Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on September 16, 2022, 09:43:29 AM
-
One of the many fears expressed on this forum is that of people imposing their views.
What is this?
Who is doing it and how are they doing it?
-
Can you give an example?
-
Some people state something as a fact when it is only a belief.
-
Some people state something as a fact when it is only a belief.
Is that a fact? Or just your belief?
:)
-
Is that a fact? Or just your belief?
:)
When it is concerning religion and stating what God is thinking, for instance, that must be a belief not a fact.
-
Some people state something as a fact when it is only a belief.
That is not imposing their view, though. It is a separate issue, surely?
I could state my view that I am the most handsome creature to walk the planet. Persuading myself is easy.
Imposing it on others would take powers of persuasion of an altogether greater magnitude.
-
That is not imposing their view, though. It is a separate issue, surely?
I could state my view that I am the most handsome creature to walk the planet. Persuading myself is easy.
Imposing it on others would take powers of persuasion of an altogether greater magnitude.
Of course you are the most handsome creature to walk the earth, others must be so jealous of you! ;D :P
It get your point. I guess the likes of Trump and Putin who impose their views on others are a good example of this.
-
Can you give an example?
Not really, that's why I'm asking whether anybody knows what it actually is, who's doing it and what it is they are doing? Ideally, if you have used that phrase and somebody has on this forum in the last 24 hours, then please inform us of what you meant by it.
-
Some people state something as a fact when it is only a belief.
That doesn't like it has to be imposed though. You could state something and not impose it, couldn't you?
-
Of course you are the most handsome creature to walk the earth, others must be so jealous of you! ;D :P
It get your point. I guess the likes of Trump and Putin who impose their views on others are a good example of this.
But something like them imposing it is unlikely to be repeated by your average forum poster.
-
Not really, that's why I'm asking whether anybody knows what it actually is, who's doing it and what it is they are doing? Ideally, if you have used that phrase and somebody has on this forum in the last 24 hours, then please inform us of what you meant by it.
Why don't you just cite the post?
-
Why don't you just cite the post?
Re: Death
« Reply #16
-
Re: Death
« Reply #16
So for everyone else this is Maeght's post where he says
'Of course people can speculate provided they recognise that that is what they are doing and don't try impose their speculation on others . Strings etc are speculation yes.'
So if Maeght wants to respond to you, he can but not sure why you didn't just ask him on the thread about it.
-
One of the many fears expressed on this forum is that of people imposing their views.
What is this?
Who is doing it and how are they doing it?
Religious indoctrination of children for one thing.
I did say 'try' (forgot the to!). Do you suggest that historically this hasn't happened?
-
Religious indoctrination of children for one thing.
I think it's called education Maeght. Every society indoctrinates it's youth with the values of that society. A secular school cannot help itself indoctrinating humanist values. Sometimes it produces good people, sometimes it doesn't. The trouble with Humanism is that it looks at people with rose tinted spectacles. I remember seeing Copson expound his solution to crime which was to sit down with perpetrators and talk it through. Teaching that I think could be quite harmful.
-
I think it's called education Maeght. Every society indoctrinates it's youth with the values of that society. A secular school cannot help itself indoctrinating humanist values. Sometimes it produces good people, sometimes it doesn't. The trouble with Humanism is that it looks at people with rose tinted spectacles. I remember seeing Copson expound his solution to crime which was to sit down with perpetrators and talk it through. Teaching that I think could be quite harmful.
So you agree it is indoctrination, great, because it is. Adults imposing their beliefs on children. You can bring children up and educate them in the culture of the society they live in but religious belief should be a personal thing and shouldn't be imposed under the guise of culture and values.
Historically those of a religious faith have tried to impose their beliefs on others I'm sure you'd agree, hence my comment that people shouldn't try to impose their beliefs on others. It's happened in the past and some try to do it now.
Hope that explains my comment.
-
Every society indoctrinates it's youth with the values of that society. A secular school cannot help itself indoctrinating humanist values.
Alternatively: Every society indoctrinates it's youth with the values of that society. A faith school cannot help itself indoctrinating religious values.
-
Alternatively: Every society indoctrinates it's youth with the values of that society. A faith school cannot help itself indoctrinating religious values.
TBH, I'm not really sure about the difference. Values are subjective and this seems to imply that if the society's values were religious it's ok to reach them in schools.
Vlad's statement that a secular school must end up teaching humanist values shows his ongoing confusion about what secular means. A secular school could use any number of values rather than humanist.
-
Some people state something as a fact when it is only a belief.
For example: Values are subjective...
-
For example:
In the absence of a method to establish values as objective, it's a valid statement. Do you have such a method?
-
TBH, I'm not really sure about the difference. Values are subjective and this seems to imply that if the society's values were religious it's ok to reach them in schools.
Vlad's statement that a secular school must end up teaching humanist values shows his ongoing confusion about what secular means. A secular school could use any number of values rather than humanist.
Ah - in copying Vlad's text, and changing just two words for effect, on re-reading I realise I fell into the trap of Vlad's (il)logic.
I'll need to have a lie down for a while.
-
In the absence of a method to establish values as objective, it's a valid statement. Do you have such a method?
The point is not whether or not it's true or valid, but that you state it as though it's a self-evident, universally accepted fact, which it isn't many people disagree.
-
The point is not whether or not it's true or valid, but that you state it as though it's a self-evident, universally accepted fact, which it isn't many people disagree.
I'd say it's axiomatic that values are subjective since they're neither fixed nor uniform.
-
The point is not whether or not it's true or valid, but that you state it as though it's a self-evident, universally accepted fact, which it isn't many people disagree.
Some people think the world is flat. It isn't
-
Some people think the world is flat. It isn't
Are you sure of that? ;D
-
Alternatively: Every society indoctrinates it's youth with the values of that society. A faith school cannot help itself indoctrinating religious values.
Not arguing with that Gordon. That doesn't let humanist schools of the hook as humanism is a non religious faith with a creed.
Some may also class Humanism as a religion as defined as groups which think they have a right to be included in thought for the day.
-
TBH, I'm not really sure about the difference. Values are subjective and this seems to imply that if the society's values were religious it's ok to reach them in schools.
Vlad's statement that a secular school must end up teaching humanist values shows his ongoing confusion about what secular means. A secular school could use any number of values rather than humanist.
Have to disagree. If we follow the principle that we have to follow the the money.then we might conclude that Humanists don't found schools because they know full well that the state will provide them with the type of school they want.
-
Not arguing with that Gordon. That doesn't let humanist schools of the hook as humanism is a non religious faith with a creed.
Are here specifically humanist schools?
Some may also class Humanism as a religion as defined as groups which think they have a right to be included in thought for the day.
Who specifcally classes humanism, which as far as I'm aware is a philosophical position, as a religion - and on what basis do they argue this?
-
Have to disagree. If we follow the principle that we have to follow the the money.then we might conclude that Humanists don't found schools because they know full well that the state will provide them with the type of school they want.
So in following the money to show Humanist involvement in schools, you are using a new follow the no money rule.
And all of that is a non sequitur to your continued ignorance about what secular means.
-
humanism is a non religious faith with a creed.
No it isn't. if you think it has a creed, please quote it.
-
No it isn't. if you think it has a creed, please quote it.
I find credal statements in humanist statements such as "You can be good without God" " Freedom of religion, freedom from religion" and "For the ONE life we have".
Their is no doubt that it is a world view and Secular Humanists are found as celebrants at Births, marriages and funerals and as chaplains in hospitals thus representing spirituality.
-
No it isn't. if you think it has a creed, please quote it.
I think I'd describe humanism as a non faith religion, rather than a non religion faith.
That's assuming that you can have a religion without deities, which I think you can.
-
I think I'd describe humanism as a non faith religion, rather than a non religion faith.
That's assuming that you can have a religion without deities, which I think you can.
I think humanism is more an ethical philosophy than a religion.
I agree that religions don't necessarily need deities, although most do. However religions typically involve ritualistic practice, which are institutionalised. I don't see any fundamental ritualistic practice in humanism, although you can have humanistic 'life event' ceremonies, but that isn't really the same thing.
So, while you can have a religion (ritualistic practice) without deities, and you can believe in deities without subscribing to a religion - I think if you have neither deities nor ritualistic practice, then you don't have a religion.
-
I think humanism is more an ethical philosophy than a religion.
I agree that religions don't necessarily need deities, although most do. However religions typically involve ritualistic practice, which are institutionalised. I don't see any fundamental ritualistic practice in humanism, although you can have humanistic 'life event' ceremonies, but that isn't really the same thing.
So, while you can have a religion (ritualistic practice) without deities, and you can believe in deities without subscribing to a religion - I think if you have neither deities nor ritualistic practice, then you don't have a religion.
and yet I have been to a humanist wedding
-
As some wag put it, "Humanism is a religion the way not stamp collecting is a hobby"
-
As some wag put it, "Humanism is a religion the way not stamp collecting is a hobby"
Confuses straight atheism which gets by without celebrating anything with Secular humanism which seeks to celebrate more and more of the spiritual aspects of humanity much akin to deity free forms of Buddhism in that respect. Remember, British Humanism is ‘For the one life we have’....a statement which actually and deliberately jockeys with other religious views of the afterlife for attention.
-
Humanism as a philosophy is one thing.
But if there is a community of people who believe that humanism is the one and only correct way to think and live and they also believe in imposing their way of thinking on others....then it becomes a religion.
For that matter, even scientism can be considered a religion because of the fanatical manner in which some people impose their rigid views on others.
-
Humanism as a philosophy is one thing.
But if there is a community of people who believe that humanism is the one and only correct way to think and live and they also believe in imposing their way of thinking on others....then it becomes a religion.
For that matter, even scientism can be considered a religion because of the fanatical manner in which some people impose their rigid views on others.
Who are these 'scientism' people?
-
Confuses straight atheism which gets by without celebrating anything with Secular humanism which seeks to celebrate more and more of the spiritual aspects of humanity much akin to deity free forms of Buddhism in that respect. Remember, British Humanism is ‘For the one life we have’....a statement which actually and deliberately jockeys with other religious views of the afterlife for attention.
So, what are these "spiritual aspects of humanity" then that don't involve dieties or supernatural agents?
-
So, what are these "spiritual aspects of humanity" then that don't involve dieties or supernatural agents?
Firstly, the willingness to offer CELEBRANTS to celebrate Births, deaths and marriages including chaplaincy services because there's no real need as someone as harshly aspiritual as yourself should understand.
By choosing to celebrate and mark these great moments in one's life one is accepting that there is something greater than human will, in the case of Humanism this is the great force of nature only realised at certain moments. This is what many would call human spirituality and British Humanists by having celebrants and chaplains recognised that another talented human is better than a mere protocol or questionnaire to mediate these moments.
So I move that although no God's or supernatural entity is invoked, spirituality is still celebrated.
The definition of spirituality as necessitating God's or supernatural entities comes from folks like yourself ....and we're not obliged to accept your definition.
-
Who are these 'scientism' people?
Can I hazard......New Atheists?
-
Can I hazard......New Atheists?
Who are? How is their 'scientism' manifested?
-
Firstly, the willingness to offer CELEBRANTS to celebrate Births, deaths and marriages including chaplaincy services because there's no real need as someone as harshly aspiritual as yourself should understand.
By choosing to celebrate and mark these great moments in one's life one is accepting that there is something greater than human will, in the case of Humanism this is the great force of nature only realised at certain moments. This is what many would call human spirituality and British Humanists by having celebrants and chaplains recognised that another talented human is better than a mere protocol or questionnaire to mediate these moments.
What you are describing sounds like aspects of human behaviour - I get that, in the same way that I get that some people enjoy certain sports and develop routines and rituals around these. But what are these 'spiritual' elements that you tell me humanists possess and how are these different from everyday human thoughts are feelings?
From what I can see of the list in the link below what you describe as spiritual are just attributes of people.
https://www.humanism.scot/what-we-do/what-is-humanism/
So I move that although no God's or supernatural entity is invoked, spirituality is still celebrated.
The definition of spirituality as necessitating God's or supernatural entities comes from folks like yourself ....and we're not obliged to accept your definition.
I'm not defining it - that is what I've asked you to do.
-
What you are describing sounds like aspects of human behaviour - I get that, in the same way that I get that some people enjoy certain sports and develop routines and rituals around these. But what are these 'spiritual' elements that you tell me humanists possess and how are these different from everyday human thoughts are feelings?
From what I can see of the list in the link below what you describe as spiritual are just attributes of people.
https://www.humanism.scot/what-we-do/what-is-humanism/
I'm not defining it - that is what I've asked you to do.
But unless you have a birth , death or marriage everyday these
are not everyday experiences.
Put another way, most of our lives are spent as intellectual and rational observers in quotidian situations. There are moments where we are forced out of this mode into a more participatory and experiential role where we are unable to remain aloof.
Similarly sport, hobbies etc are also ecstatic, they bring us out of ourselves and our observer role.
That is the human spirit because it is not fully described by reason or science.
Scottish Humanism? The idea makes me shudder a bit since I have images of a horrendous mashup of Calvinism and the worse elements of the Scottish enlightenment.
-
Who are these 'scientism' people?
People who believe that the methods of science are the only way to understand reality..
-
and yet I have been to a humanist wedding
Does that make it a religion? I've never been to one, so I don't know what it involves.
I do think the gap between "ethical philosophy" and religion is somewhat blurred, but, to me, humanism does seem to have some of the trappings of religion.
-
As some wag put it, "Humanism is a religion the way not stamp collecting is a hobby"
No that's atheism.
-
People who believe that the methods of science are the only way to understand reality..
Well they are.
Your religion may offer a model of the World, but the only way to find out if it is correct is to compare it with reality. That's pretty obvious. How else can you be confident that you are right?
-
Does that make it a religion? I've never been to one, so I don't know what it involves.
I do think the gap between "ethical philosophy" and religion is somewhat blurred, but, to me, humanism does seem to have some of the trappings of religion.
It felt religious to me. There was lots of stuff about nature and spirituality and balance that left me with a feeling of woo woo.
-
Well they are.
Your religion may offer a model of the World, but the only way to find out if it is correct is to compare it with reality. That's pretty obvious. How else can you be confident that you are right?
Argument from a particular definition. I think that is essentially circular and certainly fallacious.
It gives rise that other suspect idea that something is the best way.
-
Argument from a particular definition. I think that is essentially circular and certainly fallacious.
Nope.
Can you answer the question I posed? How can you tell if your ideas are right without comparing them to reality?
-
Does that make it a religion? I've never been to one, so I don't know what it involves.
I do think the gap between "ethical philosophy" and religion is somewhat blurred, but, to me, humanism does seem to have some of the trappings of religion.
We've had aspects of religion since we first started communicating, can't see that it is possible or necessary to throw them out just because we have better philosophical models to work with.
-
Nope.
Can you answer the question I posed? How can you tell if your ideas are right without comparing them to reality?
How can you compare against "reality" when your understanding of it depends on assuming your ideas are right?
-
But if there is a community of people who believe that humanism is the one and only correct way to think and live and they also believe in imposing their way of thinking on others....then it becomes a religion.
Really?
There are plenty of people who think that capitalism is the correct way, or socialism, and want a society that imposes that approach on others. Does that make capitalism and socialism religions? I don't think so.
For something to be a religion, in my opinion there needs to be either a deity (in most cases) or at least some spiritual element. Further there needs to be ritual practice with some devotional element. If those things don't exist then it isn't a religion, even if people believe very strongly that their view is the correct one.
-
How can you compare against "reality" when your understanding of it depends on assuming your ideas are right?
I don't assume my ideas are right. They fall into three categories:
1. Wrong
2. In accordance with observed reality
3. Untested
There's no assuming involved at all, other than that there is an observable reality, but if you don't all that one, all meaningful discussion is at an end.
-
Really?
There are plenty of people who think that capitalism is the correct way, or socialism, and want a society that imposes that approach on others. Does that make capitalism and socialism religions? I don't think so.
For something to be a religion, in my opinion there needs to be either a deity (in most cases) or at least some spiritual element. Further there needs to be ritual practice with some devotional element. If those things don't exist then it isn't a religion, even if people believe very strongly that their view is the correct one.
One of the definitions of religion is....'Something of overwhelming importance to a person'.
-
People who believe that the methods of science are the only way to understand reality..
I would suggest that there is a subtle difference between understanding and explaining reality.
Understanding is often linked to but not limited by the explanation of something, relating, for instance, to such things as emotional and experiental responses and of interpreting and attaching significance to ideas, events, information etc. Also it does not necessarily follow that an understanding of something means that it is necessarily correct. For instance, it might be quite possible to understand the view that there is some sort of afterlife whilst still holding the view that this is highly unlikely. Hence, understanding, and especially understanding such a vast subject as reality, for me, becomes basically a subjective experience.
Explanation, on the other hand, demands checks and balances to enable it to be the best possible explanation, and, for it to have substance, this should be, as far as possible, least coloured by the proponent's subjective views. Science method, as regards reality, scores heavily, as there seems to be no comparable current discipline which seeks to produce information in as objective a way as possible. However, Sriram is talking about the dogmatic scientism supporter here, (one who believes that only science can deliver the goods), which is an absolute position from which one cannot deviate. Hence it becomes self limiting. This, I suggest, is a position that most scientists would not take.
If, on the other hand, one starts to ry to explain reality in non physical terms, then one cannot use scientific method easily unless one is applying science to the workings of the mind. Hence, in this area, any findings remain squarely in the realm of the subjective and any 'understanding' that has been gathered would be at the mercy of subjective interpretation and biases. This is, of course, not to say that any understanding is wrong per se, only that there is, currently, no means of establishing how correct such understandings are.
-
Nope.
Can you answer the question I posed? How can you tell if your ideas are right without comparing them to reality?
It depends on what the idea and what domain covers it. If it can be covered empirically then I use methodological empiricism. If it's a moral question then science is no help whatsoever.
In saying science describes all of reality you are merely saying that only things that are empirically measurable are real. And that statement itself is based on a circular argument and cannot be established empirically. That is the objection I have. The only reality empirical things have is empirical reality. Omitting this qualification is in my view an error
-
It depends on what the idea and what domain covers it. If it can be covered empirically then I use methodological empiricism. If it's a moral question then science is no help whatsoever.
In saying science describes all of reality you are merely saying that only things that are empirically measurable are real. And that statement itself is based on a circular argument and cannot be established empirically. That is the objection I have. The only reality empirical things have is empirical reality. Omitting this qualification is in my view an error
Pompous waffle. You really should give up the amateur philosophy.
-
One of the definitions of religion is....'Something of overwhelming importance to a person'.
Source please.
