RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 146 147 148 149 150 [151] 152 153 154 155 156 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2138
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,18:55   

First Things magazine is going ape on Amy Bishop:
   
Quote
Socialist Professor Amy Bishop Who Killed 3 Profs Yesterday Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 …UPDATE: Dem Rep. Delahunt Made Call to Release Bishop in 1986

Slimy Sal's UD thread is also promoted here.

As far as I can tell, she's a socialist because one student called her one in an evaluation.

If anybody wants a good look at the morals of conservative Christians ...

ETA: "called"

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,19:50   

Quote
“There is no good and evil, there is only power, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.” Voldemort (Harry Potter)

“There is no good or bad there is only the law” Javert in Les Miserables (Movie, 1980s)


Luke, I am your father

You've got to be shitting me.  Quoting fictional characters to prove evolution is bad?

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,21:09   

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 17 2010,16:03)
Count on Sal "(Alleged) Goat Sodomizer" Cordova to come through with a ne plus ultra of a quote mine:
Quote

Dahmer was into cannibalism.
He got some support from a professor at Vanderbilt who wrote the book: Compassionate Cannibalism. Below is a delicious quote from this professor. She redifines the meaning of “consuming passion”.
Quote

We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act,

But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings
Beth Conklin
Vanderbilt University


The book in question?  Consuming Grief: Compassionate Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society.  An ethnography. First published in 2001.  7 fucking years after Dahmer was DEAD.

To nobody's surprise, I'm sure, the quote is quite reasonable when taken in context:
Quote
Cannibalism is one of the last real taboos of modern society. As such, it evokes a powerful mixture of fascination and revulsion. So strong are these preconceptions, in fact, that both the public and the scientific community have repeatedly fallen prey to them.

"We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act," objects Beth A. Conklin, an associate professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University. "But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings and motives that are not that far from our own experience."

Conklin's perspective is based on an intensive study of the Wari' , a group of native people who live in the Amazon rainforest. Her fieldwork provides detailed confirmation about how and why the Wari' practiced an elaborate form of cannibalism until the 1960s, when government workers and missionaries forced them to abandon the practice.

"The Wari' are unusual because they practiced two distinct forms of cannibalism in warfare and funerals ," Conklin says. "However, the two practices were very different and had very different meanings. Eating enemies was an intentional expression of anger and disdain for the enemy. But at funerals, when they consumed members of their own group who died naturally, it was done out of affection and respect for the dead person and as a way to help survivors cope with their grief."

Conklin has focused on the less understood practice of funerary cannibalism in her new book, Consuming Grief: Compassionate Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society [University of Texas Press] . "I hope that this book will make people think more deeply about the meanings that the body has in human relationships, and to consider that other cultures may have understood those in ways that made the destruction and transformation of the body through cannibalism seem to be the best, most respectful, most loving way to deal with the death of someone you care about."

Sal is a dishonest sleazebag.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,21:44   

I suppose now would be a bad time to start a discussion on the Eucharist over there.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5412
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,21:56   

Quote (socle @ Feb. 17 2010,22:44)
I suppose now would be a bad time to start a discussion on the Eucharist over there.

Au contraire.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,21:57   

Something about that stuff on cannibalism reminds me of the sci-fi novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,22:02   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2010,13:52)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 17 2010,13:47)
Dr. Dr. D sees Sal's Alabama shooter, and raises him a Jeffery Dahmer.

 
Quote
Even so, Dahmer’s logic is compelling. We need some external reference point — God — to justify being good. And that justification is significant in its own right. Without it, we can still rationalize particular evils, but we cannot dispense with the category of evil entirely.

I’d like to encourage in this thread other quotes like Dahmer’s — quotes by people who understood the logic of naturalism and the destruction of moral foundations that it entails.


All Science Here

Wow

Stuff like this is why you'll never get him to testify in court on ID.

He won't have a choice if one of his books is at issue in the case, as at least "The Design of Life" is promoted to become such.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,22:40   

Sal's second cannibalism reference is super-slimed too.  The paper is actually a nice demonstration of human evolution.  The hypothesis is that people bearing an allele protective against the prion disease Kuru went from being a minor part of the population to the majority when it broke out.  The genetic data is overwhelmingly supportive.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/21/2056

If there is no evolution, I wonder why the designer 'front-loaded' part of the population to be better cannibals?

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,23:52   

Quote (REC @ Feb. 17 2010,22:40)
Sal's second cannibalism reference is super-slimed too.  The paper is actually a nice demonstration of human evolution.  The hypothesis is that people bearing an allele protective against the prion disease Kuru went from being a minor part of the population to the majority when it broke out.  The genetic data is overwhelmingly supportive.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/21/2056

If there is no evolution, I wonder why the designer 'front-loaded' part of the population to be better cannibals?

"It was their density"

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,00:20   

Quote (socle @ Feb. 17 2010,21:44)
I suppose now would be a bad time to start a discussion on the Eucharist over there.

