Also, 2+2 can = 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 there are more ways than one to express things.;)

This is sophistry: Differences of expression don't change the truths expressed. Do you really mean to take the view that there is no truth and no falsehood? Do you realize what that commits you to?

Interesting, see you said it doesn't cahnge the truth expressed, but do you understand how very true that is?

Are you familure with Applied behaviour analysis? It's a means to changing a subjects behaviour with a gentle prompt, or reward.

What about Neuroplasticity? The brain changes it's self to adapt to infection, damage, or abnormalities. "Nuerons that fire together wire together."

What about Psychological cognitive therapy? Becoming aware of your "triggers" and finding a way to over come the response you usually apply to it.

How about Buddhism? Christianity? Even Teakwondo.

All of these things can help in any one situation, giving us tools to work out situations, and yet some may say another is "wrong" while the other says it's "right" When both are just possibilites.

So tell me, what am I open to??

And this is true? If not, then when did you write it?

True or False. Genocide is morally wrong.
True or False. It is wrong to kill babies for entertainment.
True or False. Rape is morally wrong.

Do you believe that any of these statements are true? Or can I hide behind vague talk of "possibilities" in order to perform any reprehensible act that tickles my fancy with a clear conscience?

Akoue,
I for one do believe that the answer to all three of your questions is "TRUE".
No other hedging possibilities.
Fred

I believe that science is a means by which truth as attained, yes. This isn't, of course, to say that every claim asserted by science (or scientists) is true. See my earlier remarks about Ptolemaic astronomy.

The relation of the special sciences to philosophy is historically complex. Each of the sciences can be seen to have originated in philosophy and to have broken off once it became fully conscious of itself as a sub-discipline. At the time of the Scientific Revolution, most people still thought of the sciences as "natural philosophy" (one find this expression in the titles of several important works of the period, including Newton's Principia). The kind of compartmentalization of the sciences that we see today is, probably more than anything, a product of the structure of the university system. We can expect to see the emergence of new special sciences, and so new science departments, as the sciences become ever more specialized. Cognitive science departments are a recent phenomenon, as are computer science departments. My point here is that the fragmentation of these disciplines (including philosophy) is not necessarily reflective of deeper divergences. Until relatively recently, physics and biology were pursued as a part of natural philosophy, which was itself just one sub-region of philosophy. The same is true of mathematics. And anthropology and psychology and so on. There are philosophers today who work in each of these areas. Some of them are engaged in empirical investigation not much different from what you'd find in science departments. Others are doing work that is complementary to empirical investigation, addressing foundational issues in the sciences.

So, in answer to your question, the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy. It's a bit of a messy set-up, I'll grant you, but that's more-or-less where things stand today.

Akoue
Agreed!
Fred

Anything may be. If deities indeed exist, than the Pink Unicorn may just as well be the top deity and Great Creator, with as second deity in charge the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with two of the many junior deities the Christian "God" and the Islamic "Allah".
Anything may be. But I seriously doubt the validity of existence of any of these deities.

There are facts and there are things or concepts that never will change (at least in OUR universe).
Facts : the universe exists. We exist as living creatures in the only universe we know to exist.
Atoms, molecules, the 4 natural forces in this universe : there is no reason to consider these will ever change.

Than what about the following : (return to the topic here : Science vs. Religion).

There is a basic and extremely important difference between what we know from science and the scientific approach, and what we know from philosophical, religious, and subjective thinking.

Although science - based on explanation and objective supporting evidence - may at times be wrong, it is always open to correction.
Religion however - based on dogma and subjective supporting evidence - is claimed to be always correct and blocked of any correction.

It is the real difference between science and religion. One is open for scruteny, the other is not.

Show me any basic scientific theory or thesis that is NOT open to correction : none exist.
Show me any basic religious claim that is open to correction : none exist.

THAT is why the two are not comparable!

:)

.

.

Hey, he's answered all my prayers. And if you're especially devout, he'll let you nibble on him. Don't talk trash about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, Credendovidis, I've asked you a couple of times (they may have been missed in the shuffle): Where apart from science do you take there to be truth?

Yes, but that's just because you've never tasted him.

Akoue

You seem to think that your dogma carries more validity than any other dogma.
You are wrong on that. Every dogma has the same validity : it is an unsupported claim and nothing else!

:rolleyes:

.

.

Are you now purposefully dodging my question? This has begun to look suspiciously like evasion.

Where, apart from science, do you take there to be truth?

It's all fun and games until somebody gets sent to bed without his supper.

Rude, huh? "Hi, Pot, this is Kettle. You're black." It's okay. I know why you don't want to answer. We'll let it go for now.