Perhaps this exists as a definition of religion when used in a colloquial manner e.g. "football is a religion to him". But that is a colloquialism - football isn't actually a religion. There are other similar colloquialisms - e.g. describing someone particularly good at something as a god "Harry Kane is a god", or describing a sext of particular significance as a bible "Joe Bloggs wrote the bible on shoe repair".
In none of these cases are the terms religion, god or bible being used in their normal, not colloquial definition.
By your claimed definition pretty well everything would be a religion, from family, to marathon running, to knitting, to pets etc - that is clearly non-sense.
-
It depends on what the idea and what domain covers it.
The domain is reality.
If it's a moral question then science is no help whatsoever.
Is it not? Surely knowing how the World is should inform your moral choices. Science can't tell us if abortion is morally acceptable but it can tell us things like when neural activity commences in the foetus, when it can feel pain and it can make predictions about the likely outcomes of various abnormalities in a pregnancy. So it can inform your decision as to whether abortion is morally acceptable, and if so, in what circumstances.
you are merely saying that only things that are empirically measurable are real.
No I'm not. I'm saying that, if we have no way of verifying our ideas against reality, there is no way to tell if they are correct. If there is no test to verify the existence of God, we can't know if the answer to the question "is there a god" is yes or no.
-
I don't assume my ideas are right. They fall into three categories:
1. Wrong
2. In accordance with observed reality
3. Untested
There's no assuming involved at all, other than that there is an observable reality, but if you don't all that one, all meaningful discussion is at an end.
I'd go with:
There are (inter-subjective) observations
We have ideas (ie. create models). We match them to observations as best we can for usefulness.
Reality remains unknown, undefined, mythical .. just as with trying to define soul or spirit ...
The only certainty is that some doubt will remain.
-
I'd go with:
There are (inter-subjective) observations
We have ideas (ie. create models). We match them to observations as best we can for usefulness.
Reality remains unknown, undefined, mythical .. just as with trying to define soul or spirit ...
The only certainty is that some doubt will remain.
Nah. Either you accept that there is an observable reality or we might as well forget about all discussions of anything.
-
https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human-consciousness-creating-reality/
*************
The paper’s authors include Robert Lanza, a stem cell and regenerative medicine expert, famous for the theory of biocentrism, which argues that consciousness is the driving force for the existence of the universe. He believes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that’s separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.
“The observer is the first cause, the vital force that collapses not only the present, but the cascade of spatiotemporal events we call the past. Stephen Hawking was right when he said: ‘The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.'”
************
-
Pompous waffle. You really should give up the amateur philosophy.
If it pisses you off.......it's worth it.
-
https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human-consciousness-creating-reality/
*************
The paper’s authors include Robert Lanza, a stem cell and regenerative medicine expert, famous for the theory of biocentrism, which argues that consciousness is the driving force for the existence of the universe. He believes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that’s separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.
“The observer is the first cause, the vital force that collapses not only the present, but the cascade of spatiotemporal events we call the past. Stephen Hawking was right when he said: ‘The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.'”
************
The paper referred to be the linked article doesn't seem to make any of the claims listed. Can't see how you can get from the paper to the views pushed in the article.
-
The domain is reality.
Is it not? Surely knowing how the World is should inform your moral choices. Science can't tell us if abortion is morally acceptable but it can tell us things like when neural activity commences in the foetus, when it can feel pain and it can make predictions about the likely outcomes of various abnormalities in a pregnancy. So it can inform your decision as to whether abortion is morally acceptable, and if so, in what circumstances.
No I'm not. I'm saying that, if we have no way of verifying our ideas against reality, there is no way to tell if they are correct. If there is no test to verify the existence of God, we can't know if the answer to the question "is there a god" is yesBecause it is the only thing that can be observed empirically or no.
You are still trapped in a circular argument.
For reality read existence. So what exists, that which can be observed empirically because that is all that is real. Why is it real? You see, circular argument.
-
You are still trapped in a circular argument.
For reality read existence. So what exists, that which can be observed empirically because that is all that is real. Why is it real? You see, circular argument.
Definition of existence - "the fact or state of living or having objective reality."
Definition of reality - "the state or quality of having existence or substance."
What is your point Vlad? If you want to argue that things exist outside of reality or that reality involves things that don't exist then you need to change the definitions of existence and reality. Moreover if you want to make such claims - that things exist outside of reality, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such things.
-
Definition of existence - "the fact or state of living or having objective reality."
Definition of reality - "the state or quality of having existence or substance."
What is your point Vlad? If you want to argue that things exist outside of reality or that reality involves things that don't exist then you need to change the definitions of existence and reality. Moreover if you want to make such claims - that things exist outside of reality, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such things.
The point is
The point is the decision to define realty has been taken by people who believe in that definition of reality without demonstrating it using their belief.
That reality is the physical alone is not borne out by physical evidence.
If you say it is the most widely accepted definition of reality then that becomes argumentum ad populum.
Shouldn't you be with your students?
-
The point is
The point is the decision to define realty has been taken by people who believe in that definition of reality without demonstrating it using their belief.
That reality is the physical alone is not borne out by physical evidence.
If you say it is the most widely accepted definition of reality then that becomes argumentum ad populum.
Shouldn't you be with your students?
Give it a rest Vlad.
This is just you trying to accuse others of philosophical materialism yet again and nobody here subscribes to that view because, as has been explained to you many times previously, there may be unknown unknowns.
-
You are still trapped in a circular argument.
No I am not.
For reality read existence. So what exists, that which can be observed empirically because that is all that is real. Why is it real? You see, circular argument.
But that is a straw man.
My claim is that we can't know about anything we can't observe. I do not assert that, if it can't be observed, it doesn't exist.
-
Give it a rest Vlad.
This is just you trying to accuse others of philosophical materialism yet again and nobody here subscribes to that view because, as has been explained to you many times previously, there may be unknown unknowns.
If he had just meant to defend reality as the objectively real then there was no need for him to butt in because a) He had no evidence that I disagreed with that and b)He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real.
His interjection we must conclude is due to his materialism and or scientism and or empiricism
-
If he had just meant to defend reality as the objectively real then there was no need for him to butt in
Actually, you butted in on a reply I made to Sriram.
because a) He had no evidence that I disagreed with that
I was responding first to a claim that Sritam made and then to your comments. If you didn't disagree with me, why did you butt in?
His interjection we must conclude is due to his materialism and or scientism and or empiricism
Your interjection we must conclude was due your ignorance and pseudo intellectualism.
-
He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real.
Sounds like the NPF has sneaked up on you when you weren't looking.
-
Sounds like the NPF has sneaked up on you when you weren't looking.
No, the NPF is you cannot prove something so it must be true. I'm not saying that.
What do you think the qualification is for being objectively real?
NHMB.
-
No, the NPF is you cannot prove something so it must be true. I'm not saying that.
You said about Jeremy that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real." - which reads to me like you're using the NPF.
What do you think the qualification is for being objectively real?
Where there is information that results in an intersubjective agreement that there is 'x', and where that conclusion is provisional and subject to review. While it may be the case that some things appear to be more 'objectively real' than others one should, as Betrand Russell advised, never be absolutely certain of anything.
NHMB.
WTF?
-
The point is the decision to define realty has been taken by people who believe in that definition of reality without demonstrating it using their belief.
How on earth do you know that Vlad - oh, wait, you don't.
-
You said about Jeremy that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real." - which reads to me like you're using the NPF.
Where there is information that results in an intersubjective agreement that there is 'x', and where that conclusion is provisional and subject to review. While it may be the case that some things appear to be more 'objectively real' than others one should, as Betrand Russell advised, never be absolutely certain of anything.
WTF?
No, to NPF you have to positively assert that absence of proof against equals proof of.
Nobody as far as I can see has ever done that on this forum.
You have been confused by your own hope.
-
No, to NPF you have to positively assert that absence of proof against equals proof of.
Which is what you were implying are when you, who believes that 'God' is objectively real, issued a challenge to Jeremy saying that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real".
Case closed.
-
NPF
What is NPF?
-
What is NPF?
Negative proof fallacy.
-
Negative proof fallacy.
Thanks.
Not sure where this gets us. I think we all recognise that you cannot prove that something does not exist - but being unable to prove that something does exist provides no support that something does actually exist.
And there are literally countless things that we might consider that could exist where there is no proof that they don't exist - from tartan swans, to invisible flying teapots, to the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg - or indeed the planet Zarg itself.
But while no-one claims that tartan swans, invisible flying teapots or the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg actually exist the argument is completely sterile and there is no onus on anyone to provide proof of existence, nor (obviously impossible) non-existence. However as soon as someone actually claims that something exists then the situation changes entirely, based on the burden of proof. At this point there is a complete shift - the burden of proof now rests entirely on the person making the claim that something actually exists - there remains, of course, no onus on anyone to prove that this thing does not exist.
-
Which is what you were implying are when you, who believes that 'God' is objectively real, issued a challenge to Jeremy saying that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real".
Case closed.
Not at all.
He cannot demonstrate that, or is not nor never has been able to. That is a fact. But it is nowhere near committing an NPF.
There are two forms of the NPF. a) Absence of evidence is evidence of existence that's the one I think you are accusing me of.
(For me, there is no absence of evidence but I also rightly believe that that evidence does not constitute universally accepted evidence of existence) and b) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Now in terms of b) I would hazard that you and Davey are using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
In fact a declared position that you do not finally know that there is or isn't but you are acting as though there isn't entails that you are taking the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. It also entails that you do not accept a non materialist or empirical definition of evidence.
-
Now in terms of b) I would hazard that you and Davey are using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
There's nothing wrong with that. If there was an elephant in the room, I'd expect to see a lot of broken furniture, have difficulty moving around it and have to clear up piles of elephant dung. The fact that none of these are the case allows me to make the tentative conclusion that there is no elephant in the room. Absence of evidence where it is expected is evidence of absence although not proof of absence.
-
Thanks.
Not sure where this gets us. I think we all recognise that you cannot prove that something does not exist - but being unable to prove that something does exist provides no support that something does actually exist.
But nowhere am I making that claim
And there are literally countless things that we might consider that could exist where there is no proof that they don't exist - from tartan swans, to invisible flying teapots, to the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg - or indeed the planet Zarg itself.
Yes, and you might stop to wonder why I find those things as ridiculous and unlikely as you do and yet believe in God.
But while no-one claims that tartan swans, invisible flying teapots or the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg actually exist the argument is completely sterile and there is no onus on anyone to provide proof of existence, nor (obviously impossible) non-existence. However as soon as someone actually claims that something exists then the situation changes entirely, based on the burden of proof. At this point there is a complete shift - the burden of proof now rests entirely on the person making the claim that something actually exists - there remains, of course, no onus on anyone to prove that this thing does not exist.
But why start with the atheist position? Why assume it has the stronger claim? The answer, that you dare not give of course, is that it is convention to give the immediate conclusion from empirical criteria precedence. Because that is precisely what you are doing everytime you seek to mete out burden of proof in this argument.
-
He cannot demonstrate that, or is not nor never has been able to. That is a fact.
Then why did you ask him to?
But it is nowhere near committing an NPF.
I disagree.
-
There's nothing wrong with that.
Of course there is because, to follow it to it's conclusion it would mean that something never existed until it was discovered If there was an elephant in the room, I'd expect to see a lot of broken furniture, have difficulty moving around it and have to clear up piles of elephant dung. The fact that none of these are the case allows me to make the tentative conclusion that there is no elephant in the room. Absence of evidence where it is expected is evidence of absence although not proof of absence.
But some would argue that anything from goodness, love, morality, religion, all the way up to the universe or that there is anything itself was 'broken furniture type' evidence, Jeremy. Ignoring it as such while accepting evidence of absence would look a bit special pleady IMHO.
-
Yes, and you might stop to wonder why I find those things as ridiculous and unlikely as you do and yet believe in God.
Not really - the reason why people typically believe in such things is that they have personally been brought up to believe them within a society that culturally accepts this to be the default position.
So were you to have been brought up on the planet Zarg where people institutionally and culturally believe in Humdinger (without evidence) then you'd be asking me why do you believe in Humdinger but find the concept of the christian god on the planet earth to be ridiculous.
-
Of course there is because, to follow it to it's conclusion it would mean that something never existed until it was discovered
I think you need to start reading the posts to which you respond. What you are doing now makes you look like an idiot.
Nothing in my post leads to the conclusion that things don't exist before they are discovered. Read it.
But some would argue that anything from goodness, love, morality, religion, all the way up to the universe or that there is anything itself was 'broken furniture type' evidence, Jeremy. Ignoring it as such while accepting evidence of absence would look a bit special pleady IMHO.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it your contention that religion is evidence for God? I would argue that it is not purely on the grounds that, if God were real, there would only be one religion.
-
I think you need to start reading the posts to which you respond. What you are doing now makes you look like an idiot.
I fail to see the need to get shirty
Nothing in my post leads to the conclusion that things don't exist before they are discovered. Read it.
What do you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence means? I take it as evidence of absence means evidence of non existence. You agreed, or so I thought that it meant that also. I've never said anybody including you sees it as proof of non existence in fact, actually, i've said nobody on here has committed NPF.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it your contention that religion is evidence for God? I would argue that it is not purely on the grounds that, if God were real, there would only be one religion.
And I disagree with that, but that would be an argument for elsewhere. My chief argument, as you well know is the principle of sufficient reason although that doesn't give me personal faith in Christ, merely philosophical justification for theism
-
Not really - the reason why people typically believe in such things is that they have personally been brought up to believe them within a society that culturally accepts this to be the default position.
Typically does not cover those who are not typical.
What is your explanation for the non typical?
Your statement could be dismissed as mere intellectual snobbery given the historically low level of religious adherence in the UK as opposed to high nominality
-
Not really - the reason why people typically believe in such things is that they have personally been brought up to believe them within a society that culturally accepts this to be the default position.
What has this got to do with not believing in fairy tales and the like?
-
What does NPF stand for? Presumably something something fallacy, but I can't find it on any online list of fallacies. I know what it is - saying that if you can't prove something is untrue, it must be true.
PS - I take it you mean the argument from ignorance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - but what's np? No proof?
-
What does NPF stand for? Presumably something something faacy, but I can't find it on any online list of fallacies. I know [iwhat[/i] it is - saying that if you can't prove something is untrue, it must be true.
I think it was largely concocted here as the ''negative proof fallacy''. If you pointed out that somebody couldn't demonstrate non existence you had committed the NPF.
It is really a bastardisation of the argument from ignorance in which the fallacy is found in asserting that your opponent not being able to disprove your assertion proves your assertion or conversely, asserting that inability to prove something disproves it.
-
What does NPF stand for? Presumably something something fallacy, but I can't find it on any online list of fallacies. I know what it is - saying that if you can't prove something is untrue, it must be true.
PS - I take it you mean the argument from ignorance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - but what's np? No proof?
It is most often, in my experience, used by someone who doesn't understand their obligations under the philosophical burden of proof: where rather than provide support themselves for whatever it is they are asserting they, instead, demand that their opponent shows that said assertion is flawed or wrong.
Vlad's earlier comment noting that Jeremy "cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real" reads to me like a good example of the NPF.
-
It is most often, in my experience, used by someone who doesn't understand their obligations under the philosophical burden of proof: where rather than provide support themselves for whatever it is they are asserting they, instead, demand that their opponent shows that said assertion is flawed or wrong.
Vlad's earlier comment noting that Jeremy "cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real" reads to me like a good example of the NPF.
Gordon, throwing words around shamanically as per normal.
I'll be charitable Gordon. Noting that someone cannot demonstrate that that something say like God is not objectively real...is only halfway toward the fallacy. To commit the fallacy you would have to add '' And therefore that proves God''. without that, and nobody has ever added that in my recollection, Gordon has been committing the Fallacy fallacy...namely finding one where there isn't one.
-
Gordon, throwing words around shamanically as per normal.
'Shamanically' eh! Typical Vlad - when flustered chuck in a pointless adjective.
I'll be charitable Gordon. Noting that someone cannot demonstrate that that something say like God is not objectively real...is only halfway toward the fallacy. To commit the fallacy you would have to add '' And therefore that proves God''. without that, and nobody has ever added that in my recollection
One can look at what you actually, consider the context and your previous musings, and then extrapolate to conclude that you were falling into the NPF - head first.
Gordon has been committing the Fallacy fallacy...namely finding one where there isn't one.
Understanding fallacies was never been your strong point, Vlad: and still isn't.
-
I fail to see the need to get shirty
What? When you constantly straw man people's arguments and either don't understand or deliberately misread their posts? You have blatantly misrepresented my position several times on this thread. People are going to lose patience with you.
What do you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence means? I take it as evidence of absence means evidence of non existence.
Well done. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Now all you need to do is grasp the fact that evidence and proof are different things.
I've never said anybody including you sees it as proof of non existence in fact, actually, i've said nobody on here has committed NPF.
It's already been pointed out to you did it on this thread.
-
It's already been pointed out to you did it on this thread.
Roundly and comprehensively rebutted I'm afraid.
Whether I am trying to dodge the burden of proof is a separate matter.
I've said no one has committed NPF including you, twice. So I already know the difference between evidence and final proof. The question rather is about what constitutes evidence.
-
Typically does not cover those who are not typical.
What is your explanation for the non typical?
Given that you were actually talking about you specifically then I think my point holds water very well.
However if you want to argue more generally - the reality is that it is incredibly rare for individuals brought up in a completely non religious manner to become religious. The population of people who are religious are almost exclusively comprised of people brought up in that religion or (very occasionally) brought up in a different religious tradition and then convert from one religion to another.
And given the propensity and cultural heritage of religion and theism worldwide I suspect there are rather few people who have not been culturally influenced by or culturally aware of the default positions of theism and religion for you to try your thought experiment.
And new religions (as far as I am aware) have never sprung up independently. In other words no christian missionary (for example) ever stumbled across a tribe that had never encountered christianity from some outside source and discovered that they were also christians. Never happens.
-
Roundly and comprehensively rebutted I'm afraid.
Just writing stuff down doesn't constitute an effective rebuttal. Your argument needs to be persuasive enough to persuade people the original assertion was wrong.
Whether I am trying to dodge the burden of proof is a separate matter.
A separate but equally well evidenced matter.
I've said no one has committed NPF including you, twice.
And you've also perpetrated the NPF and accused me of doing it.
So I already know the difference between evidence and final proof. The question rather is about what constitutes evidence.
No. The question is "how can you know if your ideas about the World are right without checking then against reality?" It was a couple of pages ago, but, if you follow this thread back, you'll see that it is the case. I asked it of Sriram and neither he, nor you have even tried to answer it.
-
Speculating philosophically about an after life and a soul based on NDE's and introspection about the nature of consciousness, is not wrong. It does not go against any established scientific principle or theory.