Done.

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,00:29   

Too funny.  I just got my hands on a copy of Granville Sewell's new book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. At the bottom of page 77, I found the following footnote:
Quote
3. Some Darwinists user computer programs, written by intelligent humans, which contain strings that simulate information in the DNA, and they run these programs on computers designed and maintained by intelligent humans. They introduce random errors into the strings, test the new strings for "fitness" in some way and discard the less fit strings, and claim the modest progress observed simulates evolution. If they want to see what unintelligent forces alone can accomplish, however, they should introduce random errors not only into the strings, but throughout the entire program, the compiler and operating system it uses, and the computer hardware. If you are trying to simulate how the accumulation of molecular accidents could produce complex organisms, why assume that only the DNA molecules are vulnerable to random damage?
(This analogy was suggested by Gil Dodgen).

Um, Granville, are you aware that Gil was so embarrassed by his mistake that he tried to pretend that it was a joke, even though it clearly was not?
Quote
53

GilDodgen
10/01/2006
8:08 pm

In my original post about mutating the CPU instruction set, the OS, etc., I was being somewhat sarcastic. Obviously, this would be silly, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to take such an experiment seriously.

Good job, Granville.  You've fossilized Gil's stupidity -- and your own -- in print.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,01:28   

Why did Dembski bring up Dahmer in the first place?

In the PNAS paper referenced in the thread below Dembski's quotemine fest:
   
Quote
In fact, the successful application of the insanity defense is quite rare, both in the United States and elsewhere. An example where such a defense was not successful concerned the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was found guilty and sentenced to 957 years in prison (where he was subsequently murdered) for the death of seventeen young men from 1978 to 1991. Dahmer was a necrophiliac, performing gross sexual acts on the dead bodies, as well as performing frontal lobotomies and boiling their skulls in acid. The rationale for the guilty verdict was that it was claimed that he knew what he was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that he lied to the police about his activities. I raise this case to illustrate two points: First, the legal system assumes a capacity for individuals not only to distinguish between right and wrong, but to act according to those distinctions—that is, an integral component of individuals who have this capacity of free will from those who lack it (32).

Coincidence?

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,02:46   

Paul Nelson starts a thread called Freewill into the Dumpster and asks rhetorically    
Quote
Could a defender of the reality of free will — i.e., of an irreducible person acting from mind, on the basis of reasons, goals, ends or purposes — publish her arguments in the PNAS? After all, that’s the other side of this ancient debate.


Dembski adds  
Quote
Beautiful irony!


So, I am still wondering why Nelson, Dembski and others (judging by the comments) appear to think that whether free will being real or imaginary is central to ID dogma and why no true atheist can consider free will to be real? Does any self-declared atheist claim free will is illusory?

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,05:47   

To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,06:20   

Quote
So, I am still wondering why Nelson, Dembski and others (judging by the comments) appear to think that whether free will being real or imaginary is central to ID dogma

I wonder what in this world they don't think is, if not central to ID dogma, at least very important for ID.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,06:20   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

Thank you.  I didn't want to come across as the geek who hasn't read enough philosophy, but I've never heard a coherent definition of "free will."

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,07:57   

Quote (Maya @ Feb. 18 2010,06:20)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

Thank you.  I didn't want to come across as the geek who hasn't read enough philosophy, but I've never heard a coherent definition of "free will."

I am concerned also.  

Does this mean that we are about to be inundated by IDiots writing books about No Free Will, to go along with all the words wasted about No Free Lunch proving ID?  

Then do we "change over time" to No Free Willy?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,08:27   

Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 18 2010,06:28)
Why did Dembski bring up Dahmer in the first place?

In the PNAS paper referenced in the thread below Dembski's quotemine fest:
   
Quote
In fact, the successful application of the insanity defense is quite rare, both in the United States and elsewhere. An example where such a defense was not successful concerned the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was found guilty and sentenced to 957 years in prison (where he was subsequently murdered) for the death of seventeen young men from 1978 to 1991. Dahmer was a necrophiliac, performing gross sexual acts on the dead bodies, as well as performing frontal lobotomies and boiling their skulls in acid. The rationale for the guilty verdict was that it was claimed that he knew what he was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that he lied to the police about his activities. I raise this case to illustrate two points: First, the legal system assumes a capacity for individuals not only to distinguish between right and wrong, but to act according to those distinctions—that is, an integral component of individuals who have this capacity of free will from those who lack it (32).

Coincidence?

"Performing gross sexual acts on the dead bodies".

Pleonasm surely.

Well, unless anyone can think of a non gross sexual act that can be performed on a dead body. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Chatfield?

Thought not.

Mind you, any minute now I expect Sal/Vox/Dembski (Are they really different people? - Ed.) to accuse atheists/scientists/evolutionists/liberals/anyone they fancy of thinking that sexual acts on dead bodies are not gross. After all, doing so would be a step up from where they currently are.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,08:41   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective.  It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside.  Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,08:42   

Quote
scordova: He got some support from a professor at Vanderbilt who wrote the book: Compassionate Cannibalism. Below is a delicious quote from this professor. She redifines the meaning of “consuming passion”.