And yet you keep posting responses, with lots of little faces and everything. Cute schtick. Have fun. You haven't posted a substantive reply to ##89, 94. I'm guessing that if you could, you would have done so by now. That's fine. This is your sandbox. I'm going to go play someplace else for a while.

"True or False. Genocide is morally wrong.
True or False. It is wrong to kill babies for entertainment.
True or False. Rape is morally wrong.

Do you believe that any of these statements are true? Or can I hide behind vague talk of "possibilities" in order to perform any reprehensible act that tickles my fancy with a clear conscience?"

Hum, indeed. I can not say, they are far too vauge. In different situations I'd say one, and in others, the other. I can not say that these questions are truths. They are subject to ones opinion, and that is bias. Truth is undeniable, facts. No?

For example, you say it's wrong to kill babies for entertainment, so why are we cutting forests down, and the animals with it. That includes "baby animals", and for what? Our over sized homes, Kleenex (tissue papper), Fancy Furniture, and billions of carboard boxes, christmass cards, wrapping papper, and so much more. But aren't those just in a round about way, entertainment?
Not to mention the pollution, and oil drilling, how much plastic ends up in a land fill? No my friends I say that it is morally against our reasoning to live with more than we so need. Well in accordance with Choice thoery, Glassier's 5 needs. So we do need fun, but what is fun? I read a book that was written by a psychologist, and he believed that our brains need fun too, however, that fun is in the way of knowledge, new expeirences, and learning new things. We need new things to make us happy, but we don't need all those things at once. Selfish acts will get you nothing. As yoda wold say it:
“... Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.”

By selfish acts I mean you acts with out regard for those around you.

So, now tell me where do your morals stand? Since morals can be interpreted differntly by other people; I can't say it is absolute truth. As Obi-wan "Ben" Kanobi says to Anikan, "Only a sith deals in absolute." This is also a moral. These are far to vauge, as I have shown you that you and I and most evrey one else is responsible for the deaths of many "BABIES". You may have meant directly or people only, however, even then I question, is the baby sick and in horendous pain? No, there are far too many "Possibilites" to decide what is best until you are in that situation, and faced with that dilema. Since we are in it, with the environment, it is clear to me that those who would answer those questions true, are not being entirely honest. Unless we assume what you meant, and unfortuantly I try not to look at one possibility.

I agree, we shouldn't do any of those things, but we are. Weather directly, or indirectly; we are all equally responsible. Do you understand now?

We have the ability to make the "right" choice but few will. Then I ponder further, does our race deserve to live? I don't have the answers, and I know nothing, but I do learn.

As for genocide, what do you consider to be genocide, are you talking about, the crusades, WWI, WWII, Nam, COLD WAR, "the WAR on Terror", what about the irradication of entire religons? Christianity, is just one idea, and what did they do in the name of the "LORD"? Yes, those people in the old days killed black people, women (whitches) did they not? So what is moral about any of that?
So what about, people who do drugs? They are a cultural group, and yet we persecute them. Or are they not "free" to destroy themselves selves? Smokers too, they are being singled out? Mind you I'm not a smoker, but it still could be argued as Genocide. Systematice measures taken for the extermination of a national, cultural, religious, or radical group.

Now, fro the third one. Hum, difficult. Rape is rather plain and simple, or is it? Rape of the eco system? Rape of a women, child or even a man. Once again one situation yes, others not. Any "forcible or outragous interference or violation" environmental, and personal. Some times it is needed to kill trees in a forest to make a home. I'd say that counts as forcible manipulation of the environment no? We tend to abuse this ability, or more accuratly responsibility.

So, you think I'm irresponsible, foolish, and any thing else? Brother I care for and respect the life that I am. Which includes, the environment around me, which gives me food, nurousment, energy, shelter, and more. I do not only believe every one is responsible for their actions, but also for the ideas they impose upon and teach others.

Tell me, am I bad? Good? Neither? There is no good or bad, only possibilities.
It's a contradiction in it's self, because once a moment is here, you can only be doing one thing. That is what you choose to be doing. When I say, "the only truth is that there is no truth." it too is a contradiction, for I call it a truth, but sate there is no truth. That is because it has a deeper meaning then what it states. You said it yourself actually, "...in answer to your question, the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy."

And just so you do know, In the sense that you intended your three questions, I would not do any of those things. But some have, do, and will. So we can't assume because we believe it, so must every body else. I love all, no matter what. I may still fear them, hate them, dislike, or simply not know them. I still can love them, because I've learned what "Humans were all created equally." means to me. Though, it's like the sciences and philosophy, yes and no. I hope you understand now, if not, please keep asking. But what ever I say, "Do not believe in anything simply because you heard it, do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many, do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books, do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders, do not believe in traditions because they have bin handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - A Buddhist Girl.

Sorry it was so long, peace be with you.

