cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[alexey]

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.

You do not give up the ability to think or question, but you do modify it.

It is quite possible that your brain tumor will grow in a place that makes the experience extremely vivid thus removing all doubt. You may indeed proceed to do as God commands. If I had the same tumor in the same place, I would be less likely to do the same thing.

[Larry]

Also seems like a good place to post a link to one of my favorite pieces from The Onion.

Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom

WASHINGTON, DC—Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God.

Carry on.

[Destino]

You do not give up the ability to think or question, but you do modify it.

It is quite possible that your brain tumor will grow in a place that makes the experience extremely vivid thus removing all doubt. You may indeed proceed to do as God commands. If I had the same tumor in the same place, I would be less likely to do the same thing.

Your assumption that you'd be more apt to resist a sudden bout with insanity is based on what exactly? You're assuming there is a "God tumor" that operates independently of the brain it happens to reside in. Does this tumor have a particular God it sounds like? Does it speak English?

I haven't modified my ability to think, I've made a decision and chosen a rule book. You've decided the best course of action is to write our own moral code. Are you operating without a moral code currently or is there a draft we can review?

[PeterMP]

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.

But that doesn't make the decisions reached by one person based on whatever reasons superior to anybody else's based on their reason.

Without some sort of long term criteria to judge "good" it is a meaningless exercise.

And those texts have played an important role in that evolution.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't see the state action here. I'm assuming its a 1987 claim for discrimination. Indiana may have some other discrimination employment laws that give her a claim. I do think the First Amendment will be a pretty good defense for the church though.

[alexey]

Your assumption that you'd be more apt to resist a sudden bout with insanity is based on what exactly? You're assuming there is a "God tumor" that operates independently of the brain it happens to reside in. Does this tumor have a particular God it sounds like? Does it speak English?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/339334/title/Visions_For_All

I haven't modified my ability to think, I've made a decision and chosen a rule book. You've decided the best course of action is to write our own moral code. Are you operating without a moral code currently or is there a draft we can review?

My position is that the moral rulebook which all humans naturally have is not written in religious terms and will function better without religion or belief in God.

[alexey]

But that doesn't make the decisions reached by one person based on whatever reasons superior to anybody else's based on their reason.

Without some sort of long term criteria to judge "good" it is a meaningless exercise.

How much meaning do you create by adding God? Good is what God says is good. Great. Now let's figure out what God says... and we're back at square one.

Except now we have given human organizations an ability to override moral intuitions of individuals.

And those texts have played an important role in that evolution.

These early attempts at writing, philosophy, and many other things did play an important role. They are an important part of human history.

The question is, what role should these human creations play in current society 2000 years later.

[twa]

I don't see the state action here. I'm assuming its a 1987 claim for discrimination. Indiana may have some other discrimination employment laws that give her a claim. I do think the First Amendment will be a pretty good defense for the church though.

EEOC says disability discrimination claim....it never ends

[mbws]

While pharmacies can't fire pharmacists for not filling birth control prescriptions.

Birth control is a good thing

[twa]

I read another article that said they simply did not renew her contract.....make a difference?

[PeterMP]

How much meaning do you create by adding God? Good is what God says is good. Great. Now let's figure out what God says... and we're back at square one.

Except now we have given human organizations an ability to override moral intuitions of individuals.

1. It takes me in a completely different direction. Right, off the bat, my logic and reasoning are essentially worthless.

2. There is no way around that happening. Given your way, you'll just have some people in some institution saying we "know" more than you, and your "moral intution" is "wrong"

(What the heck is moral intution?)

These early attempts at writing, philosophy, and many other things did play an important role. They are an important part of human history.

The question is, what role should these human creations play in current society 2000 years later.

They DO play an important role. Churches were very important in ending the slavery here and in Europe. The most ardent members of abolition movements were cleregy and people associated with Churches,

Samethign with Civil Rights and ending the dictorial communist regimes.

Your acting like religion hasn't recently shaped moral judgements and actions over the last few decades.

[Destino]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/339334/title/Visions_For_All

I didn't see anywhere in there that only the Christians refused to seek help because they were content with the knowledge that angels or God were growing communication specific tumors in their heads.

I did enjoy this part:

Nonpsychotic individuals do have hallucinations, other researchers agree. But, they argue, anyone who experiences hallucinations more than a few times in a lifetime probably falls on the functional end of a psychotic continuum and could be at risk for future psychosis.

...

Surveys conducted over the last century find that 10 to 15 percent of U.S. and British adults report having been startled by briefly hearing a voice when alone or seeing something that could not be seen by others. About three-quarters of bereaved adults acknowledge having heard, seen or otherwise sensed their departed partners.

10 to 15 percent of the population has had strange experiences but if they have them more than a few times then they must be functional psychotics? That's awesome.

My position is that the moral rulebook which all humans naturally have is not written in religious terms and will function better without religion or belief in God.