Quote
We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act,

But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings


Quote
utidjian: One word: eucharist.

PaV: What you imply is sick and blasphemous, and grossly insensitive, not to mention the exact charge that pagans made against early Christians so as to have an excuse to feed them to lions. As a Catholic, I find your remark deeply offensive.

What? Too soon?

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,08:54   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 18 2010,08:42)
Quote
scordova: He got some support from a professor at Vanderbilt who wrote the book: Compassionate Cannibalism. Below is a delicious quote from this professor. She redifines the meaning of “consuming passion”.

 
Quote
We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act,

But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings


 
Quote
utidjian: One word: eucharist.

PaV: What you imply is sick and blasphemous, and grossly insensitive, not to mention the exact charge that pagans made against early Christians so as to have an excuse to feed them to lions. As a Catholic, I find your remark deeply offensive.

What? Too soon?

Maybe someone who has commenting privileges over there ought to share this one:
Quote
The Mass is the greatest blasphemy of God, and the highest idolatry upon earth, an abomination the like of which has never been in Christendom since the time of the Apostles. - Martin Luther, Table Talk (1569)

My guess is the Big Tent would hold and there wouldn't be any internecine warfare between the Catholics and the Baptists.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11117
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,08:59   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 18 2010,08:41)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective.  It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside.  Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning.

I'm confused. Heddle believes he has free will - the one god chose for him?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
dheddle



Posts: 543
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:21   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,08:59)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 18 2010,08:41)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective.  It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside.  Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning.

I'm confused. Heddle believes he has free will - the one god chose for him?

OK, Since you keep asking about my view, it is briefly sketched here.


It is based on the concept of moral inability, as opposed to coercion.

I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works to illustrate the principle. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model preferred by Calvinists, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the moral ability to choose God, so we never will.

EDIT: typo

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11117
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:27   

Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,09:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,08:59)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 18 2010,08:41)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective.  It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside.  Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning.

I'm confused. Heddle believes he has free will - the one god chose for him?

OK, Since you keep asking about my view, it is briefly sketched here.


It is based on the concept of moral inability, as opposed to coercion.

I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works to illustrate the principle. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model preferred by Calvinists, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the moral ability to choose God, so we never will.

EDIT: typo

And God lacked the moral ability to author those who only choose not to put babys in microwaves, effectively putting the baby in the microwave?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
dheddle



Posts: 543
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:33   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:27)
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,08:59)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 18 2010,08:41)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective.  It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside.  Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning.

I'm confused. Heddle believes he has free will - the one god chose for him?

OK, Since you keep asking about my view, it is briefly sketched here.


It is based on the concept of moral inability, as opposed to coercion.

I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works to illustrate the principle. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model preferred by Calvinists, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the moral ability to choose God, so we never will.

EDIT: typo

And God lacked the moral ability to author those who only choose not to put babys in microwaves, effectively putting the baby in the microwave?

Yes.


Quote
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (WCF III.I)


Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:34   

Fixed.
 
Quote
utidjian: One word: eucharist.

PaV: What you imply is sick and blasphemous, and grossly insensitive, not to mention the exact charge that pagans made against early Christians so as to have an excuse to feed them to lions. As a Catholic, I find your remark deeply offensive. *burp*

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:38   

Quote
Free will: The ability to choose whatever we want

Whatever we want? What makes us want this instead of that?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:54   

The argument over free will assumes there is an agent separate from the physical body (brain/mind).

Any system, whether human or animal, mechanical or biological, whose behavioral tendencies are modified by experience could be said to have free will.

If you analyze less stupid cases than the baby in the microwave, the issues can be made clearer. Suppose the decision is whether to eat a second donut.

The decision rests on the consequences, pleasure vs weight gain. Humans seem to have the ability to observe themselves weighing the consequences, so we "feel" like we are making a decision.

But many animals can be observed weighing consequences. Cats or dogs deciding whether to approach a strange human, for example.

The weighing of consequences is a major part of what brains do. The ability to weigh consequences obviously exists on a continuum, correlated with brain size and structure.

Morality is not a special case. It merely invokes its own set of consequences, some learned through socialization and some hard wired as a result of evolution.

I suspect the hard wired part varies from individual to individual, just like other traits. We have laws because some people lack compassion and empathy. Most people would gain no pleasure from microwaving a baby, and considerable pain. For those who lack this internal compass, we have laws and all-seeing sky-daddies.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11117
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,09:58   

I'd be up for a free will thread is anyone else is. (I was destined to write that!). Also, redemption by proxy and original sin seem both logically and ethically incoherent to me. Christianity is an economy based on suffering.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:03   

Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,07:33)
Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules.

Interesting.  That makes you a compatibilist.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 146 147 148 149 150 [151] 152 153 154 155 156 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]