BBO Discussion Forums: Happy Darwin year everyone! - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Happy Darwin year everyone!

#41 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,087
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2009-January-06, 09:54

ASkolnick, on Jan 6 2009, 04:01 PM, said:

Problems with Science: Many science things are suggested as fact instead of theory, until somebody disproves them.

Although this may wary between scientific disciplines, in general I think it's a problem with popularization of science. Scientists like to speak in vague terms and keep the doors open for all kind of alternative ideas, but journalists will press for bold and easy-to-digest stories. So when one scientist in one month is quoted for saying that the universe is infinite or that potatoes are bad for your health and another scientist says the opposite next month, it is understandable if readers get the impression that facts are only facts for now. But in that case, those "facts" have probably never been considered facts by most scientists.

Winston said:

Should the schools teach Bhuddism, Scientology, and Astrology? Will those be taught in religion class, philosophy class, or science class?
We learned about Buddhism and Scientology in Religion class. Astrology in ancient history class.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#42 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,415
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2009-January-07, 11:02

mycroft, on Jan 5 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

The idea of literalism is a Western European thing, almost uniquely; and it has produced a lot of good things (among them, modern, experimental Science). It has also produced an occasional inability to understand non-literal teaching. I wonder if some of these Bible literalists would attempt to convict Swift of conspiracy to commit cannibalism.

Swift never claimed that his books were a guideline for how to live your life. It was clear that they were satire and fiction.

The problem with relativism when applied to the Bible is that it results in a circularity. The Bible is supposed to be where you learn ethics and morality from. But if you have to interpret the Bible's allegories and mythology, what's the basis for your interpretation? You can't interpret it in terms of your own moral code, because that's precisely what you're trying to learn.

For instance, the Bible teaches that it's proper for a husband to have children with a slave if his wife barren. Ignoring the issue of slavery itself, this was probably good advice thousands of years ago, when having lots of children was necessary to survival. Now it would be considered abhorent by most. But the Bible hasn't changed, society has.

If the Bible can be reinterpreted it can be interpreted as almost anything, and becomes practically meaningless. What's the point of saying that the Earth was created in 7 days if days can mean weeks, years, millenia, etc.? If "days" can mean "years", then can't "love" (as in "Love thy neighbor") mean "despise"?

#43 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2009-February-07, 10:04

It seems that religious people are fighting back against the notion that they have some strange duty to ignore the reality of evolution: A very merry Darwin Day

Quote

Zimmerman felt it was necessary to take the issue out of the framework of creationists vs. secular scientists who both tended to portray science and religion as incompatible. He sees these caricatures as misrepresentative.

"The fight doesn't seem to be between religion and science as much as it is between religion and religion."

With that in mind, Zimmerman created the Clergy Letter Project in 2004. More than 12,000 clergy have signed the declaration affirming that a person of faith does not have to choose between belief in God or evolution.

"I thought if I could get 10,000 Christian clergy members saying belief in evolution does not compromise their faith in any way, I could change the nature of the controversy in this country."

But little press came of the effort. "I had a choice at this point, either let the whole thing drop or declare a national holiday," Zimmerman says. "Oddly enough it worked. On very short notice we had hundreds of congregations participating."

The first Evolution Sunday occurred in 2006. By 2007, lectures and sermons were presented to more than 600 congregations across the United States and five other countries. In 2008, participation from a wider range of faith traditions prompted the name change to Evolution Weekend. More than 800 congregations from 10 countries took part last year.

For my part, it's good to see that many folks understand that they can keep the comfort they receive from religion without putting on blinders.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#44 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2009-February-12, 13:40

February 12, 2009
OLIVIA JUDSON
London

Quote

MY fellow primates, 200 years ago today, Charles Darwin was born. Please join me in wishing him happy birthday!

Unlike many members of the human species, Darwin makes an easy hero. His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.

At the same time, he was a humane, gentle, decent man, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. Judging by his letters, he was also sometimes quite funny. He was, in other words, one of those rare beings, as likeable as he was impressive.

For example, after his marriage, Darwin worked at home, and his children (of the 10 he fathered, seven survived to adulthood) remembered playing in his study. Later, one of his sons recounted how, after an argument, his father came up to his room, sat on his bed, and apologized for losing his temper. And although often painted as a recluse, Darwin served as a local magistrate, meting out justice in his dining room.

Moreover, while many of his contemporaries approved of slavery, Darwin did not. He came from a family of ardent abolitionists, and he was revolted by what he saw in slave countries: “Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal .... It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.”

He practiced a kind of ideal, dream-like science. He examined the minutiae of nature — shells of barnacles, pistils of flowers — but worked on grand themes. He corresponded with lofty men of learning, but also with farmers and pigeon breeders. He observed, questioned, experimented, constantly testing his ideas.

Could plants from the mainland colonize a newly formed island? If so, they would need a way to get there. Could they survive in the ocean? To find out, he immersed seeds in salt water for weeks, then planted them to see how many could sprout. He reported, for example, that “an asparagus plant with ripe berries floated for 23 days, when dried it floated for 85 days, and the seeds afterwards germinated.” The Atlantic current moved at 33 nautical miles a day; he figured that would take a seed more than 1,300 miles in 42 days. Yes, seeds could travel by sea.