I don't think we are born with a moral rule book, I think we are born with the ability to adapt to a social structure and the sense that there is more to life than what is readily apparent.

[alexey]

1. It takes me in a completely different direction. Right, off the bat, my logic and reasoning are essentially worthless.

2. There is no way around that happening. Given your way, you'll just have some people in some institution saying we "know" more than you, and your "moral intution" is "wrong"

I do not see much value in discussing every possible way of getting this wrong. Look at my position as rejection of all authoritative, dogmatic, or supposedly objective approaches.

(What the heck is moral intution?)

They DO play an important role. Churches were very important in ending the slavery here and in Europe. The most ardent members of abolition movements were cleregy and people associated with Churches,

Samethign with Civil Rights and ending the dictorial communist regimes.

Your acting like religion hasn't recently shaped moral judgements and actions over the last few decades.

Yeah i guess some religious folks did get it right eventually.. and it only took them about 2000 years

[Destino]

Yeah i guess some religious folks did get it right eventually.. and it only took them about 2000 years

I guess that internal natural moral rule book hadn't kicked in yet.

[alexey]

I guess that internal natural moral rule book hadn't kicked in yet.

I submit that it was interfered with by belief systems.

[Destino]

I submit that it was interfered with by belief systems.

Hundreds (if not thousands) of belief systems throughout history all worked to subvert mans natural inclination towards moral behavior. That is certainly more likely than there simply not being a natural moral rule book. You're going to need to work harder at shedding your bias if you're ever going to break through to the reason buried behind it and discover true morality.

[alexey]

Hundreds (if not thousands) of belief systems throughout history all worked to subvert mans natural inclination towards moral behavior. That is certainly more likely than there simply not being a natural moral rule book. You're going to need to work harder at shedding your bias if you're ever going to break through to the reason buried behind it and discover true morality.

I did not claim that moral behavior was our only natural inclination.

We are not on an equal scientific footing here. Take an hour of your life to watch this lecture. I will keep checking this thread in case you come back with questions or additional arguments:

[PeterMP]

I do not see much value in discussing every possible way of getting this wrong. Look at my position as rejection of all authoritative, dogmatic, or supposedly objective approaches.

The problem is this isn't really true. You actually do want a pretty authoritate, dogmative, and objective system.

You want to be able to authoritatively tell the psycopath that the gets pleasure from killing people that he his absolutely wrong (you want to be able to put them in places that will limit their freedoms and keep them from actingin on their desires).

You do want to be able tell larger society that such people are dangerous and not good for society in some sort of long term objective manner.

You aren't an anarcharist or even really a strong individualist.

You want a relatively well organized society that functions very much as a result of a pretty authoritative system. You just want it to apply your rules for your reasons.

You certainly don't want to admit that there is no reason to believe that psycopaths might be as important to the future survival of humans than people that have "normally" evolved moral systems.

You want to authoritatively, dogmatically, and objectively deny the possiblity that psycopaths might be "right" and "good".

[Slateman]

Moral behavior is our natural inclination? Since when?

[PeterMP]

I did not claim that moral behavior was our only natural inclination.

We are not on an equal scientific footing here. Take an hour of your life to watch this lecture. I will keep checking this thread in case you come back with questions or additional arguments:

In all organisms, nurturing and caring is not a large part of their biological system.

Is there any reason to believe that mammals are "better" evolved than those organisms?

Is there any reason to believe that those qualities will continue to be the case in humans or any other mammal?

What would make a moral code derived by the systems evolved by humans "better" than those derived by crocidiles or sharks?

[Larry]

In all organisms, nurturing and caring is not a large part of their biological system.

Is there any reason to believe that mammals are "better" evolved than those organisms?

The fact that mammals are defined by the fact that their young are more utterly dependent on their parents than the young of any other family of animal?

Is there any reason to believe that those qualities will continue to be the case in humans or any other mammal?

The fact that, out of all mammals, humans are dependent on their parents for longer than any other mammal? (And that this length of dependency increases, as the society becomes more advanced?)

[alexey]

The problem is this isn't really true. You actually do want a pretty authoritate, dogmative, and objective system.

You follow this up with several statements that misrepresent my position. I think it would be more appropriate for you to ask questions about my position rather than make statements about it.

You want to be able to authoritatively tell the psycopath that the gets pleasure from killing people that he his absolutely wrong (you want to be able to put them in places that will limit their freedoms and keep them from actingin on their desires).

It would be sufficient to conclude that he presents a danger to others.

You do want to be able tell larger society that such people are dangerous and not good for society in some sort of long term objective manner.

It would be sufficient to provide convincing reasons for such conclusion.

You aren't an anarcharist or even really a strong individualist.

I do not know the purpose of this statement here. If you desire to point fingers, you will not have problems finding a wide range of labels for my views.

You want a relatively well organized society that functions very much as a result of a pretty authoritative system. You just want it to apply your rules for your reasons.