-
Speculating philosophically about an after life and a soul based on NDE's and introspection about the nature of consciousness, is not wrong. It does not go against any established scientific principle or theory.
But how can you know if these things exist bearing in mind that nobody who has verifiably died has reported back on their experience?
-
We have discussed all this already. It is speculative no doubt.... but tries to explain death and our existence beyond mere material interpretations. Unless we have enough reason to believe that it cannot be so...it is fine to have philosophical ideas.
-
We have discussed all this already. It is speculative no doubt.... but tries to explain death and our existence beyond mere material interpretations. Unless we have enough reason to believe that it cannot be so...it is fine to have philosophical ideas.
Until we can find a way of testing who is right, talking about after death experiences is just verbal wankery. It doesn't lead anywhere and it doesn't tell us anything about the World.
-
We have discussed all this already. It is speculative no doubt.... but tries to explain death and our existence beyond mere material interpretations. Unless we have enough reason to believe that it cannot be so...it is fine to have philosophical ideas.
I think that the implication here that philosophical ideas are speculation and not material is wrong. Using the term 'mere materialism' is poisoning the well.
-
As discussed earlier, philosophical ideas about reality based on real experiences, can counter the influence of scientism.
-
As discussed earlier, philosophical ideas about reality based on real experiences, can counter the influence of scientism.
But the problem is Sriram that people who have the same experience may interpret them completely differently and hang them on highly distinct philosophical ideas which will typically be based on the philosophical 'mood music' of their cultural and societal upbringing and environment.
So all we get is a mire of subjectivity with societal and cultural overlay. None of this takes us anywhere useful in terms of actually understanding of the world rather than investigation of societal norms which may, or may not, align with any actual objective reality.
We can, of course, learn from experiential evidence, but to do so requires robust scientific method that first unpicks reported experience that cuts through cultural mood music and overlays with sound objective science.
So on so-called near death experiences (they are nothing of the sort as plenty aren't associated with near death). Use your approach and they tell you about death, and they tell you that individuals are watching the journey to heaven, or other people that they are watching their reincarnation, or others still that they are just witnessing death. Now even though the experience may be both real and consistent, none of those 'philosophical ideas based on real experiences' have any evidence to support them.
Overlay solid science and we can understand the changes in physiology that are associated with these experiences, and demonstrate them to be causally associated with oxygen depletion. Further these experiences can readily be replicated in circumstances where there is temporary oxygen depletion but have nothing to do with death. It may, of course, be that this type of oxygen depletion occurs near to death and probably both in people who actually die and those who recover. But the phenomenon isn't necessarily associated with death and has a physiological, not a philosophical explanation.
-
But the problem is Sriram that people who have the same experience may interpret them completely differently and hang them on highly distinct philosophical ideas which will typically be based on the philosophical 'mood music' of their cultural and societal upbringing and environment.
I think you are right to suggest this is true for all philosophical positions. However there are philosophies that transcend culture and societal upbringing. I think your model is one of an elite of opinion formers and a mass of followers.
Religion of course generates it’s own culture, society, and philosophy and also transcends others
Philosophy is another.
So all we get is a mire of subjectivity with societal and cultural overlay. None of this takes us anywhere useful in terms of actually understanding of the world rather than investigation of societal norms which may, or may not, align with any actual objective reality.
We can, of course, learn from experiential evidence, but to do so requires robust scientific method that first unpicks reported experience that cuts through cultural mood music and overlays with sound objective science.
Science does not do the supernatural and yet here you are doing the supernatural with science and not just the supernatural but sociology and cultural studies as well. And that I move is Scientism to a T.
To be fair Sriram is doing a bit of the reverse. But science has views on what death is and religion has views on how God deals with it
-
I think you are right to suggest this is true for all philosophical positions.
Glad you agree.
However there are philosophies that transcend culture and societal upbringing.
And there was me thinking we were getting somewhere, but here comes the special pleading.
Religion of course generates it’s own culture, society, and philosophy and also transcends others.
Well I never - special pleading for religion. But religion is a clear byproduct of culture and society and, of course, also influences the developments within that culture and society. So culture/society and religion are inherently linked and religion most certainly does not transcend culture/society as you can have culture/society without religion, but you cannot have religion without culture/society.
Philosophy is another.
Oh the full reverse ferret now.
So you accept that philosophies clearly are culturally/societally derived ... except for the ones that aren't ... which includes, err, philosophies.
You really do seem terribly confused Vlad.
-
I think you are right to suggest this is true for all philosophical positions. However there are philosophies that transcend culture and societal upbringing. I think your model is one of an elite of opinion formers and a mass of followers.
Religion of course generates it’s own culture, society, and philosophy and also transcends others
Philosophy is another.
Science does not do the supernatural and yet here you are doing the supernatural with science and not just the supernatural but sociology and cultural studies as well. And that I move is Scientism to a T.
To be fair Sriram is doing a bit of the reverse. But science has views on what death is and religion has views on how God deals with it
No wonder you get confused about fallacies, Vlad: you're so embroiled in them yourself.
Even a cursory glance at your latest contribution some reveals some special pleading, an implied argument from authority, some begging the question along with, of course, one of your army of straw men.
-
Glad you agree.
And there was me thinking we were getting somewhere, but here comes the special pleading.
Well I never - special pleading for religion. But religion is a clear byproduct of culture and society and, of course, also influences the developments within that culture and society. So culture/society and religion are inherently linked and religion most certainly does not transcend culture/society as you can have culture/society without religion, but you cannot have religion without culture/society.
Oh the full reverse ferret now.
So you accept that philosophies are clearly are culturally/societally derived ... except for the ones that aren't ... which includes, err, philosophy.
You really do seem terribly confused Vlad.
No special pleading here because I say that philosophies can transcend society and culture. But of course Religion can transcend philosophy too. That is part of the reason I class secular humanism as religion.
You of course put great store in culture and society, greater in affective power than philosophy or religion. Paradoxically you have been influenced by the low premium our society puts on philosophy. I on the other hand discovered philosophy through religion and am quite happy talking about it and for. my philosophy to be identified. Something most atheists on this forum are shit scared off.
My religion frees me to explore philosophy. Just because you are mired in your culture don’t tar others with the Same brush. Thanks.
-
No wonder you get confused about fallacies, Vlad: you're so embroiled in them yourself.
Even a cursory glance at your latest contribution some reveals some special pleading, an implied argument from authority, some begging the question along with, of course, one of your army of straw men.
But as per usual you seem to have difficulty finding where these have occurred.
-
But as per usual you seem to have difficulty finding where these have occurred.
Nope - they are blindingly obvious: try looking!
-
No special pleading here because I say that philosophies can transcend society and culture. But of course Religion can transcend philosophy too. That is part of the reason I class secular humanism as religion.
You of course put great store in culture and society, greater in affective power than philosophy or religion. Paradoxically you have been influenced by the low premium our society puts on philosophy. I on the other hand discovered philosophy through religion and am quite happy talking about it and for. my philosophy to be identified. Something most atheists on this forum are shit scared off.
My religion frees me to explore philosophy. Just because you are mired in your culture don’t tar others with the Same brush. Thanks.
What does 'religion can transcend philosophy' mean?
-
But of course Religion can transcend philosophy too.
Changing the goalposts - my point (and your point previously) was that religion transcends culture and society.
Given that religion is "usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Then it seems hard to argue that religion can somehow exist outside of, or beyond, the very system within which, by definition, it exists.
Point being you can have culture/society without religion, you cannot have religion without culture/society. Religion is dependent on culture/society, not the other way around. Culture/society, by contrast, is not dependent on religion, even if in many cases culture/society work hand in hand together and are co-dependent.
-
What does 'religion can transcend philosophy' mean?
I think there are elements within religion that are non-philosophical, e.g certain practices, behaviours, sacred buildings etc. While these may be developed in homage to the central philosophical belief, they aren't really the philosophy itself. But I don't think that really transcends, in the manner of extending beyond. At most it adds to, in the manner that a statue to Kant, adds to Kantian philosophy but doesn't transcend his philosophy.
-
That is part of the reason I class secular humanism as religions.
See my definition of religion earlier.
In what way does secular humanism relate "humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements". I don't think humanism relates to supernatural, transcendental or spiritual elements at all, hence I cannot see how it is a religion. It may represent a philosophy applied in practice, but that makes it no more a religion than economic or political philosophies applied in practice. So do you think socialism is a religion, or neo-monetarism Vlad?
-
I think there are elements within religion that are non-philosophical, e.g certain practices, behaviours, sacred buildings etc. While these may be developed in homage to the central philosophical belief, they aren't really the philosophy itself. But I don't think that really transcends, in the manner of extending beyond. At most it adds to, in the manner that a statue to Kant, adds to Kantian philosophy but doesn't transcend his philosophy.
Oddly enough, having someone who does not state that 'religion can transcend philosophy' saying it can't is not helping with explaining what someone who says 'religion can transcend philosophy' means.
-
Oddly enough, having someone who does not state that 'religion can transcend philosophy' saying it can't is not helping with explaining what someone who says 'religion can teanscend philosophy' means.
True - but my point was that there are elements of religion that are adjuncts to the underlying philosophy.
Actually Vlad is changing the goal posts from:
Religion can transcend culture/society to
Religion can transcend philosophy
He is, of course, unable to make any cogent argument for either claim.
-
But the problem is Sriram that people who have the same experience may interpret them completely differently and hang them on highly distinct philosophical ideas which will typically be based on the philosophical 'mood music' of their cultural and societal upbringing and environment.
So all we get is a mire of subjectivity with societal and cultural overlay. None of this takes us anywhere useful in terms of actually understanding of the world rather than investigation of societal norms which may, or may not, align with any actual objective reality.
We can, of course, learn from experiential evidence, but to do so requires robust scientific method that first unpicks reported experience that cuts through cultural mood music and overlays with sound objective science.
So on so-called near death experiences (they are nothing of the sort as plenty aren't associated with near death). Use your approach and they tell you about death, and they tell you that individuals are watching the journey to heaven, or other people that they are watching their reincarnation, or others still that they are just witnessing death. Now even though the experience may be both real and consistent, none of those 'philosophical ideas based on real experiences' have any evidence to support them.
Overlay solid science and we can understand the changes in physiology that are associated with these experiences, and demonstrate them to be causally associated with oxygen depletion. Further these experiences can readily be replicated in circumstances where there is temporary oxygen depletion but have nothing to do with death. It may, of course, be that this type of oxygen depletion occurs near to death and probably both in people who actually die and those who recover. But the phenomenon isn't necessarily associated with death and has a physiological, not a philosophical explanation.
Religions are culture based and could be very different community to community. Philosophy is not so. It is about knowledge and wisdom and is generally uniform. ....though there could be various models of reality.
Philosophy is not different from science in that respect.....except that it does not restrict itself to measurable phenomena. Science in fact is a subset of philosophy.
Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations.
-
Paradoxically you have been influenced by the low premium our society puts on philosophy.
Have I, and does it. On the former, more later, on the latter I actually think that society puts great store on philosophy, it is just rarely seen in a kind of sterile academic "I'm a secular humanist", "I'm a utilitarian consequentialist" manner. I think that societies run on philosophies that are embedded in our values and culture - some are, of course directly or indirectly based on religious philosophies, others aren't. And when we see culture wars and debates as to how our society should be what are these other than battles of philosophies.
I on the other hand discovered philosophy through religion and am quite happy talking about it and for. my philosophy to be identified. Something most atheists on this forum are shit scared off.
And there was me thinking that my desire to become more acquainted in a range of philosophical approaches, and in particular ethical philosophies stems from the point at which I came to recognise that I was atheist. While I was more 'nominal christian' as per my upbringing I had no interest as it was something 'other' rather than something that defined me.
And in the past 33 years, since I came to recognise that I was atheist my philosophical outlook and ethical positions aren't just something private but something that I have brought into my professional world, hence my longstanding involvement in ethics committees and the teaching of medical ethics.
My religion frees me to explore philosophy. Just because you are mired in your culture don’t tar others with the Same brush. Thanks.
I would say (and can demonstrate with examples) that my atheism not just clearly freed me, but also inspired me to explore philosophy. And to go further by putting this into practice in my day to day professional work.
-
Religions are culture based and could be very different community to community. Philosophy is not so. It is about knowledge and wisdom and is generally uniform. ....though there could be various models of reality.
Philosophy is not different from science in that respect.....except that it does not restrict itself to measurable phenomena. Science in fact is a subset of philosophy.
Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations.
'Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations'
I know all the words in that sentence but it makes no sense to me. What, just for starters, are you trying to say when using the words 'theoretical essence' there?
-
Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations.
Far too limiting, and so very vague. All this statement seems to do is betray your own cultural leanings.
-
I was referring to spiritual philosophy (metaphysics) such as in Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, Kabbala, Sufism etc.
-
I was referring to spiritual philosophy (metaphysics) such as in Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, Kabbala, Sufism etc.
And, even though you now restrict your comments to one of the accepted branches of philosophy, it seems you are still happy to miss out great swathes of metaphysical philosophy, including that of ancient/classical Greece or the rational and empirical approaches of the 17th and 18th centuries. Even contemporary analytical approaches don't seem to get a look in in your view of metaphysical philosophy. As I suggested, you seem to be simply limited to your own cultural approach.
-
Yes indeed. Just as you are restricting yourselves to western philosophies. Philosophies that I refer to are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material and these form the theoretical basis for the creation of methods and techniques that could help other aspirants experience the same realities. That is the way it works in spirituality and that is the way yoga and other meditative methods have been developed.
It is true that philosophical speculation is perfectly valid and could reflect reality. Scientism on the other hand is not a valid approach. Science should restrict itself to those areas where it has the tools and scope to investigate.
-
Yes indeed.
Glad you agree. Don't you think then that it would be a good idea to not limit your idea of what metaphysical philosophy entails to eastern philosophies?
Just as you are restricting yourselves to western philosophies.
Except I aren't. I happily accept that there are many different types of philosophy which are all worthy of consideration for those who are interested in such matters.
Philosophies that I refer to are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material and these form the theoretical basis for the creation of methods and techniques that could help other aspirants experience the same realities. That is the way it works in spirituality and that is the way yoga and other meditative methods have been developed.
And yet, valuable and useful as some people find them to be, they are a subset of a whole range of experiences and attitudes, where feelings of spirituality(vague though it is) are not limited to your ideas and attitudes.
It is true that philosophical speculation is perfectly valid and could reflect reality.
Indeed it could. The only problem is that this approach, on its own, tends to become subjective and therefore it is hard to evaluate such speculations without involving some other more objective discipline.
Scientism on the other hand is not a valid approach.
Couldn't agree more and as I have already suggested in post 56.
Science should restrict itself to those areas where it has the tools and scope to investigate.
It will, by its very nature, not involve itself in any area where it will be impossible to produce evidence. I see no problem with this whatever, but you or I are not arbiters of where such restrictions lie. If science, using its ever evolving methods, can produce evidence in any area you care to mention, then it has every right to do so.
-
Yes indeed. Just as you are restricting yourselves to western philosophies. Philosophies that I refer to are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material and these form the theoretical basis for the creation of methods and techniques that could help other aspirants experience the same realities. That is the way it works in spirituality and that is the way yoga and other meditative methods have been developed.
Have to say that I think this idea of things that "are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material" is a contradiction in terms: however 'spiritual' these experiences may feel they are nonetheless material, in that they are a consequence of material biology doing what it does.
-
Have to say that I think this idea of things that "are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material" is a contradiction in terms: however 'spiritual' these experiences may feel they are nonetheless material, in that they are a consequence of material biology doing what it does.
What like doing what comes naturally, like material did it? So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.
You seem to be reducing the phenomenon in order to big up some mighty truth you feel you have about the cosmos.
-
So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.
I think you'll find that is some religions, not religion.
But even for Judeo-christianity it isn't really true is it as one of the belief of those religions is that an individual continues to exist after death where there is judgement and reward/punishment. So it isn't really dust to dust and ashes to ashes and that's it, is it Vlad. So when you don't selectively quote, you get:
"ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself"
There is, of course, no evidence for this conjecture, but christianity certainly doesn't believe that it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust and that's the end.
-
Glad you agree. Don't you think then that it would be a good idea to not limit your idea of what metaphysical philosophy entails to eastern philosophies?
Except I aren't. I happily accept that there are many different types of philosophy which are all worthy of consideration for those who are interested in such matters.
And yet, valuable and useful as some people find them to be, they are a subset of a whole range of experiences and attitudes, where feelings of spirituality(vague though it is) are not limited to your ideas and attitudes.
Indeed it could. The only problem is that this approach, on its own, tends to become subjective and therefore it is hard to evaluate such speculations without involving some other more objective discipline.
Couldn't agree more and as I have already suggested in post 56.
It will, by its very nature, not involve itself in any area where it will be impossible to produce evidence. I see no problem with this whatever, but you or I are not arbiters of where such restrictions lie. If science, using its ever evolving methods, can produce evidence in any area you care to mention, then it has every right to do so.
Objective evidence need not mean only measurable through physical instruments. Even experiences that are similar among various people across the globe and which lead to similar conclusions, can be regarded as objective. Experiences that can be replicated using standard methods that can be taught to others, are also objective.
Though I don't have any expertise on western philosophies....most western metaphysical philosophies are largely seen as intellectual exercises and attempts to reduce metaphysical matters to a rational framework. They rarely if at all involve personal exercises and experiences. That is why most of them are dry and tedious texts relegated to library bookshelves.
On the other hand, the philosophies such as Samkhya, Yoga, Jainism and Buddhism (also western ones such as Kabbala and sufism) are 'living' philosophies that are integrated with religious teachings and inspire millions of people everyday. The Bhagavad Gita for example, is largely a philosophical text in the guise of a religious scriptural discourse. It is one of the most popular religious text among Hindus in spite of being a metaphysical text dealing with ontology.
-
Even experiences that are similar among various people across the globe and which lead to similar conclusions, can be regarded as objective.
Nope - those experiences are subjective (obviously), but they can be studied objectively. But that isn't the same as suggesting that the experiences themselves are objective.
-
What like doing what comes naturally, like material did it?
Yes: as far as is known any mental processes, such as experiencing whatever, requires material in the form of functioning biology.
So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.
Then they spoil it all by adding supernatural bollocks/woo into the mix.
You seem to be reducing the phenomenon in order to big up some mighty truth you feel you have about the cosmos.
Nope - as far as I can seen experiences, and all other mental processes -thoughts, feelings and emotions etc, are dependent on material that is biologically active. That seems rather obvious ,and not at all a "mighty truth".
-
Yes: as far as is known any mental processes, such as experiencing whatever, requires material in the form of functioning biology.
