamics. Thermodynamics. Chemical reactions. Heredity.

Used to be, slavery was moral. Now days, it isn't. I think we can agree to call that progress.

Do you, of all people, actually want to seriously try to claim that humanity, over time, hasn't made progress by applying reason to complex systems, to arrive at knowledge?

You and I have a different definitions of complex system (simple chemical reactions are not considered complex systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system) and time scales. We can apply reason to arrive at knowledge, but implementing knowledge to truly understand complex system in terms of long term consequences is still well beyond us. We can tell you how to treat diseases, we can't arrive at the long term consequences of doing so though.

I know several people that would tell you that they think long term humans will have been better off if antibiotics would never have been used.

(I tend to not think that way becuase the first issue is that I don't know how to define "better".)

There's still a lot of slavery in the world, and a lot of cases that aren't much different than slavery.

[alexey]

I'm asking why the only path in terms of longer term societal growth is the result of behavior we have deemed "good" based on activity in the brain.

At best, couldn't we be agnostic about the process?

Another way of saying what I'm saying would be something like, we have to think through these things, work through them, etc. Everybody has to do this regardless of whether they are religious. It is the only way because that is how our behavior is determined. Knowledge about brain activity is certainly not the only input into this process.

My other point is that it may not be a good idea to over-rely on texts that have been passed down from the dawn of humanity. Our morals have evolved a great deal since then.

[Destino]

How about I propose an hypothetical now.

You hear God's voice saying that you must follow Abraham and kill your son. You have no doubt that this is a voice of God and the command is valid.

You, with your morals from God, would have a moral conundrum.

I, with my morals based on knowledge and reason, would go get my brain scanned for tumors.

I would have no such conundrum being that I wouldn't make the assumption that a disembodied voice was actually the voice of God. Just because I hear someone say "hey this is God, do me a favor and get all stabby with that kid" doesn't mean that I'm going to do it. Believing in God doesn't mean that I surrender my ability to think or question things.

Are you under the assumption that I think science is the devil and think Jesus rode around on a triceratops?

[alexey]

There is one important point that I want to drive home here. God does not give you objective morals because other Gods may give other morals. Religion does not give you objective morals because other religions may give other morals.

You are not solving the "relativistic morals" problem by introducing objective grounding based on faith.

[Destino]

What if God created that tumor in order to communicate with you?

Then no doctor would be able to remove it without being turned into a pillar of salt.