It would be sufficient to have a robust system for discussing and discarding bad ideas.

You certainly don't want to admit that there is no reason to believe that psycopaths might be as important to the future survival of humans than people that have "normally" evolved moral systems.

I would like you to stop accusing me of not wanting to admit possibilities.

I would merely argue that different treatment is required for psychopaths in order to to protect innocent people from violence.

Maybe there is a long term evolutionary value to psychopaths. I am making no assertions either way.

You want to authoritatively, dogmatically, and objectively deny the possiblity that psycopaths might be "right" and "good".

Hopefully my answers led you to reconsider this assertion.

If not, let me ask you a question. Is it possible to protect a society from violent psychopaths in a non-dogmatic, non-objective, non-authoritative way?

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 04:14 PM ----------

In all organisms, nurturing and caring is not a large part of their biological system.

Is there any reason to believe that mammals are "better" evolved than those organisms?

Is there any reason to believe that those qualities will continue to be the case in humans or any other mammal?

What would make a moral code derived by the systems evolved by humans "better" than those derived by crocidiles or sharks?

Moral codes derived for humans would be "better" for humans.

Moral codes derived for crocodiles would be "better" for crocodiles.

[Destino]

The fact that mammals are defined by the fact that their young are more utterly dependent on their parents than the young of any other family of animal?

I think the question was what makes it "better" than other systems.

The fact that, out of all mammals, humans are dependent on their parents for longer than any other mammal? (And that this length of dependency increases, as the society becomes more advanced?)

I read or heard somewhere, can't remember where, that the reason humans are essentially useless at birth is because our heads would be too big for the birthing process if we matured to a more highly functional stage. I do not know if this is valid or not but I found it amusing.

[PeterMP]

It would be sufficient to conclude that he presents a danger to others.

Why?

Do you believe that in group bonding co-evolved w/ out group conflict?

It would be sufficient to have a robust system for discussing and discarding bad ideas.

Of course, you want to define "bad".

Maybe there is a long term evolutionary value to psychopaths. I am making no assertions either way.

But they are "bad"?

If not, let me ask you a question. Is it possible to protect a society from violent psychopaths in a non-dogmatic, non-objective, non-authoritative way?

Not that I see in an organized and robust manner.

Moral codes derived for humans would be "better" for humans.

Moral codes derived for crocodiles would be "better" for crocodiles.

Why?

You aren't claiming humans are perfectly evolved, are you?

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 04:42 PM ----------

The fact that mammals are defined by the fact that their young are more utterly dependent on their parents than the young of any other family of animal?

So?

The fact that, out of all mammals, humans are dependent on their parents for longer than any other mammal? (And that this length of dependency increases, as the society becomes more advanced?)

So are you assuming that advanced society is stable?

[alexey]

Why?

Do you believe that in group bonding co-evolved w/ out group conflict?

Of course, you want to define "bad".

But they are "bad"?

Not that I see in an organized and robust manner.

Why?

You aren't claiming humans are perfectly evolved, are you?

If you do not mind I will switch to single-post answers because they may be easier to track.

1) Risks of making decisions (a.k.a. what if we isolate psychopaths, but there is actually value in setting them set free?) - all decisions are associated with risks and benefits. If you would like to present a case for setting violent psychopaths free, be my guest.

2) On sufficiency of a system to discuss and discard bad ideas and your request to define "bad" - bad ideas are those which will be discarded. This is why we need the discussion. Unfortunately we are often requested to respect religious positions without proper scrutiny.

3) About a possibility of an organized and robust yet non-dogmatic, non-objective, and non-authoritative system to protect society from violent psychopaths - violent psychopathy can be detected during brain imaging. One possible approach could involve brain imaging to determine whether an individual poses a danger. You can obviously claim any system that uses authority to be authoritative. This is not the way in which I used the term.

4) About whether or not we are perfectly evolved - another vague language problem here. What does it mean to be perfectly evolved? We have evolved the capacity for cooperation and a capacity for violence. Deriving moral codes from our knowledge of our constitution will help us reinforce one and reduce the other.

For example, you mentioned out-group conflict. We know those dynamics well. We as a society can make it immoral to drum up in-group out-group differences.

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 05:08 PM ----------

I didn't see anywhere in there that only the Christians refused to seek help because they were content with the knowledge that angels or God were growing communication specific tumors in their heads.

I did enjoy this part:

10 to 15 percent of the population has had strange experiences but if they have them more than a few times then they must be functional psychotics? That's awesome.

The line between normal and not normal is not really there... so you have to draw it somewhere for clinical purposes

I don't think we are born with a moral rule book, I think we are born with the ability to adapt to a social structure and the sense that there is more to life than what is readily apparent.

I think that distinctions you are attempting to draw are purely linguistic.

Either way we are born with what we are born with, and that's what we have to work with.

You could claim that it comes from God and try to make sense of it using ancient myths.

Or you could actually try to study it, discuss it, and work with it.