Then they spoil it all by adding supernatural bollocks/woo into the mix.
Nope - as far as I can seen experiences, and all other mental processes -thoughts, feelings and emotions etc, are dependent on material that is biologically active. That seems rather obvious ,and not at all a "mighty truth".
And some go on and say how wonderful science and nature are and then swear blind they are not adding something or finding something in it.
We know what scientific truth is without being evangelical about it.
What you still don’t get is that human experiences aren’t adequately described by your atomistic approach. Neither is consciousness etc.
-
Objective evidence need not mean only measurable through physical instruments. Even experiences that are similar among various people across the globe and which lead to similar conclusions, can be regarded as objective. Experiences that can be replicated using standard methods that can be taught to others, are also objective.
Though I don't have any expertise on western philosophies....most western metaphysical philosophies are largely seen as intellectual exercises and attempts to reduce metaphysical matters to a rational framework. They rarely if at all involve personal exercises and experiences. That is why most of them are dry and tedious texts relegated to library bookshelves.
On the other hand, the philosophies such as Samkhya, Yoga, Jainism and Buddhism (also western ones such as Kabbala and sufism) are 'living' philosophies that are integrated with religious teachings and inspire millions of people everyday. The Bhagavad Gita for example, is largely a philosophical text in the guise of a religious scriptural discourse. It is one of the most popular religious text among Hindus in spite of being a metaphysical text dealing with ontology.
I'm going to assume that by 'experiences' you mean mystical experiences. Hood's 32 point 'M' Scale does indeed seem to show that mystical experiences of, for instance, American Christians, Buddhists and Iranian Muslims are more alike than different. Historically,also, such experiences are described from as wide a variety of sources as the Upanishads, Plotinus and Meister Eckhart.
Where I disagree with you is that such experiences lead to similar conclusions. They seem to be interpreted in a variety of different ways usually in keeping with the cultural progression of a person's particular grouping. Hence, Buddhists tend to recognize the Buddha mind as ultimate reality, Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality and Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality.
Now this is where I come back to my original point as regards explanation which I attempted to make in reply 56, when I said:
Explanation, on the other hand, demands checks and balances to enable it to be the best possible explanation, and, for it to have substance, this should be, as far as possible, least coloured by the proponent's subjective views. Science method, as regards reality, scores heavily, as there seems to be no comparable current discipline which seeks to produce information in as objective a way as possible.
I quite accept that personal exercises, disciplines and meditative methods may well recreate such mystical experiences, but what they do not do is explain them. All you seem to have is your personal interpretation, which is fair enough, but remember so do very many other people who may well interpret them very differently.
So, finally, my take on such experiences is that the universality of same, and the fact that they can be replicated and taught to others emphasises that they are a part of the human condition but says nothing objectively about why they occur.
-
And some go on and say how wonderful science and nature are and then swear blind they are not adding something or finding something in it.
We know what scientific truth is without being evangelical about it.
What you still don’t get is that human experiences aren’t adequately described by your atomistic approach. Neither is consciousness etc.
Try describing consciousness without reference to active biology, and if you are going for a non-biological explanation of consciousness please tell us what method you've used to identify any non-biological aspects.
-
Try describing consciousness without reference to active biology, and if you are going for a non-biological explanation of consciousness please tell us what method you've used to identify any non-biological aspects.
But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
I can try to explain it biologically but how do I distinguish that from intelligence?
I find then that I can only partly describe it with biology.
What makes you think therefore that I am reluctant to describe it as far as biology can take us?
Sounds like epic straw manning on your part.
And by the way laddies on this forum who try to describe consciousness purely scientifically tend to end up using metaphor e.g the orchestra tuning up metaphor. Nice, but hardly biology.
-
But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
I can try to explain it biologically but how do I distinguish that from intelligence?
I find then that I can only partly describe it with biology.
What makes you think therefore that I am reluctant to describe it as far as biology can take us?
Sounds like epic straw manning on your part.
So, cutting to the chase and ignoring your usual rambling silliness, since you say you can only partly describe consciousness by referring to biology, on what basis have you decided that their is another, and presumably non-biological, aspect of consciousness and how have you identified this?
And by the way laddies on this forum who try to describe consciousness purely scientifically tend to end up using metaphor e.g the orchestra tuning up metaphor. Nice, but hardly biology.
I'm not doing that: you and your straw men eh!
-
But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
I can try to explain it biologically but how do I distinguish that from intelligence?
I find then that I can only partly describe it with biology.
What makes you think therefore that I am reluctant to describe it as far as biology can take us?
Sounds like epic straw manning on your part.
And by the way laddies on this forum who try to describe consciousness purely scientifically tend to end up using metaphor e.g the orchestra tuning up metaphor. Nice, but hardly biology.
CS Lewis once said that studying consciousness by introspection was a bit like taking out your eyes to have a look at them.
-
I'm going to assume that by 'experiences' you mean mystical experiences. Hood's 32 point 'M' Scale does indeed seem to show that mystical experiences of, for instance, American Christians, Buddhists and Iranian Muslims are more alike than different. Historically,also, such experiences are described from as wide a variety of sources as the Upanishads, Plotinus and Meister Eckhart.
Where I disagree with you is that such experiences lead to similar conclusions. They seem to be interpreted in a variety of different ways usually in keeping with the cultural progression of a person's particular grouping. Hence, Buddhists tend to recognize the Buddha mind as ultimate reality, Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality and Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality.
Now this is where I come back to my original point as regards explanation which I attempted to make in reply 56, when I said:
I quite accept that personal exercises, disciplines and meditative methods may well recreate such mystical experiences, but what they do not do is explain them. All you seem to have is your personal interpretation, which is fair enough, but remember so do very many other people who may well interpret them very differently.
So, finally, my take on such experiences is that the universality of same, and the fact that they can be replicated and taught to others emphasises that they are a part of the human condition but says nothing objectively about why they occur.
Yes...I agree that interpretations could be different but not really as different as you suggest. The Buddha mind (Dharmakaya) for example, is very similar to the Brahman of Vedanta. The Tao of Taoism is also similar. The Ein Soph of Kabbala is also similar as is the Monad of Gnosticism and the Wahdat UL Wujood of Sufi.
No doubt there could be differences in the way they are imagined and explained but the essence is the same.
I agree that we have no definite or comprehensive explanations on why and how life occurs. There are however speculative philosophical explanations that are similar across the world....which is the point I am making.
-
But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Biology helps explain what consciousness is an how it works - just as in other fields science is about understanding phenomena.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
Of course there was, just as the earth went around the sun before science helped us to understand this to be the case and why this happens.
You might as well ask some other non-sense question such as whether consciousness existed before humans had developed this philosophy or that philosophy.
-
So, cutting to the chase and ignoring your usual rambling silliness, since you say you can only partly describe consciousness by referring to biology, on what basis have you decided that their is another, and presumably non-biological, aspect of consciousness and how have you identified this?
I'm not doing that: you and your straw men eh!
Stop throwing it on me. If you think there is a complete scientific answer to consciousness then you are committing science to finishing the job.
Will science achieve that or not?
-
Stop throwing it on me. If you think there is a complete scientific answer to consciousness then you are committing science to finishing the job.
Will science achieve that or not?
You must have an army of straw men in reserve, Vlad: I have never claimed that science has a complete answer to consciousness but that, to date, it does appear to be a function of functioning biology and that further understandings via science may yet emerge.
You, in an earlier reply, opined that you accepted that science may offer some explanations but that there may be non-material explanations, and asked by what means you know this.
-
You must have an army of straw men in reserve, Vlad: I have never claimed that science has a complete answer to consciousness but that, to date, it does appear to be a function of functioning biology and that further understandings via science may yet emerge.
You, in an earlier reply, opined that you accepted that science may offer some explanations but that there may be non-material explanations, and asked by what means you know this.
Look, either Consciousness is a completely empirical phenomena or it isn't. If not there is a gap.
You are right not to commit because that spares you the charge of scientism.
Of course Darling Dennett thought he had a completely material explanation for consciousness but has been criticised for doing so.
I am of course waiting to see what science comes up with and am not bothered whether consciousness is completely exposed as mere mechanism or if there is a not material emergent component to it. If the latter then that jeopardises empiricism if the former then so what?
-
Look, either Consciousness is a completely empirical phenomena or it isn't. If not there is a gap.
No - not a 'gap': just that current understanding is acknowledged as being incomplete.
You are right not to commit because that spares you the charge of scientism.
I'd have pleaded innocent.
Of course Darling Dennett thought he had a completely material explanation for consciousness but has been criticised for doing so.
Do tell.
I am of course waiting to see what science comes up with...
Me too.
...and am not bothered whether consciousness is completely exposed as mere mechanism or if there is a not material emergent component to it. If the latter then that jeopardises empiricism if the former then so what?
And here we see your underlying confusion: if there were some "non-material element" then you would need a specific "mere mechanism" to identify this element, and this would then fall under the description of empiricism.
Asserting the possibility of a "non-material element" simply isn't enough.
-
What like doing what comes naturally, like material did it? So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.
Humans aren't made of dust, so that's a fail.
-
Look, either Consciousness is a completely empirical phenomena or it isn't. If not there is a gap.
But if we assume it is not, then we can never know what it is or how it works. It seems to me that it would be much more interesting to assume the explanation of consciousness is within the reach of science and, so far, I have seen no evidence that it is not.
You are right not to commit because that spares you the charge of scientism.
Not if it turns out that consciousness is amenable to being explained by science. It's not as if religion has anything helpful to say on the matter.
-
we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.
"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust -
If the women don't get you, the whiskey must."
Jelly-Roll Morton
-
"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust -
If the women don't get you, the whiskey must."
Jelly-Roll Morton
Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
We know Major Tom's a junkie
-
Humans aren't made of dust, so that's a fail.
I think dust is the closest a bronze age writer would have come to a molecule.
Weirdly I recall something about nucleic acids in prebiotic times
Forming on a matrix of clay particles.
-
But if we assume it is not, then we can never know what it is or how it works.
Can't argue with that but you say we are trying to find out how it works...I think there is a deeper problem of defining what it actually is. That brings us to the problem of observing consciousness and the knotty problem of discriminating between intelligence and consciousness It seems to me that it would be much more interesting to assume the explanation of consciousness is within the reach of science and, so far, I have seen no evidence that it is not.
Not until we have discriminated between electrical impulse and intelligence and consciousness
Not if it turns out that consciousness is amenable to being explained by science. It's not as if religion has anything helpful to say on the matter.
I don't think I've mentioned religion in the context of consciousness. I've argued that secular humanism is a religion and New atheism is and New atheism has a large scientism component. The assumption that we need more science to fully understand consciousness is, given what we don't know, a statement of faith.
I don't think the discovery that consciousness was a mere mechanism would impact theistic religion anywhere near as much as the impenetrability of consciousness would affect your faith in science.
-
I think dust is the closest a bronze age writer would have come to a molecule.
Then they were massively wrong, given that dust particles are thousands of times larger than molecules and indeed are made up of millions of molecules.
-
Then they were massively wrong, given that dust particles are thousands of times larger than molecules and indeed are made up of millions of molecules.
If I was a practically minded and earthed and grounded
Jewish person of the time I might have come up with the smallest practice piece of lifeless matter I had empirical evidence for so that the reader could grasp what I was speaking about. Without going into atomic theory.
-
If I was a practically minded and earthed and grounded
Jewish person of the time I might have come up with the smallest practice piece of lifeless matter I had empirical evidence for so that the reader could grasp what I was speaking about. Without going into atomic theory.
Sure, but they were wrong.
Just as people years ago who thought the sun went round the earth rather than the other way around were wrong.
Just as people who thought (and some still think) that all the species they could see were created individually by god rather than arose by evolution were wrong.
It isn't being ignorant when there is an excuse that is the issue. It is the continuation to perpetuate ignorance. Firstly by failing to be inquisitive and challenge their preconceptions by incorporating ignorance into dogma. Secondly by refusing to listen to or accept the truth, supported by evidence. Thirdly by actively persecuting those who are actually telling the truth, based on evidence, because they feel it undermines their dogma.
Being ignorant is one thing, being wilfully ignorant another, being actively anti-truth something else again. Religions, over history, have placed themselves firmly in stages two and three - that's the issue.
-
Sure, but they were wrong.
Just as people years ago who thought the sun went round the earth rather than the other way around were wrong.
Just as people who thought (and some still think) that all the species they could see were created individually by god rather than arose by evolution were wrong.
It isn't being ignorant when there is an excuse that is the issue. It is the continuation to perpetuate ignorance. Firstly by failing to be inquisitive and challenge their preconceptions by incorporating ignorance into dogma. Secondly by refusing to listen to or accept the truth, supported by evidence. Thirdly by actively persecuting those who are actually telling the truth, based on evidence, because they feel it undermines their dogma.
Being ignorant is one thing, being wilfully ignorant another, being actively anti-truth something else again. Religions, over history, have placed themselves firmly in stages two and three - that's the issue.
I even think a poet of today would use the term dust to convey our reducibility to mere lifeless particles which was the metaphorical intent of the original author.
What you seem to be doing here is reviving the old religion as failed science tosh.
Let us then bring the phrase up to secular humanist standards So dust to dust Ashes to Ashes becomes Atoms to Atoms, molecule to molecule. I can see how a secular humanist or anyone may be moved by that and how that might enoble that dead person but I don’t think that is the intent of the authors who wished to convey that basically this, in one sense, is all we are ‘Raised material’. Harsh, but it is the life that emerged out of the lifeless that we celebrate.
-
I even think a poet of today would use the term dust to convey our reducibility to mere lifeless particles which was the metaphorical intent of the original author.
What you seem to be doing here is reviving the old religion as failed science tosh.
Let us then bring the phrase up to secular humanist standards So dust to dust Ashes to Ashes becomes Atoms to Atoms, molecule to molecule. I can see how a secular humanist or anyone may be moved by that and how that might enoble that dead person but I don’t think that is the intent of the authors who wished to convey that basically this, in one sense, is all we are ‘Raised material’. Harsh, but it is the life that emerged out of the lifeless that we celebrate.
It's not about being moved, it's about understanding how reality is. If you don't find the real world poetic, tough luck. Reality doesn't care about your feelings.
-
I even think a poet of today would use the term dust to convey our reducibility to mere lifeless particles which was the metaphorical intent of the original author.
Only if they'd been brought up in a socio-cultural judaeo-christian society. If not I doubt very much they use that metaphor.
But you seem to have completely ignored my point - which was that it is one thing to be ignorant, because there isn't a better understanding. Quite another to remain wilfully ignorant when better understand is available. Even worse to deliberately try to frustrate, or worse still persecute, those that are trying to find the truth on the basis that the truth doesn't accord with dogma.
-
Only if they'd been brought up in a socio-cultural judaeo-christian society. If not I doubt very much they use that metaphor.
But you seem to have completely ignored my point - which was that it is one thing to be ignorant, because there isn't a better understanding. Quite another to remain wilfully ignorant when better understand is available. Even worse to deliberately try to frustrate, or worse still persecute, those that are trying to find the truth on the basis that the truth doesn't accord with dogma.
Scientific understanding as far as I can see is irrelevant for a funeral service or to express one's feelings of death as a metaphor so it is you who has gone off at a tangent with a non sequitur about being ignorant of the science.
Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant. Anyway to indulge you, where do you think the ignorance exists in the good old english church funeral service?......And aren't you mistaking metaphor for literalism(yyyyeeeeesss)?
My point is that the secular Humanist given to scientism imbues a kind of nobility to being composed of atoms no more so in the use of that surrupticious bit of woo often inserted around the saying '' We are starstuff!''.
-
It's not about being moved, it's about understanding how reality is. If you don't find the real world poetic,
Question...where does the poetry come? Answer... not atoms, science or empiricism....In other words it comes from human spirituality ............ tough luck.
-
Question...where does the poetry come? Answer... not atoms, science or empiricism....In other words it comes from human spirituality ............ tough luck.
It comes from active biology, which includes lots of wee atoms.
You seem to have stumbled into the fallacy of division
-
It comes from active biology, which includes lots of wee atoms.
You seem to have stumbled into the fallacy of division
Oh yes? what is it that is being divided?
Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon, so we are entitled to ask where it is located and how much that location contains.
How much poetry does say 1 mole of uranium contain as opposed to 1 mole of sodium. How much poetry do you contain Gordon and is it a property of your atoms?
Jeremy IMHO seems to think poetry is real since there is poetry in real things, see his post. Again if poetry is real.... where is it?
-
Question...where does the poetry come? Answer... not atoms, science or empiricism....In other words it comes from human spirituality ............ tough luck.
Can you show that human spirituality derives from anything outside of reality?
-
Oh yes? what is it that is being divided?
Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon, so we are entitled to ask where it is located and how much that location contains.
How much poetry does say 1 mole of uranium contain as opposed to 1 mole of sodium. How much poetry do you contain Gordon and is it a property of your atoms?
Jeremy IMHO seems to think poetry is real since there is poetry in real things, see his post. Again if poetry is real.... where is it?
Why on earth would you assume that a thing having a property means that all its constituent parts have the same property? That's a rather stupid view of the World.
-
Why on earth would you assume that a thing having a property means that all its constituent parts have the same property? That's a rather stupid view of the World.
I'm sorry, but what is this thing am I suppose to be assuming?
It seems Gordon is assuming that material or nature is that thing and indeed you yourself are calling some thing reality.
You go further and suggest that you find poetry in that thing called reality and I have some issue because apparently I don't
-
Can you show that human spirituality derives from anything outside of reality?
Good we are getting somewhere. So you think spirituality is part of reality now?
-
Oh yes? what is it that is being divided?
Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon, so we are entitled to ask where it is located and how much that location contains.
How much poetry does say 1 mole of uranium contain as opposed to 1 mole of sodium. How much poetry do you contain Gordon and is it a property of your atoms?
Jeremy IMHO seems to think poetry is real since there is poetry in real things, see his post. Again if poetry is real.... where is it?
I was right: not only have you fallen into the fallacy of division, your actually having a good old swim around in it, and with plenty of meaningless splashing too!
Poetry is an output of functional biology and the term is used to refer to a particular format of written language: terms such as 'novel' have a similar descriptive function, and language used in a literary context often involves abstract thinking, which brings us back to the biology.
While atoms aren't individually poetic, when they are aggregated into a particular form in the human brain that is where any poetry emerges from - hence your "Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon" is an example of the fallacy of division, and that indicates that you're reasoning is flawed.
-
Poetry is an output of functional biology.
Not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give an example of an analogous example of an ''output of biological function''.
Secondly are you sure there isn't an explanatory gap between biological function and poetry. An analogous example would of course be
the explanatory gap between biological function and consciousness.