Wow guys, you crack me up. Here is my reply to the dinner god dude, Mmmmm. As for pink unicorns, don't kill them because I saw this movie once where this dude totally got it on with one, and he got A.I.D.S.! His name was I am lord Voldimort. LOL Funny.

Ok, let me think?

I have no proof persay, but I still wonder, you believe in science but like Akoue said before," the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy." Is this what you think, can you disprove it Cred? I stated that if philosophy is the study of all knowledge, as stated in the Gage Canadian Dictionary, then wouldn't all disaplines be in actual fact, branches of Philosophy. Considering, that it's all knowledge? Personally I'm saticfied with Akoue's but, I do not see you being saticfied with that. You don't think that... do you Cred?

I'll have more later. Keep it civil guys;)
Maybe go watch this:

YouTube - Flight Of The Conchords - Frodo, Don't Wear The Ring
YouTube - Flight of the Conchords Ep 7 'Albi the Racist Dragon' <-- speeking of unicorns, what about a racist dragon??
Haha.

Nestorian
Good questions.
I wonder if the answers will be good.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks brother, but which questions? The ones about morals, or the ones about science being Philosophy. If science is apart of philosophy, then what?
I also ponder the idea of weather such knowledge should be handed out freely. Knowledge is power. With great power comes great responsibility.


So can we deny the irresponsibility our so called intelegent race has displayed? Environment, killing our brothers/sisters. And so much more. Is it a matter of science or GOD, or is it all a matter of Logic.

Peace be with you, thanks by the way. I try to make my questions interesting.

Yes, I believe each of them is true. I don't see any reason to suppose we should favor a relativist or situational view regarding, say, genocide. It's true, as you say, that people have opinions about these things. But from the fact that people have (different) opinions it doesn't follow that there is no truth of the matter. Hitler was of the opinion that the extermination of Jews was okay. He was wrong. Genocide is wrong; it's always wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is mistaken. Just as someone who holds the belief that 2+2=5 is simply mistaken.

Well, of course, my question concerned human babies. I'm willing to bet you'd agree that killing human babies for enterntainment is wrong, that the statement with which I presented you is true. Here you're changing the subject to something different, to our treatment of animals and the environment. This is also an important subject, one on which I suspect you and I would find ourselves in agreement. Like you, I think our treatment of animals and the environment is morally reprehensible.

I make it a point never to disagree with Yoda.

Again, from the fact that people can and do hold different opinions it doesn't follow that all of those opinions are right. Some are wrong. It's our job to figure out which ones are true and which are false and to jettison our false beliefs in favor of true beliefs. This is what education is all about.

My question concerned killing babies for *entertainment*. Would you agree that it is wrong to go around killing small children just for kicks? Would you agree that it is never okay to kill small children just for the fun of it?

Then how will you ever commit to anything? To truth, to a partner, anything. Do you intend to float free your whole life, never believing anything, never caring about anything? Because believing and caring are commitments, and this requires closing off certain possibilities. To believe that it is wrong to kill children for the fun of it is to reject the possibility that it is a good thing to kill children for the fun of it. Isn't this a part of maturity?

You may be right about that, but that's a different topic. We're talking about truth; the very important question about responsibility is distinct from that. Although you do appear to take it to be *true* that we are "all equally responsible". It seems to me that when it gets right down to it, you know that there is a difference between truth and falsity. You give evidence of that here.

Learning is good. It bares fruit in knowledge. You know lots of things, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to log on and post a question, navigate your environment, etc.

By genocide I was thinking about things like the Holocaust. (War, as awful as it is, is another topic. I asked specifically about genocide.) I'm willing to bet you'd agree that the Holocaust was bad, and that things like the Holocaust are *always* bad.

Now you're playing with language. I think it's pretty clear that I meant rape as sexual assault.

And, yes, we do shirk our responsibilities. And responsibility requires commitment.

Never said anything close to that. I do think that some of your views are confused, though. That's what we're talking about here.

Good. You are right to.

How on earth would I know whether you are good or bad? I've had a couple of brief exchanges with you on an internet forum.

Really, no good or bad? I think this talk about possibilities is talk. I bet you think that the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of men, women, and children on account of their religion or ethnicity, is wrong. I bet you think that our reckless and reprehensible degradation of the environment is wrong--otherwise I doubt you'd mention it as often as you have.

No we can't assume that. Different people have different opinions. But as I've said, from that mere fact alone it doesn't follow that all those opinions are true. And I certainly hope that you don't intend to engage in the three actions I mentioned in my questions to you. If so, then we have nothing further to discuss and I can only hope for your speedy apprehension by the authorities. But my guess is that you haven't, and don't, engage in them because you see that they are wrong.

And with you.