While atoms aren't individually poetic, when they are aggregated into a particular form in the human brain that is where any poetry emerges from - hence your "Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon" is an example of the fallacy of division, and that indicates that you're reasoning is flawed.
so atoms aren't poetic according to you. So how has the fallacy of division been committed? Again I think you are undermined by an explanatory gap.
Another huge problem is that some find poetry in the fact that we are made from atoms and some don't. How do we know then that there is poetry in atoms? Is it real then or simply woo?
-
Good heavens - you really are mixed up.
Not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give an example of an analogous example of an ''output of biological function''.
Certainly - any post in any thread in this message-board.
Secondly are you sure there isn't an explanatory gap between biological function and poetry. An analogous example would of course be the explanatory gap between biological function and consciousness.
Just no - both poetry and consciousness are aspects of biological function, and neither arise when said biology ceases to function, and to date non-biological things (such as rocks) exhibit neither consciousness or an inclination to write verse.
so atoms aren't poetic according to you. So how has the fallacy of division been committed?
You are trying to ascribe a characteristic of the whole: a brain that is poetic and conscious, to its compoment parts, in this case atoms.
Again I think you are undermined by an explanatory gap.
Don't think so, for the reasons given above.
Another huge problem is that some find poetry in the fact that we are made from atoms and some don't.
They are using the term differently: as metaphor, in that they aren't referring to verse. Surprised you can't spot this yourself.
How do we know then that there is poetry in atoms? Is it real then or simply woo?
Well, no atom has yet published even the slimmest volume of verse so I think we can assume that the expression you use is metaphor: that you don't understand this is perhaps why you've stumbled into the fallacy of divisions.
-
Good heavens - you really are mixed up.
Certainly - any post in any thread in this message-board.
Just no - both poetry and consciousness are aspects of biological function, and neither arise when said biology ceases to function, and to date non-biological things (such as rocks) exhibit neither consciousness or an inclination to write verse.
You are trying to ascribe a characteristic of the whole: a brain that is poetic and conscious, to its compoment parts, in this case atoms.
Er, No we've agreed atoms aren't poetic. You are saying that poetry is a scientific phenomenon(biology) and I am saying go ahead prove it because it doesn't look as though it fits a material existence.
Well, no atom has yet published even the slimmest volume of verse so I think we can assume that the expression you use is metaphor: that you don't understand this is perhaps why you've stumbled into the fallacy of divisions.
Not seeing anyway bridging the gap between material property and poetry here, thanks for whatever effort you have made. Poetry exists yes you have decided that, is there a fully encompassing scientific explanation without gap? Be my guest.
I think we can agree poetry emerges from biological processes but whether it satisfies the criteria for being fully explained by science seems something we do not agree on.
-
Er, No we've agreed atoms aren't poetic. You are saying that poetry is a scientific phenomenon(biology) and I am saying go ahead prove it because it doesn't look as though it fits a material existence.
I tend to avoid terms like 'prove': poetry is an expression of a chunk of biology, as are thoughts and feelings, and I've yet to encounter an example of poetry that doesn't have a biological/material source. If you have examples of poetry that has a source other then human biology then feel free to cite some.
Not seeing anyway bridging the gap between material property and poetry here, thanks for whatever effort you have made. Poetry exists yes you have decided that, is there a fully encompassing scientific explanation without gap? Be my guest.
Here's a clue - poets tend to be material people.
I think we can agree poetry emerges from biological processes but whether it satisfies the criteria for being fully explained by science seems something we do not agree on.
You speak in riddles, grasshopper: having dropped your poetic atoms nonsense, and even if we agree that poetry emerges from the brains of people and that it involves language and abstract thinking such as mataphor, what other 'criteria' do you think are still required?
-
I tend to avoid terms like 'prove': poetry is an expression of a chunk of biology, as are thoughts and feelings, and I've yet to encounter an example of poetry that doesn't have a biological/material source. If you have examples of poetry that has a source other then human biology then feel free to cite some.
If you feel that poetry has a source other than whatever comprises the human mind please free to cite some
Here's a clue - poets tend to be material people.
Spot on - so why does poetry not emerge from any source other than the human mind?
And why is poetry not perceived any where else but in the human mind?
You speak in riddles, grasshopper: having dropped your poetic atoms nonsense, and even if we agree that poetry emerges from the brains of people and that it involves language and abstract thinking such as mataphor, what other 'criteria' do you think are still required?
The power of the human soul
-
I tend to avoid terms like 'prove': poetry is an expression of a chunk of biology, as are thoughts and feelings, and I've yet to encounter an example of poetry that doesn't have a biological/material source. If you have examples of poetry that has a source other then human biology then feel free to cite some.
Poetry, thoughts and feelings a subset of Biology....an interesting thesis which I think you should expand on given the explanatory gaps
Here's a clue - poets tend to be material people.
Who generate poetry which does not seem to fit what we know of matter scientifically speaking. People, some of whom seem to find poetry and awe in the fact we are atoms and yet when we examine those same atoms scientifically, we do not find poetry. And some don't find poetry or awe in atoms. That is no basis for a scientific theory of poetry I would have thought. Use science to find poetry or awe in, well anything.
If there were no people, would atoms still be found to be poetic? If a copy of Burns is still floating about in a universe where humans are extinct, is it still poetry?
I must lay my cards on the table. Stuff like poetry, that is unencompassable by scientific explanation, can be described as spiritual and, if you like, Woo, and there is thus plenty of it floating around in humanism and scientism.
-
You're all making extremely heavy weather of this. Human consciousness, including emotions and the artistic impulse, is an emergent property of the brain. That view is perfectly consistent with both theism and atheism, but "proves" neither.
-
If you feel that poetry has a source other than whatever comprises the human mind please free to cite some
I don't.
Spot on - so why does poetry not emerge from any source other than the human mind?
And why is poetry not perceived any where else but in the human mind?
Because, to date anyway, both require the biology of a functioning human brain.
The power of the human soul
Nonsense
-
Vlad
Poetry, thoughts and feelings a subset of Biology....an interesting thesis which I think you should expand on given the explanatory gaps
What explanatory gaps?
People, some of whom seem to find poetry and awe in the fact we are atoms and yet when we examine those same atoms scientifically, we do not find poetry. And some don't find poetry or awe in atoms. That is no basis for a scientific theory of poetry I would have thought. Use science to find poetry or awe in, well anything.
Feelings of awe or profundity about anything at all are just feelings, Vlad: just biological activity.
If there were no people, would atoms still be found to be poetic?
Doubt it, there being no people to find anything, and anyway you are still stuck in the fallacy of division - individual atoms aren't poetic, and I'm surprised that you even entertain such silliness.
.
If a copy of Burns is still floating about in a universe where humans are extinct, is it still poetry?
It would be an example of what was once termed poetry, but no longer appreciated by humans. Some advice from the great man that you would do well to heed.
"O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
And ev’n Devotion!"
I must lay my cards on the table. Stuff like poetry, that is unencompassable by scientific explanation, can be described as spiritual and, if you like, Woo, and there is thus plenty of it floating around in humanism and scientism.
Strangely enough I don't think that many are seeking a scientific explanation for poetry - they just enjoy and appreciate it as an art form that some people have an ability to produce such as, say, whenever I re-read Mid-Term Break by Seamus Heaney.
So enjoy the poetry, enjoy the feelings of awe and profundity that your brain may produce in response to some poetry, admire that talent that these poets exhibit - and when doing so don't get distracted by thinking about atoms.
-
Vlad
What explanatory gaps?
Feelings of awe or profundity about anything at all are just feelings, Vlad: just biological activity.
Doubt it, there being no people to find anything, and anyway you are still stuck in the fallacy of division - individual atoms aren't poetic, and I'm surprised that you even entertain such silliness.
.
It would be an example of what was once termed poetry, but no longer appreciated by humans. Some advice from the great man that you would do well to heed.
"O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
And ev’n Devotion!"
Strangely enough I don't think that many are seeking a scientific explanation for poetry - they just enjoy and appreciate it as an art form that some people have an ability to produce such as, say, whenever I re-read Mid-Term Break by Seamus Heaney.
So enjoy the poetry, enjoy the feelings of awe and profundity that your brain may produce in response to some poetry, admire that talent that these poets exhibit - and when doing so don't get distracted by thinking about atoms.
You have been going on about how poetry comes about and of course only managed to produce the nebulous "Biologydidit"
You have not addressed a full scientific description of poetry. That is the explanatory gap. But more importantly you have not been able to delineate between the poetry around humanism concerning nature or that used by scientists to evoke awe and wonder for science and any other use of poetry.
Waxing lyrical about how the cosmos is and our "connection with it "Imagine that, we are starstuff" looks strongly religious.
-
You have been going on about how poetry comes about and of course only managed to produce the nebulous "Biologydidit"
You have not addressed a full scientific description of poetry. That is the explanatory gap. But more importantly you have not been able to delineate between the poetry around humanism concerning nature or that used by scientists to evoke awe and wonder for science and any other use of poetry.
Waxing lyrical about how the cosmos is and our "connection with it "Imagine that, we are starstuff" looks strongly religious.
Don't be silly: you'll be headhunted by Blue Circle at this rate.
Just enjoy the poetry, Vlad - and don't overthink it: just appreciate it.
Also, I never mentioned the 'cosmos' or 'starstuff' - you did, so please stop misrepresenting what I did say.
-
If you feel that poetry has a source other than whatever comprises the human mind please free to cite some
As I have no evidence presently that there is any other source than the human mind, and as it seems entirely rational that it is the source, then I happily accept that it is.
Spot on - so why does poetry not emerge from any source other than the human mind?
And why is poetry not perceived any where else but in the human mind?
Glad we agree. It seems the complex functionality of the human mind includes the propensity that can produce what we often loosely define as poetry.
The power of the human soul
As there is no evidence for such a thing as a human soul(except in metaphorical terms) and as the human mind is entirely capable of producing poetry, such a statement as you make here has no foundation apart from your own personal belief.
-
Good we are getting somewhere. So you think spirituality is part of reality now?
So you don't think human spirituality is real.
Next you'll be admitting God is not real.
-
Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.
But that is exactly what religions down the ages have done - used their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma.
So what exactly were christian religions doing when they declared those saying (correctly) that the earth went around the sun. Or trying to get legislation to ban teaching that (correctly) that the species we see today evolved from earlier forms. Sounds exactly like not just promoting ignorance but actively persecuting people for telling the truth. And I don't mean 'truth' as in opinion or belief, but actual truth - you know the stuff demonstrated by objective evidence.
-
But that is exactly what religions down the ages have done - used their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma.
So what exactly were christian religions doing when they declared those saying (correctly) that the earth went around the sun. Or trying to get legislation to ban teaching that (correctly) that the species we see today evolved from earlier forms. Sounds exactly like not just promoting ignorance but actively persecuting people for telling the truth. And I don't mean 'truth' as in opinion or belief, but actual truth - you know the stuff demonstrated by objective evidence.
Wholly simplistic analysis, Prof D.
-
But that is exactly what religions down the ages have done - used their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma.
So what exactly were christian religions doing when they declared those saying (correctly) that the earth went around the sun. Or trying to get legislation to ban teaching that (correctly) that the species we see today evolved from earlier forms. Sounds exactly like not just promoting ignorance but actively persecuting people for telling the truth. And I don't mean 'truth' as in opinion or belief, but actual truth - you know the stuff demonstrated by objective evidence.
Early scientists included the religious in their number.
This is Religion as a failed science tosh and the phony war between science and religion. IMHO.
Yes there have been fundamentalists seeking to legislate a literalist view of the cosmos’s, But one’s grasp of history tends to ignore those churchmen who were not only happy with the science but were the one’s postulating it in the first place.
-
Wholly simplistic analysis, Prof D.
Would you care to elaborate NS.
-
Early scientists included the religious in their number.
I said 'religions', not religious people Vlad so your point is moot. And of course were you to go back centuries most people were (at least nominally) religious. And of course back then religions tended to control the very organisations where an individual might have the opportunity for scientific endeavour - so to be in a position of that kind you'd have to at least pay lip service to being religious.
This is Religion as a failed science tosh and the phony war between science and religion. IMHO.
Nope - my argument isn't that religion is a failed science (although we could have a different discussion about this). My argument is that over the centuries there have been examples where scientific evidence has arisen to support a particular view of how the world is which contradicted religious dogma and orthodoxy and that those religions have used their power to try to suppress the truth.
Yes there have been fundamentalists seeking to legislate a literalist view of the cosmos’s,
Which suggests you are agreeing with me - I never said all religions, all the time did this, but that there are examples of religions having done this over the centuries. This was to counter your claim that "Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant". That is exactly what the hierarchy of the catholic church were doing when they declared heliocentrism to be heretical and tried Galileo effectively for telling the truth.
But one’s grasp of history tends to ignore those churchmen who were not only happy with the science but were the one’s postulating it in the first place.
I'm not - see above. But you seem to be ignoring the inconvenient truth that over the centuries there have been cases where religions have used their powers to try to prevent correct explanations of the world, based on evidence, from being heard on the basis that it might contradict dogma.
-
Would you care to elaborate NS.
Copernicus was religious, indeed a canon. The Anglican Church was in general initially accepting of Darwin. To look upon the religious as a monolith is fatuous and simplistic.
-
Would you care to elaborate NS.
The situation around both heliocentrism and evolution is much more nuanced than "Christianity was against it".
-
Copernicus was religious, indeed a canon. The Anglican Church was in general initially accepting of Darwin. To look upon the religious as a monolith is fatuous and simplistic.
Copernicus is an interesting case. The problem with Copernicus is that his model didn't work as well as the, then current, Ptolemaic model which was geocentric. People could hardly be blamed for not accepting it.
It was only when Kepler discovered that planets move in ellipses rather than perfect circles that heliocentric became better than the geocentric models at predicting planetary motion.
-
Copernicus is an interesting case. The problem with Copernicus is that his model didn't work as well as the, then current, Ptolemaic model which was geocentric. People could hardly be blamed for not accepting it.
It was only when Kepler discovered that planets move in ellipses rather than perfect circles that heliocentric became better than the geocentric models at predicting planetary motion.
I think the idea of 'current' needs to be qualified. The geocentric model didn't work at all and had had many complex, and contradictory, adjustments put in to cope. On a basic theoretic model, the Copernican system worked much better.
-
I think the idea of 'current' needs to be qualified. The geocentric model didn't work at all and had had many complex, and contradictory, adjustments put in to cope.
No. It did work up to a point. However, Copernicus' model was even worse. It had more complex and contradictory hacks in it and it didn't predict the paths of the planets particularly well.
On a basic theoretic model, the Copernican system worked much better.
Its main advantage was that it provided a base on which Kepler could construct a really good model.
-
To look upon the religious as a monolith is fatuous and simplistic.
I agree - which is why I never did this.
I was countering Vlad's view that "Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant" - the counter to Nobody is somebody, not everybody. And it it apparent that there are examples of religions down the centuries using their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma. I never said that all religions did it, all the time - that would be simplistic. But it would also be naive to argue that religions have never done this.
-
No. It did work up to a point. However, Copernicus' model was even worse. It had more complex and contradictory hacks in it and it didn't predict the paths of the planets particularly well.
Its main advantage was that it provided a base on which Kepler could construct a really good model.
i think you are confused between the much adapted and therefore contradictory model and the basic model.
-
i think you are confused between the much adapted and therefore contradictory model and the basic model.
Nope.
-
I agree - which is why I never did this.
I was countering Vlad's view that "Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant" - the counter to Nobody is somebody, not everybody. And it it apparent that there are examples of religions down the centuries using their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma. I never said that all religions did it, all the time - that would be simplistic. But it would also be naive to argue that religions have never done this.
Except you talked about 'religions' as a monolith, presenting them as external to people.
-
Nope.
OK, so leaving aside epicycles which contradict the basic model of geocentrism, outline how it worked better.
-
Copernicus is an interesting case. The problem with Copernicus is that his model didn't work as well as the, then current, Ptolemaic model which was geocentric. People could hardly be blamed for not accepting it.
It was only when Kepler discovered that planets move in ellipses rather than perfect circles that heliocentric became better than the geocentric models at predicting planetary motion.
But the catholic church didn't disagree with the developing heliocentric model because they felt it was wrong or inadequate on a scientific level - nope they disagreed with it as it contradicted religious doctrine. These quotes from the judgement from Galileo's trial:
Heliocentricity is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"
and Galileo was ordered:
"... to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."
The church also banned books by both Copernicus and Kepler describing heliocentricity as "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture". Again not banned because wrong or incomplete, but because it contradicted religious doctrine.
-
Except you talked about 'religions' as a monolith, presenting them as external to people.
I certainly have created a division being religion as organisations with powers and religious people - that is perfectly reasonable.
I have never claimed that all religions, or even specific religions all the time have acted in this manner. Indeed I made this point very clearly in reply 184:
"My argument is that over the centuries there have been examples where scientific evidence has arisen to support a particular view of how the world is which contradicted religious dogma and orthodoxy and that those religions have used their power to try to suppress the truth."
and
"I never said all religions, all the time did this, but that there are examples of religions having done this over the centuries."
It is non-sense to suggest that religions have never acted in this manner.
-
But the catholic church didn't disagree with the developing heliocentric model because they felt it was wrong on a scientific level - nope they disagreed with it as it contradicted religious doctrine. These quotes from the judgement from Galileo's trial:
Heliocentricity is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"
and Galileo was ordered:
"... to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."
The church also banned books by both Copernicus and Kepler describing heliocentricity as "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture". Again not banned because wrong or incomplete, but because it contradicted religious doctrine.
Weirdly the Catholic Church was following Aristotle more than any religious doctrine here in part because of Aquinas's deification of the old Greek bugger.
Initially the Papes were ok with Copernicus, the nascent Prods not so much - looking at you Melanchthon!
Doesn't stop your ignorant idea of religion and the religious being a monolith being ignorant
-
I certainly have created a division being religion as organisations with powers and religious people - that is perfectly reasonable.
I have never claimed that all religions, or even specific religions all the time have acted in this manner. Indeed I made this point very clearly in reply 184:
"My argument is that over the centuries there have been examples where scientific evidence has arisen to support a particular view of how the world is which contradicted religious dogma and orthodoxy and that those religions have used their power to try to suppress the truth."
and
"I never said all religions, all the time did this, but that there are examples of religions having done this over the centuries."
It is non-sense to suggest that religions have never acted in this manner.
Religions don't act. People do.
-
Religions don't act. People do.
Non-sense. Religions are organised structures with rules, processes etc etc. Sure there will be people implementing those rules and processes etc but the rules and processes themselves are part of, and 'owned' by the religious organisation not individual people. Indeed for religions (unlike many other organisations) there is a view that those rules, processes etc are divinely inspired so not even derived from people at all.
You might as well claim that:
Governments don't act. People do.
Courts don't act. People do.
etc
-
Doesn't stop your ignorant idea of religion and the religious being a monolith being ignorant
Points which I never made - stop lying NS.
-
Weirdly the Catholic Church was following Aristotle more than any religious doctrine here in part because of Aquinas's deification of the old Greek bugger.
Initially the Papes were ok with Copernicus, the nascent Prods not so much - looking at you Melanchthon!
So are you denying that:
1. The catholic church convicted Galileo on the basis that heliocentricity was heretical, not merely wrong or incomplete and
2. That the judgement aimed to actively silence those in favour of heliocentricity, e.g. by banning Galileo from writing or speaking about heliocentricity and by banning books by Kepler and Copernicus.
-
OK, so leaving aside epicycles which contradict the basic model of geocentrism, outline how it worked better.
But you can't leave aside the epicycles. They are intrinsic to both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model. Both models assume that the only kind of motion allowed is in perfect circles. Hence the need for epicycles because, in reality, the planets don't move in perfect circles.
Imagine you're an astronomer at the time of Copernicus. You've got your model of the Universe with Earth at the centre. Then Copernicus comes along and says I've got a new idea. It goes against received wisdom, is more complicated (has more epicycles) and isn't as accurate as the one you have already got. Are you going to leap in and accept the new idea? Of course not.
Copernicus was really only half way there. He needed Kepler's idea that planets move in ellipses.
-
Non-sense. Religions are organised structures with rules, processes etc etc. Sure there will be people implementing those rules and processes etc but the rules and processes themselves are part of, and 'owned' by the religious organisation not individual people. Indeed for religions (unlike many other organisations) there is a view that those rules, processes etc are divinely inspired so not even derived from people at all.
You might as well claim that:
Governments don't act. People do.
Courts don't act. People do.
etc
It is as well to remember that when governments make decisions or churches or courts, it is actually people - individual humans - that are really making the decisions. Catholic doctrine was created by humans.
And part of Galileo's problem is that he managed to insult the Pope publicly. That's why the trial went so badly for him.
-
It is as well to remember that when governments make decisions or churches or courts, it is actually people - individual humans - that are really making the decisions. Catholic doctrine was created by humans.
But they are doing so not as individuals but on behalf of their organisation. And a decision taken by someone on behalf of their organisation may not be the same as that taken by the same person as a private individual. And while you and I certainly believe that catholic doctrine was created by humans I suspect the church and those within that hierarchy would have believed that doctrine was divinely created, with people merely the conduit for that doctrine rather than the creators themselves.
And part of Galileo's problem is that he managed to insult the Pope publicly. That's why the trial went so badly for him.
Nonetheless the judgement was on the basis that heliocentricity was heretical (i.e. against doctrine). And Galileo wasn't the only person to be impacted by the catholic church's views on cosmology at the time. Kepler and Copernicus had their books banned and Giordano Bruno's (correct) views that stars were in fact other suns which might have planets was one element that lead to his trial, conviction and execution.
-
Imagine you're an astronomer at the time of Copernicus. You've got your model of the Universe with Earth at the centre. Then Copernicus comes along and says I've got a new idea. It goes against received wisdom, is more complicated (has more epicycles) and isn't as accurate as the one you have already got. Are you going to leap in and accept the new idea? Of course not.
But that isn't why the catholic church rejected heliocentricity - they rejected it because it was, in their view, heresy.
-
But you can't leave aside the epicycles. They are intrinsic to both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model. Both models assume that the only kind of motion allowed is in perfect circles. Hence the need for epicycles because, in reality, the planets don't move in perfect circles.
Imagine you're an astronomer at the time of Copernicus. You've got your model of the Universe with Earth at the centre. Then Copernicus comes along and says I've got a new idea. It goes against received wisdom, is more complicated (has more epicycles) and isn't as accurate as the one you have already got. Are you going to leap in and accept the new idea? Of course not.
Copernicus was really only half way there. He needed Kepler's idea that planets move in ellipses.
The epicycles and the epicycles on epicycles were added on to cope with the inaccuracy in the basic concept, and they contradict the basic concept.
-
Non-sense. Religions are organised structures with rules, processes etc etc. Sure there will be people implementing those rules and processes etc but the rules and processes themselves are part of, and 'owned' by the religious organisation not individual people. Indeed for religions (unlike many other organisations) there is a view that those rules, processes etc are divinely inspired so not even derived from people at all.
You might as well claim that:
Governments don't act. People do.
Courts don't act. People do.
etc
and I would be right to do so. That you reify institutions as opposed to thinking of people is one of your many problems. In this case it leads you to missing that Copernicus was religious, and creating a simplistic us/them view.
-
But that isn't why the catholic church rejected heliocentricity - they rejected it because it was, in their view, heresy.
Again, you are being incredibly simplistic. Initially there were many in the RCC who were not bothered by Copernican thought. And much of Galileo's thought was ok for many but politics.... A faction saw it as problematic to the overall clarity of thought when fighting the 'evil' Protestanys, never mind that those same Protestants were virulently opposed to Copernicus until the RCC swivel.
-
For a 4 year pope, Paul IV's influence on the RCC is a shocking problem, and people miss that so much of that is political rather than doctrinal.
-
That you reify institutions as opposed to thinking of people is one of your many problems.
Not at all - people often act in a different manner, making different decision when they are doing so on behalf of an organisation or institution than they might do as a private individual. Why? Because organisations have codes of conduct, ethos, rules etc that people need to adhere to when acting on behalf of that organisation.
So a doctor might be a personally racist, but the institution they work for will expect them to treat all patients equally regardless of race due to the organisational codes, ethos etc. And the flip side can be true - an organisation can be institutionally racist even if not one of the people in that organisation are themselves personally racist - because the organisation may retain processes etc that are racist and require their employees to follow those procedures.
In this case it leads you to missing that Copernicus was religious, and creating a simplistic us/them view.
Not at all - indeed I actually addressed this very point in reply 184.
That Copernicus was religious is irrelevant to whether the institution of the catholic church considered heliocentricity to be heretical (which they clearly did). It is as much nonsense as suggesting that the institution of the Met Police cannot be institutionally racist because there are black police officers.
-
And much of Galileo's thought was ok for many but politics.... A faction saw it as problematic to the overall clarity of thought when fighting the 'evil' Protestanys, never mind that those same Protestants were virulently opposed to Copernicus until the RCC swivel.
So if a religious organisation determines that something is heresy - in other words against doctrine - how do you determine whether that is doctrinal or political?
-
But they are doing so not as individuals but on behalf of their organisation. And a decision taken by someone on behalf of their organisation may not be the same as that taken by the same person as a private individual. And while you and I certainly believe that catholic doctrine was created by humans I suspect the church and those within that hierarchy would have believed that doctrine was divinely created, with people merely the conduit for that doctrine rather than the creators themselves.
Nonetheless the judgement was on the basis that heliocentricity was heretical (i.e. against doctrine). And Galileo wasn't the only person to be impacted by the catholic church's views on cosmology at the time. Kepler and Copernicus had their books banned and Giordano Bruno's (correct) views that stars were in fact other suns which might have planets was one element that lead to his trial, conviction and execution.
Actually, the Catholic Church was quite happy with a compromise position where the heliocentric system could be used as a scientific model but was not to be considered "The Truth". Then Galileo published a book that mocked the church and the pope at the time and this is what led to the clamp down, on him, at least. The Catholic Church went from being tolerant of heliocentrism to being dead against it. The reason for this is because the decisions were taken by human beings subject to the usual human frailties.
Bruno was not executed for his science: he was executed for his religious views.
-
Actually, the Catholic Church was quite happy with a compromise position where the heliocentric system could be used as a scientific model but was not to be considered "The Truth". Then Galileo published a book that mocked the church and the pope at the time and this is what led to the clamp down, on him, at least. The Catholic Church went from being tolerant of heliocentrism to being dead against it. The reason for this is because the decisions were taken by human beings subject to the usual human frailties.
Bruno was not executed for his science: he was executed for his religious views.
Yep, as a Bruno fan that goes to the statue every time I am in Rome and raises a glass, and I have other more personal reasons for the toast, it's a nonsense to suggest he was executed because his scientific views were a problem
-
The epicycles and the epicycles on epicycles were added on to cope with the inaccuracy in the basic concept, and they contradict the basic concept.
Copernicus had epicycles on epicycles too. They were also added to cope with the inaccuracy in a basic concept - the one that said planetary motion is in perfect circles.
If you had been an astronomer of the time instead of a lay person living in an age where it is taken for granted that the Earth goes round the Sun, and you had to pick between the Copernican model and the Ptolemaic model, it would not have been obvious to you that Copernicus was right. People today tend to assume that, once Copernicus had the idea to put the Sun in the middle it was totally obvious and you'd have to be thick to disagree with him. This was not the case at all. It took Kepler and elliptical orbits and the evidence from Galileo's observations to make heliocentric the dominant hypothesis.
-
Actually, the Catholic Church was quite happy with a compromise position where the heliocentric system could be used as a scientific model but was not to be considered "The Truth". Then Galileo published a book that mocked the church and the pope at the time and this is what led to the clamp down, on him, at least. The Catholic Church went from being tolerant of heliocentrism to being dead against it. The reason for this is because the decisions were taken by human beings subject to the usual human frailties.
But those people were operating within the institutional context of the catholic church, so I don't think it is right to claim these decisions to somehow be simply personal decisions. They weren't - they were decisions taken on behalf of the institution of the catholic church.
Bruno was not executed for his science: he was executed for his religious views.
That is one view - others are available, including a view that Bruno's opinions on cosmology were one of the reasons why he was tried and executed. You will note that I never said that his cosmology views were the only reason for his conviction and execution.
-
But those people were operating within the institutional context of the catholic church, so I don't think it is right to claim these decisions to somehow be simply personal decisions. They weren't - they were decisions taken on behalf of the institution of the catholic church.
That is one view - others are available, including a view that Bruno's opinions on cosmology were one of the reasons why he was tried and executed. You will note that I never said that his cosmology views were the only reason for his conviction and execution.
And thd institutions do not exist outside of people. Jeremyp is not suggesting there are not cultural influences rather that we have to understand that those exist but they are still from people. Again one of your many problems, and it is one a lit of atheists suffer from, is the idea that religion is not just a human invention but is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos.
-
Yep, as a Bruno fan that goes to the statue every time I am in Rome and raises a glass, and I have other more personal reasons for the toast, it's a nonsense to suggest he was executed because his scientific views were a problem
I said it was one element - not that it was the only reason. Indeed there is a school of thought that this was the main reason - indeed there has been a recent book on the subject making that very case.
-
And thd institutions do not exist outside of people.
And when acting on behalf of institutions people act within the context of that institution.
-
But those people were operating within the institutional context of the catholic church, so I don't think it is right to claim these decisions to somehow be simply personal decisions. They weren't - they were decisions taken on behalf of the institution of the catholic church.
Ha. You make it sound like people taking decisions on behalf of an institution do so without taking their own personal interests into account. Believe me they do.
That is one view - others are available, including a view that Bruno's opinions on cosmology were one of the reasons why he was tried and executed. You will note that I never said that his cosmology views were the only reason for his conviction and execution.
Most accounts I have read go with the idea that he was mainly convicted for his heretical views on such doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin Marty, transubstantiation etc. If his science has any role, it is minor.
-
Again one of your many problems, and it is one a lit of atheists suffer from, is the idea that religion is not just a human invention but is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos.
Blimey add 2 plus 2 and make ten thousand.
Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.
On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'
My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.
I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.
So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say).
I, of course, accept that religions are invented by humans. I'm an atheist - why would I think otherwise. But then so are all other non-religious institutions - that does not mean that those institutions do not have their own structures, rules, processes, ethos etc that means that when people make decisions within the context of that institution they may not make the same decision as they would do if it was a purely private matter.
-
Ha. You make it sound like people taking decisions on behalf of an institution do so without taking their own personal interests into account. Believe me they do.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Under the seven principles of public life, they shouldn't.
-
Most accounts I have read go with the idea that he was mainly convicted for his heretical views on such doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin Marty, transubstantiation etc. If his science has any role, it is minor.
Which fits with what I said - that his science was one element. I never said it was the main, let alone the only element.
However the recent work by Martinez argue that his scientific views were the primary reason for this death. Not saying I agree with him, but it is a view.
-
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Under the seven principles of public life, they shouldn't.
Under the one principle of life, that's an idiotic idea
-
Blimey add 2 plus 2 and make ten thousand.
Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.
On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'
My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.
I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.
So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say).
I, of course, accept that religions are invented by humans. I'm an atheist - why would I think otherwise. But then so are all other non-religious institutions - that does not mean that those institutions do not have their own structures, rules, processes, ethos etc that means that when people make decisions within the context of that institution they may not make the same decision as they would do if it was a purely private matter.
and he reifies religions again beyond people. Bing!
-
Under the one principle of life, that's an idiotic idea
Why - if you are working for or acting on behalf of an organisation it seems eminently sensible that you act in the interests of that organisation and those that it serves, not in your own personal interests. I think that holds in any job or role. Sure some people won't but they should - hence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
This is, of course, for public office, but most organisations will have something similar within their codes of professional conduct.
-
and he reifies religions again beyond people. Bing!
Nice swerve NS.
I ask again:
Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.
On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'
My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.
I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.
So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.
-
Nice swerve NS.
I ask again:
Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.
On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'
My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.
I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.
So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.And thar
and yet again you think 'religions' do things.
-
Why - if you are working for or acting on behalf of an organisation it seems eminently sensible that you act in the interests of that organisation and those that it serves, not in your own personal interests. I think that holds in any job or role. Sure some people won't but they should - hence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
This is, of course, for public office, but most organisations will have something similar within their codes of professional conduct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
I think you've popped that in the wrong places - but don't worry, I'll sort it in my next posts.
-
Doesn't stop your ignorant idea of religion and the religious being a monolith being ignorant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
-
That you reify institutions as opposed to thinking of people is one of your many problems. In this case it leads you to missing that Copernicus was religious, and creating a simplistic us/them view.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
Keep posting it. Maybe some time it will sink in.
-
and yet again you think 'religions' do things.
And not just religions NS.
Companies do things.
Universities do things.
Governments do things.
Charities do things.
Hospitals do things.
etc etc.
If not how can you have anything beyond personal responsibility - no corporate responsibility, no institutional responsibility etc. So if someone is failed by an institution there would be no responsibility on that organisation, no expectation of remedy from that organisation. You'd only be able to go after the individuals, which of course may be extremely difficult if they have left that organisation or are even dead.
But that isn't the case - organisations retain responsibilities beyond that of their employees and beyond the point where those employees may have left or died. Why? Because organisations 'do' things.
-
Keep posting it. Maybe some time it will sink in.
More swerving I see.
And while we are on it - still waiting for you to:
Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.
On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'
My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.
I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.
So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.
As your old chum Hitchen's might opine - if you make those claims without evidence then I can simply dismiss them.
-
And not just religions NS.
Companies do things.
Universities do things.
Governments do things.
Charities do things.
Hospitals do things.
etc etc.
If not how can you have anything beyond personal responsibility - no corporate responsibility, no institutional responsibility etc. So if someone is failed by an institution there would be no responsibility on that organisation, no expectation of remedy from that organisation. You'd only be able to go after the individuals, which of course may be extremely difficult if they have left that organisation or are even dead.
But that isn't the case - organisations retain responsibilities beyond that of their employees and beyond the point where those employees may have left or died. Why? Because organisations 'do' things.
Drivel.
-
More swerving I see.
And while we are on it - still waiting for you to:
Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.
On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'
My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.
I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.
So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.
As your old chum Hitchen's might opine - if you make those claims without evidence then I can simply dismiss them.
more drivel
-
Drivel.
Hitchens says this comment can be dismissed.
-
Drivel.
Not a terribly helpful comment. Why is it drivel? Either explain why, or don't comment, I suggest.
-
more drivel
Hitchens says this comment can also be dismissed.
Anything useful to add to the discussion NS. I'm assuming that you are never going to justify your earlier claims that I see "religion and the religious being a monolith" or that I think that religion "is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos". Just two of a number of claims that I never made.
-
Not a terribly helpful comment. Why is it drivel? Either explain why, or don't comment, I suggest.
I wouldn't hold your breath Steve.
-
Drivel.
If it is drivel NS, how come if I am harmed I can take a company to court - surely if the only things doing the 'doing' are individuals this would make no sense. The company couldn't have done me harm because companies don't do things, so I wouldn't be able to take action against the company only against individuals. The reality is that the company may be liable because the company is considered to be responsible for doing the thing that has harmed me. Or perhaps you've never heard of corporate negligence.
-
If it is drivel NS, how come if I am harmed I can take a company to court - surely if the only things doing the 'doing' are individuals this would make no sense. The company couldn't have done me harm because companies don't do things, so I wouldn't be able to take action against the company only against individuals. The reality is that the company may be liable because the company is considered to be responsible for doing the thing that has harmed me. Or perhaps you've never heard of corporate negligence.
It looks as though NS is indulging in ontological reductionism.
-
I think that companies and hospitals may be a separate legal entity but when discussing morality it is the people within them who are held accountable for the decisions they make - those decisions may be made collectively after a discussion of what is in the best interests of themselves, or individually e.g the board of directors or the H&S manager or the nurse or the doctor. If multiple people were involved in signing off on a system or process that turned out to be problematic then it might not be possible to identify and hold individuals accountable for their poor decisions. If organisations are taken to court it is based on legal accountability, not moral accountability. Individuals within the organisation are often also held legally accountable.
For example, when people claim the police is institutionally racist, they mean the people who made the decisions on how recruitment and training is conducted have put in place systems that mean white people will relate to and mainly hire white people who may have unconscious biases and lack of experience of other cultures, which affect the decisions that those white police officers make when policing. So they started recruiting more ethnic minority police officers who could relate to and understand the demeanour of ethnic minority members of the public and probably so that white police officers would have more opportunities to experience and become familiar with the cultural differences of their colleagues. If the individuals in the organisation do not change their outlook, the organisation cannot change.
I agree that the people making those decisions in organisations are mainly driven by self-interest as they know they will be held accountable for their decisions by other people - e.g. the public, the shareholders, the owners of the capital - and may lose their position in the organisation once judged.
So I think it is correct to say governments, courts and religions don't do things, but rather the individuals within them, driven by self-interest, who do things. Individuals interpret laws, policies, religious doctrines.
Hence the question being asked is how is some religious people some of the time persecuting people for their ideas any different from some politicians or Twitter users some of the time persecuting people for their ideas? It does not seem like religion is necessary for dogmatic approaches to flourish and stifle and persecute people for thoughts and ideas - because it seems it is part of human nature to be dogmatic in a variety of contexts and organisations and institutions and if people with a dogmatic tendency get into a position of power in an institution or on a platform that allows them influence over others, then there can be some seem unpleasant consequences until they are removed or leave.
-
If it is drivel NS, how come if I am harmed I can take a company to court - surely if the only things doing the 'doing' are individuals this would make no sense. The company couldn't have done me harm because companies don't do things, so I wouldn't be able to take action against the company only against individuals. The reality is that the company may be liable because the company is considered to be responsible for doing the thing that has harmed me. Or perhaps you've never heard of corporate negligence.
it's called a legal fiction. Emphasis on the fiction.
-
Hitchens says this comment can also be dismissed.
Anything useful to add to the discussion NS. I'm assuming that you are never going to justify your earlier claims that I see "religion and the religious being a monolith" or that I think that religion "is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos". Just two of a number of claims that I never made.
When you are trying to think, does it look like this?
-
it's called a legal fiction. Emphasis on the fiction.
No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.
This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.
-
So I think it is correct to say governments, courts and religions don't do things, but rather the individuals within them, driven by self-interest, who do things.
The notion that a judge or magistrate decides on a case based on their self interest is both terrifying and completely counter to how those people are required to act when conducting those public duties. Any person in a public office that is taking decisions driven by self interest, rather than public interest, would be breaching their obligations under the Nolan principles.
-
No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.
This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.
None of that deals with it being a legal fiction.
-
The notion that a judge or magistrate decides on a case based on their self interest is both terrifying and completely counter to how those people are required to act when conducting those public duties. Any person in a public office that is taking decisions driven by self interest, rather than public interest, would be breaching their obligations under the Nolan principles.
Facts are often terrifying
-
Facts are often terrifying
Not when they aren't facts at all, but in fact, factually wrong.
A judge or magistrate making a judgement in court based on their own self interest rather than the public interest would likely be struck off were that found to be the case. For example this from the Code of Conduct for Magistrates (a legally binding Statutory Instrument).
"Integrity
2.—(1) A member must in the performance of his duties act—
(a)solely in the public interest."
-
Not when they aren't facts at all, but in fact, factually wrong.
A judge or magistrate making a judgement in court based on their own self interest rather than the public interest would likely be struck off were that found to be the case. For example this from the Code of Conduct for Magistrates (a legally binding Statutory Instrument).
"Integrity
2.—(1) A member must in the performance of his duties act—
(a)solely in the public interest."
Wow, you are entirely gullible.
-
Wow, you are entirely gullible.
So do you think that a magistrate shouldn't act solely in the public interest NS. Do you think that it is acceptable for a magistrate to act in a manner that benefits them privately but is not in the public interest NS?
Because the law doesn't - from later in the same document.
"Conflict of intersts
4.—(1) A member must ensure that he does not act in any way in which there is or might reasonably supposed to be a conflict of interest between his duties as a member and his private interests."
-
No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.
This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.
The corporate ethos and responsibilities are decided by individuals in the organisation - these individuals are either complying with the conventions and/or most persuasive individuals in wider society or complying with the most persuasive individuals within the organisation, mixed with a bit of the decision-maker's own morality and outlook and rational.
-
So do you think that a magistrate shouldn't act solely in the public interest NS. Do you think that it is acceptable for a magistrate to act in a manner that benefits them privately but is not in the public interest NS?
Because the law doesn't - from later in the same document.
"Conflict of intersts
4.—(1) A member must ensure that he does not act in any way in which there is or might reasonably supposed to be a conflict of interest between his duties as a member and his private interests."
You still struggling with difference between ought and is?
-
Wow, you are entirely gullible.
There is such a thing as gullible cynicism, you know.
-
There is such a thing as gullible cynicism, you know.
and the idea that institutions exist outside of people?
-
You still struggling with difference between ought and is?
No I'm not - just because something doesn't always happen doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And it is the 'should' that defines the relationship between an individual when working on behalf of an organisation.
What is clear is that when working for an organisation (whether public or private) you are expected to act in the interests of that organisation, not through self interest. And if there is a conflict then the organisational interests must take precedence (except in rare circumstances involving the organisation acting outside of the law) and if a person working for an organisation choses to act through self interest rather than organisation interest that may well be a disciplinary offence. Point being that how individuals act when working on behalf of an organisation should (and virtually always will) be different to how they would act when in an entirely private capacity.
-
There is such a thing as gullible cynicism, you know.
Indeed there is. NS has boxed himself into a corner in trying to argue that black is white. He is trying to argue that because some employees or members of organisations don't abide by the rules and restrictions expected of them by that organisations that those rules and restrictions somehow don't exist. They do and their impact is that individuals when acting on behalf of an organisation are expected by that organisation to put aside their self interest and act in organisational interest. And that demonstrate that organisations culture, responsibilities, ethos etc exist outside of the narrow self interests of those who work for that organisation.
-
So do you think that a magistrate shouldn't act solely in the public interest NS. Do you think that it is acceptable for a magistrate to act in a manner that benefits them privately but is not in the public interest NS?
Because the law doesn't - from later in the same document.
"Conflict of intersts
4.—(1) A member must ensure that he does not act in any way in which there is or might reasonably supposed to be a conflict of interest between his duties as a member and his private interests."
What is in the public interest would be a subjective evaluation influenced by personal morality and preferences.
For example, in the 2019 Maya Forstater case, a tribunal judge decided gender-critical views were not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - so presumably did not see it being in the public interest to protect people from discrimination if they expressed gender-critical beliefs.
But in a 2021 appeal another judge ruled "gender-critical" views were protected under the Equalities Act 2010 and therefore Maya Forstater had been discriminated against. The employers who were taken to court in this case said they believed that their primary aim was for their organisation to be inclusive so we have individuals in positions of influence in the organisation deciding what the corporate ethos should be.
We also have people saying the Equalities Act 2010 does not go far enough as it allows single-sex spaces to be protected if this can be objectively justified.
So legal actions and decisions are based on the wording of the available legislation - and these can be different from personal individual ethical or moral considerations influencing individual judges as they do their job.
-
Indeed there is. NS has boxed himself into a corner in trying to argue that black is white. He is trying to argue that because some employees or members of organisations don't abide by the rules and restrictions expected of them by that organisations that those rules and restrictions somehow don't exist. They do and their impact is that individuals when acting on behalf of an organisation are expected by that organisation to put aside their self interest and act in organisational interest. And that demonstrate that organisations culture, responsibilities, ethos etc exist outside of the narrow self interests of those who work for that organisation.
long boring drivel
-
No I'm not - just because something doesn't always happen doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And it is the 'should' that defines the relationship between an individual when working on behalf of an organisation.
What is clear is that when working for an organisation (whether public or private) you are expected to act in the interests of that organisation, not through self interest. And if there is a conflict then the organisational interests must take precedence (except in rare circumstances involving the organisation acting outside of the law) and if a person working for an organisation choses to act through self interest rather than organisation interest that may well be a disciplinary offence. Point being that how individuals act when working on behalf of an organisation should (and virtually always will) be different to how they would act when in an entirely private capacity.
Witless
-
Indeed there is. NS has boxed himself into a corner in trying to argue that black is white. He is trying to argue that because some employees or members of organisations don't abide by the rules and restrictions expected of them by that organisations that those rules and restrictions somehow don't exist. They do and their impact is that individuals when acting on behalf of an organisation are expected by that organisation to put aside their self interest and act in organisational interest. And that demonstrate that organisations culture, responsibilities, ethos etc exist outside of the narrow self interests of those who work for that organisation.
Incorrect - the people working in the organisation decide the culture, ethos etc and they decide it based on self-interest. They want their organisation to continue existing so they still have a job to go to - which may mean that they need to keep their customers or voters happy by following their voters' or customers' ethics.
Or they want wider society to follow a particular culture or ethic because they feel it is the morally right thing to do and they want to influence society to be in tune with their own personal morality.
-
What is in the public interest would be a subjective evaluation influenced by personal morality and preferences.
For example, in the 2019 Maya Forstater case, a tribunal judge decided gender-critical views were not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - so presumably did not see it being in the public interest to protect people from discrimination if they expressed gender-critical beliefs.
But in a 2021 appeal another judge ruled "gender-critical" views were protected under the Equalities Act 2010 and therefore Maya Forstater had been discriminated against. The employers who were taken to court in this case said they believed that their primary aim was for their organisation to be inclusive
We also have people saying the Equalities Act 2010 does not go far enough as it allows single-sex spaces to be protected if this can be objectively justified.
So legal actions and decisions are based on the wording of the available legislation - and these can be different from personal individual ethical or moral considerations influencing individual judges as they do their job.
I think there is a difference between individual judges differing in their interpretation of the law - surely interpretation of the law is within the public interest, even if there are differences of professional opinion - and something being in someone's private or self interest.
I think you are misinterpreting what 'public interest' means in these cases - it is about interpretation of the law as part of the decision. That a judge may deem something to be an entirely private matter does not imply that their legal decision on the matter does not mean they are acting outside of their public interests obligations.
Clearly if one of the judges had a conflict - for example they were a trustee of an organisation with an interest in the matter, or had campaigned in a private capacity on one side or the other of the debate, that may be a cause for concern. They'd certainly be required to declare this and potential might have to step down from the decision.
-
Incorrect - the people working in the organisation decide the culture, ethos etc
No they don't - in many cases organisation culture, ethos etc is, at best, established by a tiny subset of Directors and sometimes is historic and pretty difficult to change.
and they decide it based on self-interest.
No they don't - if they actually have a say (see above) any shift in organisational culture and ethos would be based on what is in the best interests of the organisation and employees etc would engage in that debate on that basis. If people working for an organisation only acted in self interest then they'd give themselves pay rises, extra holidays, perks etc etc. But that may not be in the best interests of the organisation.
-
long boring drivel
Any chance of you actually engaging in a debate NS.
-
Witless
Clearly not >:(
-
I think there is a difference between individual judges differing in their interpretation of the law - surely interpretation of the law is within the public interest, even if there are differences of professional opinion - and something being in someone's private or self interest.
I think you are misinterpreting what 'public interest' means in these cases - it is about interpretation of the law as part of the decision. That a judge may deem something to be an entirely private matter does not imply that their legal decision on the matter does not mean they are acting outside of their public interests obligations.
Clearly if one of the judges had a conflict - for example they were a trustee of an organisation with an interest in the matter, or had campaigned in a private capacity on one side or the other of the debate, that may be a cause for concern. They'd certainly be required to declare this and potential might have to step down from the decision.
In the context of your definition of self-interest, yes the judge may make a different decision in his job compared to the decision he would make for himself personally.
But the decision he makes in his official capacity is his interpretation of ethics and policy in statutes based on his understanding, capabilities and inclinations. And the statutes he is interpreting are decided by individuals within the legislature, who debated and persuaded and voted for what they thought was right.
So it means every organisation and system comes back to the individual. And those individuals would have the same inclinations in whatever organisation they joined - whether religious or non-religious. The personalities of the individuals in an organisation determine the organisation's ethos - if some individuals in an organisation put in place a system to check the amount of influence any one individual can have - great - but those checks and balances systems can be discarded or altered or circumvented later by other individuals in the organisation, if they are so minded.
-
In the context of your definition of self-interest, yes the judge may make a different decision in his job compared to the decision he would make for himself personally.
Indeed, so we have established that a decision someone may make on behalf of an organisation isn't necessarily the same as they would make when acting in a purely private capacity.
But the decision he makes in his official capacity is his interpretation of ethics and policy in statutes based on his understanding, capabilities and inclinations. And the statutes he is interpreting are decided by individuals within the legislature, who debated and persuaded and voted for what they thought was right.
But the organisational system puts in checks and balances specifically to ensure that those individual biases (so to speak) do not dominate. So in the case of the legal system - firstly there is usually a route for appeal and secondly many decisions are taken by a panel of judges etc, not a single person. This is specifically to iron out concerns over individual private views impacting a decision.
So it means every organisation and system comes back to the individual.
Not really - as the organisation defines and sets out the relationship between the individual and that organisation, which as we've seen, may expect behaviours that are not the same as those deemed appropriate when that individual acts in a private capacity and will expect the individual to act in accordance with the organisational interests not their private interests.
Sure, there may be opportunities for individuals reshaping that relationship between organisation and individual (e.g. through changes to ethos, code of conduct etc) but these will still be fundamentally framed on the basis of what is in the organisational interests.
-
No they don't - in many cases organisation culture, ethos etc is, at best, established by a tiny subset of Directors and sometimes is historic and pretty difficult to change.
I did not say all the individuals in the organisation have a say - but the subset you refer to who determine the culture and ethos are individuals in the organisation - the argument being made was that persuasive and influential individuals determine what an organisation or a religion is perceived to stand for in any particular geographical location.
No they don't - if they actually have a say (see above) any shift in organisational culture and ethos would be based on what is in the best interests of the organisation and employees etc would engage in that debate on that basis. If people working for an organisation only acted in self interest then they'd give themselves pay rises, extra holidays, perks etc etc. But that may not be in the best interests of the organisation.
No, because self-interest tells them that the organisation would not survive if they paid themselves too much because overheads and taxes need to be paid for the organisation to survive and for them to have a job to go to. They would also recognise that the organisation needs to retain people who are capable of making strategic decisions that will help the organisation survive so those key people might need to get a greater share of the rewards to entice them to stay with the organisation.
-
Clearly not >:(
And witless emoji
-
Any chance of you actually engaging in a debate NS.
When you present anything coherent I will
-
And witless emoji
Yawn
-
When you present anything coherent I will
Double yawn
-
Indeed, so we have established that a decision someone may make on behalf of an organisation isn't necessarily the same as they would make when acting in a purely private capacity.
And we have established that the people in organisations decide the organisation's ethos - so it is people who are held accountable for their decisions. The legal side of it is just that organisations can be a separate legal entity with their own separate bank accounts that will pay out any financial penalties but it is still individuals who are held accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of the organisation.
But the organisational system puts in checks and balances specifically to ensure that those individual biases (so to speak) do not dominate. So in the case of the legal system - firstly there is usually a route for appeal and secondly many decisions are taken by a panel of judges etc, not a single person. This is specifically to iron out concerns over individual private views impacting a decision.
The panel of judges are still individuals who determine the outcome. You might get 3 judges in a panel who all agree with each other, and if you then had a 2nd panel with 3 judges and they all agreed amongst themselves that the 1st panel was wrong, what you are seeing is the effect of individuals on an organisation or system.
Not really - as the organisation defines and sets out the relationship between the individual and that organisation, which as we've seen, may expect behaviours that are not the same as those deemed appropriate when that individual acts in a private capacity and will expect the individual to act in accordance with the organisational interests not their private interests.
Firstly, the organisation does not define anything - the individuals in the organisation with power and influence define the relationship and can change the relationship depending on their power and influence.
Secondly, the argument as I saw it was not about private interest versus the organisational's interest. It was about self-interest in wanting the organisation to continue to exist so that the member of the organisation still had a role in the organisation, with the associated power and influence of that being part of the organisation allowed that person to exert on others.
Sure, there may be opportunities for individuals reshaping that relationship between organisation and individual (e.g. through changes to ethos, code of conduct etc) but these will still be fundamentally framed on the basis of what is in the organisational interests.
Disagree - it is based on the self-interest of individuals in the organisation who want the organisation to continue to exist for the benefits it affords them either financially or in terms of status or influence on others.
-
No, because self-interest tells them that the organisation would not survive if they paid themselves too much because overheads and taxes need to be paid for the organisation to survive and for them to have a job to go to.
In which case self interest becomes subservient to organisational interests, which is entirely my point.
They would also recognise that the organisation needs to retain people who are capable of making strategic decisions that will help the organisation survive so those key people might need to get a greater share of the rewards to entice them to stay with the organisation.
True - but still we are talking about organisational interests. And for many organisations the key people who their organisations interests focus on are not those who work for them but those they serve, whether that be customers, shareholders or people who access their services.
-
Yawn
I love the smell of imitation in the morning
-
In which case self interest becomes subservient to organisational interests, which is entirely my point.
True - but still we are talking about organisational interests. And for many organisations the key people who their organisations interests focus on are not those who work for them but those they serve, whether that be customers, shareholders or people who access their services.
Yes, but again it is individuals who perceive and decide what is in the interests of the organisation. That was the point that I think NS was making that individuals make up an organisation so the behaviour of an organisation depends on the behaviour of the individuals making the decisions for that organisation - and not on whether the organisation is religious or political or a lobby group etc.
-
Yes, but again it is individuals who perceive and decide what is in the interests of the organisation. That was the point that I think NS was making that individuals make up an organisation so the behaviour of an organisation depends on the behaviour of the individuals making the decisions for that organisation - and not on whether the organisation is religious or political or a lobby group etc.
Pretty much. Institutions are merely people writ large. To reify them misses how to engage
-
Yes, but again it is individuals who perceive and decide what is in the interests of the organisation. That was the point that I think NS was making that individuals make up an organisation so the behaviour of an organisation depends on the behaviour of the individuals making the decisions for that organisation
But as I have pointed out many (perhaps most) organisations buffer their ethos and culture from the vagaries of individual self interest of those that work for them. Indeed many organisation are structured to carefully protect ethos which may have been set a long time again and very difficult to change - so in effect the organisation has a 'life' outside of the individual people who may come and go as workers.
This is often achieved by having the protection of ethos and culture resting not with the people who work for the organisation (or certainly not employees) but by shareholder in the case of private organisations and governors/trustees in the case of public and third sector organisations. And while, of course those people are individuals their scope to act is fundamentally determined by acting in the best organisational interests not in the narrow self interests of those working for that organisation, although of course in many cases those may align. And once that ethos is set those working within the organisation are expected to act within organisational interests in accordance with organisational ethos and culture (even if that was set years or even decades before they started working at that organisation). So the organisational ethos and culture sits outside the individuals who may work there from time to time.
- and not on whether the organisation is religious or political or a lobby group etc.
I agree - I've never said this was something that only applies to one type of organisation although the original discussion was about religions. Different types of organisation may set their ethos etc in a slightly different manner but in most cases organisational ethos sits above the vagaries of people who work for that organisation from time to time and any change to ethos is based fundamentally on organisational interest, rather than self interest.
-
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Under the seven principles of public life, they shouldn't.
So people should suppress their own interests in the interests of the organisation. The first question is do you think they always or even mostly do? The second question is where do the interests of the organisation come from? Are they an emergent property or are they the result of people thinking up goals and principles?
-
Which fits with what I said - that his science was one element. I never said it was the main, let alone the only element.
However the recent work by Martinez argue that his scientific views were the primary reason for this death. Not saying I agree with him, but it is a view.
Your implication is that the science was an important part of why he was executed. This is not the case.
By the way, do you know what his scientific ideas were?
-
No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.
This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.
Yes, but if a company is negligent, it means somebody or perhaps several people in that organisation were negligent. BP was deemed legally responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the whole thing was caused by individuals making mistakes. When a Catholic hospital refuses an abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, it is because there are individual human being in that hospital making poor decisions.
-
Yes, but if a company is negligent, it means somebody or perhaps several people in that organisation were negligent. BP was deemed legally responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the whole thing was caused by individuals making mistakes. When a Catholic hospital refuses an abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, it is because there are individual human being in that hospital making poor decisions.
Not necessarily - there are situations where a company may be considered to be negligent (so called full negligence) where there is no indication that any single individual acted in a manner sufficient to be considered negligent. So in these cases it is clearly the company directly (rather than any individual) deemed to be negligent and responsible.
But even where an individual is negligent it may still be the organisation deemed to be negligent and responsible - so called vicarious negligence. The point being that in these cases the conduct of the individual considered to be negligent has been authorised by the organisation and thus the organisation, rather than the individual, is deemed negligent.
But the greater point is that if I am harmed then my route for recourse in most cases (other than criminal) is to go after the organisation, not the individual. Why - because my contract is with the company/organisation, not with any specific individual. So in contract/legal terms, in practical terms and in principle it is accepted that it is the organisation that did the bad thing that caused me harm (even if acting through its employees) and therefore the organisation should be the target for action and recompense.
-
But as I have pointed out many (perhaps most) organisations buffer their ethos and culture from the vagaries of individual self interest of those that work for them. Indeed many organisation are structured to carefully protect ethos which may have been set a long time again and very difficult to change - so in effect the organisation has a 'life' outside of the individual people who may come and go as workers.
Someone or a few people may have tried to set up structures and systems to buffer, but it doesn't really work. I am talking about whether it is possible to buffer against the strategic decision-makers in an organisation that set out the organisation's ethos or approach. The reason people wanted more diversity in management and on boards is because it led to better decisions by the board of directors to prolong the life of the organisation. I am not talking about monitoring employees who are not strategic decision-makers, although systems are often not good at buffering against negligent or wilful non-strategic decisions of employees either.
This is often achieved by having the protection of ethos and culture resting not with the people who work for the organisation (or certainly not employees) but by shareholder in the case of private organisations and governors/trustees in the case of public and third sector organisations. And while, of course those people are individuals their scope to act is fundamentally determined by acting in the best organisational interests not in the narrow self interests of those working for that organisation, although of course in many cases those may align.
The shareholders are therefore acting on the basis of self-interest as they want the organisation to continue in order to earn revenue or some other benefit from the organisation. Voluntary governors and trustees may not be motivated by revenue but perhaps they desire the status or want to feel that they are shaping society in some way - and they will be influenced by their own personal morality. If their personal morality is at odds with the morality of the other members of that organisation, the individual trustee or governor will seek to influence the other members to persuade them to more closely align with the personal morality and approach of that trustee or governor.
And once that ethos is set those working within the organisation are expected to act within organisational interests in accordance with organisational ethos and culture (even if that was set years or even decades before they started working at that organisation). So the organisational ethos and culture sits outside the individuals who may work there from time to time.
And the ethos changes as the strategic decision-makers in the organisation change.
I agree - I've never said this was something that only applies to one type of organisation although the original discussion was about religions. Different types of organisation may set their ethos etc in a slightly different manner but in most cases organisational ethos sits above the vagaries of people who work for that organisation from time to time and any change to ethos is based fundamentally on organisational interest, rather than self interest.
The issue you seemed to raise when it came to religion was that religions have been used to stifle independent thought and the point that was argued in response to that is that some individuals in an organisation or religion might seek to stifle independent thought for what they perceive or portray to be in the public interest but is ultimately for self-interest in that they want the organisation to continue and to exert power and influence on society as collectively people have more bargaining power and influence. Therefore, the problem is with those individuals who make the decisions in organisations rather than religion or the organisation. As soon as new individuals with a different approach have influence in the organisation or religion, the organisation's or religion's ethos changes.
-
Not necessarily - there are situations where a company may be considered to be negligent (so called full negligence) where there is no indication that any single individual acted in a manner sufficient to be considered negligent. So in these cases it is clearly the company directly (rather than any individual) deemed to be negligent and responsible.
Not sure what you mean - can you please give an example of this.
But even where an individual is negligent it may still be the organisation deemed to be negligent and responsible - so called vicarious negligence. The point being that in these cases the conduct of the individual considered to be negligent has been authorised by the organisation and thus the organisation, rather than the individual, is deemed negligent.
Vicarious liability was developed in law because the organisation is deemed to have deeper pockets than the individual, so it meant a more just outcome for the victim if it could be established that there was sufficient close connection between the individual who acted and the organisation being held vicariously liable. It is based on the monetary position of organisations vs individuals. The legal concept is a different proposition from the moral responsibility of individuals in the organisation who made decisions or shaped ethos that led to the bad outcome.
But the greater point is that if I am harmed then my route for recourse in most cases (other than criminal) is to go after the organisation, not the individual. Why - because my contract is with the company/organisation, not with any specific individual. So in contract/legal terms, in practical terms and in principle it is accepted that it is the organisation that did the bad thing that caused me harm (even if acting through its employees) and therefore the organisation should be the target for action and recompense.
A lot of these court cases do not involve breach of contract but are claims under tort.
-
Not sure what you mean - can you please give an example of this.
Situations where there may be a systemic failure that cannot be attributed to any single individual. So in a court you would never reach the threshold for individual liability but may easily reach the threshold for corporate liability.
Vicarious liability was developed in law because the organisation is deemed to have deeper pockets than the individual, so it meant a more just outcome for the victim if it could be established that there was sufficient close connection between the individual who acted and the organisation being held vicariously liable.
In part, but the concept of vicarious liability goes much further than that - it is based on the longstanding principle in law that a company is an entity - actually often described as a non-human person and therefore that the critical relationship (often a duty of care) is between the individual harmed and the company, rather than any individual within that company. That makes a lot of sense but requires companies (and indeed other organisations) to have legally, and in principle, a separate identity from those who work for them.
Indeed this concept is centuries old:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
It is based on the monetary position of organisations vs individuals.
No - it goes much further than that. it would make no difference if an employee was a billionaire and the company nearly broke, if the relationship is with the company (as the non-human person) and the other elements for vicarious liability are met then the company will be vicariously liable, not the individual.
A lot of these court cases do not involve breach of contract but are claims under tort.
Correct - although this makes no meaningful difference to the discussion.
-
Not necessarily - there are situations where a company may be considered to be negligent (so called full negligence) where there is no indication that any single individual acted in a manner sufficient to be considered negligent. So in these cases it is clearly the company directly (rather than any individual) deemed to be negligent and responsible.
You'll have to give me an example because I can't think of anything.
But even where an individual is negligent it may still be the organisation deemed to be negligent and responsible - so called vicarious negligence. The point being that in these cases the conduct of the individual considered to be negligent has been authorised by the organisation and thus the organisation, rather than the individual, is deemed negligent.
You're just talking about the legal position. Legally, a Catholic hospital in Ireland might be able to refuse a life saving abortion to a young woman, but morally, somebody took a reprehensible decision to allow her to die.
But the greater point is that if I am harmed then my route for recourse in most cases (other than criminal) is to go after the organisation, not the individual. Why - because my contract is with the company/organisation, not with any specific individual. So in contract/legal terms, in practical terms and in principle it is accepted that it is the organisation that did the bad thing that caused me harm (even if acting through its employees) and therefore the organisation should be the target for action and recompense.
There are good reasons why the law is structured in that way. If you had to sue the individual responsible, you would probably find they couldn't afford the damages. Plus the whole point of a corporation is to protect the individuals that created it and work for it from some of these kinds of risks. Companies couldn't operate if the people in them were individually liable for every risk because it would be too risky.
And I'll empghasise again: you are just expounding the legal position. The fact that it is the company you sue doesn't mean somebody in that company didn't do whatever it was that caused you to sue.
-
Situations where there may be a systemic failure that cannot be attributed to any single individual. So in a court you would never reach the threshold for individual liability but may easily reach the threshold for corporate liability.
Can you give a specific example of a case?
In part, but the concept of vicarious liability goes much further than that - it is based on the longstanding principle in law that a company is an entity - actually often described as a non-human person and therefore that the critical relationship (often a duty of care) is between the individual harmed and the company, rather than any individual within that company. That makes a lot of sense but requires companies (and indeed other organisations) to have legally, and in principle, a separate identity from those who work for them.
We already established that companies are a separate legal entity. The issue being discussed is whether companies make decisions or whether it is the individuals in companies that make decisions. The company can be held liable legally liable for a decision but when it comes to moral responsibility it is the individuals in the company who are perceived to have moral responsibility as a neither a company nor a religion can make decisions, only the individuals can make decisions.
Indeed this concept is centuries old:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
You have linked to a legal concept, whereas what we were discussing was moral responsibility.
No - it goes much further than that. it would make no difference if an employee was a billionaire and the company nearly broke, if the relationship is with the company (as the non-human person) and the other elements for vicarious liability are met then the company will be vicariously liable, not the individual
No - the principle of vicarious liability was developed because generally organisations/ employers / companies have deeper pockets than individuals and it was deemed just and in society's interest to hold a party responsible (the company, organisation, employer) for harm even though they have not committed a wrong act but someone else has committed it to whom the company / organisation/ employer are legally held to be sufficiently closely connected.
Correct - although this makes no meaningful difference to the discussion.
You seem to be arguing about the legal liability of an organisation due to the existence of a contract. I was pointing out to you the long-eestablished principle that tort law allows people who are harmed to claim compensation from the person or entity that harmed them without requiring a contract to exist between them. However, an organisation's legal liability in contract or tort is irrelevant to the issue about Copernicus. The issue being discussed was who bears the moral responsibility for decisions - the individuals in organisations who make the decisions for that organisation, or the abstract entity that is an organisation?
-
Can you give a specific example of a case?
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods
A rather good example as this was a single person company, yet the court found that that only the company was liable for negligence as the duty of care to the client rested with the company alone and not the individual, even though that individual had provided the advice that lead to the claim.
-
You seem to be arguing about the legal liability of an organisation due to the existence of a contract. I was pointing out to you the long-eestablished principle that tort law allows people who are harmed to claim compensation from the person or entity that harmed them without requiring a contract to exist between them.
Principle applies to tort as well as contract - indeed the example above is one of tort. The issue at had is which 'person' owes a duty of care, is it the non-human person of the company or the individual employee as a natural person in a legal sense. As a company must be treated be treated like any other independent person with its own rights and liabilities it is commonly the company, not any individual within that company, that owes a duty of care. In that case a negligence case can only be sought from the company not from the individual, as was demonstrated, writ large as the company had only a single employee, in Williams v Natural Life Health Foods.
-
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods
A rather good example as this was a single person company, yet the court found that that only the company was liable for negligence as the duty of care to the client rested with the company alone and not the individual, even though that individual had provided the advice that lead to the claim.
This case is not an example of what you wrote, which is "Situations where there may be a systemic failure that cannot be attributed to any single individual. So in a court you would never reach the threshold for individual liability but may easily reach the threshold for corporate liability."
The failure in this case could be attributed to an individual - the sole director of a company. He was acting on behalf of the company (the principal). He had been heavily involved in the services the company provided. However, while the failure could be attributed to him and he is morally liable, the House of Lords held he is not legally and therefore economically liable for his failure to the tune of £85,000 based on the principle that "reliance upon [the assumption of responsibility] by the other party will be necessary to establish a cause of action.... It is not sufficient that there should have been a special relationship with the principal [the company]. There must have been an assumption of responsibility such as to create a special relationship with the director or employee himself. It's an objective test.
"An objective test means that the primary focus must be on things said or done by the defendant or on his behalf in dealings with the plaintiff. The enquiry must be whether the director, or anybody on his behalf, conveyed directly or indirectly to the prospective franchisees that the director assumed personal responsibility towards the prospective franchisees".
The concept of a company being a separate legal entity from those who own and manage it initially came about in order to partition the assets owned by a company from the assets owned by shareholders or members of the company e.g. the shareholders might own assets in a different unincorporated business but the assets of that unincorporated business would not be mixed with the assets of the company. This separate legal entity concept allowed the company to govern the use of assets it was deemed to own. It was later developed such that a trader who incorporates a company to which he transfers his business creates a legal person on whose behalf he may afterwards act as director. The Law Lords in this case said that "For present purposes, his position is the same as if he had sold his business to another individual and agreed to act on his behalf. Thus the issue in this case is not peculiar to companies. Whether the principal is a company or a natural person, someone acting on his behalf may incur personal liability in tort as well as imposing vicarious or attributed liability upon his principal."
The veil of incorporation is a legal not a moral concept. It protects individuals who want to go into business by limiting their personal liability as shareholders or directors or employees e.g. if there is a cock up by an individual in the company. This is one of the reasons why people in business incorporate rather than act as sole traders or partners.
You still have not explained what any of this has to do with the idea that religions as opposed to individual people can act to supress ideas being explored. The issue being discussed was not about legal liability. A religion is not a company and a religion does not make decisions and a religion is not a separate entity - individual people make decisions about whether they will supress other people's ideas that they interpret as being contrary to their understanding of their religious scripture or their political ideology. Individuals are not required to act this way - they take it upon themselves to do so. In the same way that Twitter mobs or Sussex police officers take it upon themselves to act against people whose opinions they disagree with. You have not responded to this point in my posts about whether individuals are morally responsible, despite me bringing it up several times.
-
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods
A rather good example as this was a single person company, yet the court found that that only the company was liable for negligence as the duty of care to the client rested with the company alone and not the individual, even though that individual had provided the advice that lead to the claim.
But in that case, there is no question about who the individual was that created the brochure with the false projections in it. The law suit failed because the law allows that individual some protection because the company was a limited company.
-
But in that case, there is no question about who the individual was that created the brochure with the false projections in it.
That is why it is so interesting as it makes it clear that a one person company and that single person are not considered to be one and the same. They are considered to be distinct 'people'.
The law suit failed because the law allows that individual some protection because the company was a limited company.
No - it failed because the duty of care related to one person (the company) not the other person - the individual, regardless of the fact that that individual was the only person involved in the company. And it is nothing to do with limited companies as a range of other groups, that aren't ltd companies are treated in exactly the same manner.
-
That is why it is so interesting as it makes it clear that a one person company and that single person are not considered to be one and the same. They are considered to be distinct 'people'.
Only in the legal sense.
The legal position is irrelevant to your claim about religions persecuting people for putting forward certain theories. Religions are not distinct 'people'. Religions don't act.
But individual people may act or argue for ignorance or persecute people for their theories or thoughts and claim their actions are supported by their particular interpretation and understanding of the religion/ ethics/ philosophy/ morals that they subscribe to.
-
The legal position is irrelevant to your claim about religions persecuting people for putting forward certain theories. Religions are not distinct 'people'. Religions don't act.
The legal position is entirely relevant as it is one, very clear, way in which an organisation is considered to be something distinct and different from the individuals within that organisations.
And religions, in the form of religious organisations can and do act. And indeed religious organisations are considered to be distinct persons in the same manner as companies might be - hence the action taken in a number of countries against the catholic church (as an example) as an organisation, for abuse. If they were not considered to be able to act then there would be no way in which individuals who consider that they have been harmed by the action of that organisation could take action against the organisation. If religious organisation cannot act then the only action could be against individuals within that organisation. But that isn't the case.
-
That is why it is so interesting as it makes it clear that a one person company and that single person are not considered to be one and the same. They are considered to be distinct 'people'.
No - it failed because the duty of care related to one person (the company) not the other person - the individual, regardless of the fact that that individual was the only person involved in the company. And it is nothing to do with limited companies as a range of other groups, that aren't ltd companies are treated in exactly the same manner.
Nobody here is talking about the law except you. This is not about the law: it's about the fact that companies are made of people and it is people that make the decisions.
-
Nobody here is talking about the law except you. This is not about the law: it's about the fact that companies are made of people and it is people that make the decisions.
But the manner of the decisions that individuals, or groups of individuals, make when acting on behalf of a company is often not the same as decisions individuals would make when acting in a purely personal capacity. And indeed most organisations require those making decisions on behalf of that company not to act in self interest, but in organisational interest.
Hence an organisation is distinct from its individual components (in this case individuals working in that organisation. Organisations are not simply the cumulative sum of the private individuals who work in that organisation - they are distinct.
That is why legally organisations are considered to be distinct from the people who work for that organisation.
-
The legal position is entirely relevant as it is one, very clear, way in which an organisation is considered to be something distinct and different from the individuals within that organisations.
No it's entirely irrelevant to your claim about religions, which are not the same as companies.
And religions, in the form of religious organisations can and do act.
Ah I see you've realised you were wrong and changed your wording to talk about religious organisations. Organisations are made up of individual people who make decisions on behalf of the organisation based on their interpretation of circumstances and moral codes. And indeed religious organisations are considered to be distinct persons in the same manner as companies might be - hence the action taken in a number of countries against the catholic church (as an example) as an organisation, for abuse.
Yes taking legal action for financial compensation against a particular organisation (which is a legal entity and can therefore own assets) for the decisions made by people on behalf of that organisation is normal and how society works.
If you stick to talking about organisations your claims sound less nonsensical than when you talk about religions, since religions are not a legal entity that can act but instead are a set of beliefs related to the supernatural. Religious organisations can act though. Individuals within those organisations can interpret beliefs in different ways to arrive at moral codes, which they may act on and/or influence and persuade others to act.
-
But the manner of the decisions that individuals, or groups of individuals, make when acting on behalf of a company is often not the same as decisions individuals would make when acting in a purely personal capacity. And indeed most organisations require those making decisions on behalf of that company not to act in self interest, but in organisational interest.
Hence an organisation is distinct from its individual components (in this case individuals working in that organisation. Organisations are not simply the cumulative sum of the private individuals who work in that organisation - they are distinct.
That is why legally organisations are considered to be distinct from the people who work for that organisation.
We don't care about the law. When a person makes a decision in a company, it is that person. Yes there may be pressures that make them choose a different course but if they make a poor moral decision because it's a corporation, it's on them (morally, if not legally). If an administrator in a catholic hospital refuses to allow an abortion for a woman who will die without it are you going to absolve them of responsibility because it's catholic doctrine? I'm not.