He published important work on subjects as diverse as the biology of carnivorous plants, barnacles, earthworms and the formation of coral reefs. He wrote a travelogue, “The Voyage of the Beagle,” that was an immediate best seller and remains a classic of its kind. And as if that was not enough, he discovered two major forces in evolution — natural selection and sexual selection — and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” (1871) and “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872).

The “Origin,” of course, is what he is best known for. This volume, colossal in scope yet minutely detailed, laid the foundations of modern biology. Here, Darwin presented extensive and compelling evidence that all living beings — including humans — have evolved from a common ancestor, and that natural selection is the chief force driving evolutionary change. Sexual selection, he argued, was an additional force, responsible for spectacular features like the tail feathers of peacocks that are useless for (or even detrimental to) survival but essential for seduction.

Before the “Origin,” similarities and differences between species were mere curiosities; questions as to why a certain plant is succulent like a cactus or deciduous like a maple could be answered only, “Because.” Biology itself was nothing more than a vast exercise in catalog and description. After the “Origin,” all organisms became connected, part of the same, profoundly ancient, family tree. Similarities and differences became comprehensible and explicable. In short, Darwin gave us a framework for asking questions about the natural world, and about ourselves.

He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn’t know how genetics works; as for DNA — well, the structure of the molecule wasn’t discovered until 1953. So today’s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his. We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution.

But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty — that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes.

As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains. The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes that differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.

I think Darwin would have been pleased. But not surprised.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#45 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2009-February-12, 16:22

More good news: Scientists in Germany Draft Neanderthal Genome

Quote

Archaeologists have long debated whether or not Neanderthals could speak, and have eagerly awaited Dr. Pääbo’s analysis of the Neanderthal FOXP2, a gene essential for language. Modern humans have two changes in FOXP2 that are not found in chimpanzees, and that presumably evolved to make possible the faculty of speech.

Dr. Pääbo said Thursday that Neanderthals have the same two changes in their version of the FOXP2 gene, which leaves open the possibility that they could speak. However, many other genes are involved in the speech faculty, so it is too early to say that conversation with Neanderthals would have been possible.

Dr. Pääbo said he would be publishing an article on his findings in the next few months. Usual scientific practice is not to make big claims until the article supporting the claims is available for other scientists to critique. However, the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birthday was mentioned during the news conference as an appropriate occasion for the announcement.

Wonder what Neanderthals would say!
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#46 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,055
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2009-February-12, 16:44

Maybe they had FOXP2 News
Ken
0

#47 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2009-February-12, 17:06

LOL. Probably gave opinions...
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#48 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,055
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2009-February-12, 17:38

Perhaps Darwin's birthday leads to a little reflection.

I think that all the hoopla about Intelligent Design and the threat that it poses to scientific teaching is a great deal of ado over very little. I was in high school more than fifty years ago and no one fretted about evolution. My kids were not taught any version of creationism, same with my grandchildren. Most of us have probably seen Inherit the Wind. The Scopes trial was more than 80 years ago, the film is not very good history, and kids don't pay all that much attention to what teachers say anyway. Kids need to learn more about science, more about history, more about civics, more about a lot of things than they are currently learning. More music, art and physical education also, in my opinion. That's where the real crisis lies.

In my schooldays, the big concern was that some comsymp would slip in some commie propaganda. Now the worry is that some creationist will slip in some ID. Not happening anywhere that I have seen, and kids are a good deal less gullible than these worrywarts suppose. Anyway, a little experience with recognizing crap when it is set in front of them can be useful preparation for life.
Ken
0

#49 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2009-September-15, 17:22

On Saturday the Wall Street Journal published short point-counterpoint essays by theologian Karen Armstrong and scientist Richard Dawkins on the question "Where does evolution leave God?": Man vs. God

Armstrong opines that the conflict between religion and science stems from the relatively recent modification of religion from its figurative roots into a literalness intended to mimic science:

Quote

Symbolism was essential to premodern religion, because it was only possible to speak about the ultimate reality—God, Tao, Brahman or Nirvana—analogically, since it lay beyond the reach of words. Jews and Christians both developed audaciously innovative and figurative methods of reading the Bible, and every statement of the Quran is called an ayah ("parable"). St Augustine (354-430), a major authority for both Catholics and Protestants, insisted that if a biblical text contradicted reputable science, it must be interpreted allegorically. This remained standard practice in the West until the 17th century, when in an effort to emulate the exact scientific method, Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history.

Dawkins argues that moving god back into the figurative arena won't settle the matter:

Quote

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

I found it interesting to read this juxtaposition of two advocates of opposite beliefs, both presenting their strongest arguments in well-written pieces, so I thought that others who've posted on this might enjoy the WSJ piece too.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#50 User is offline   MattieShoe 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 2009-September-04

Posted 2009-September-15, 20:22

kenberg, on Jan 3 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

One of my gripes in elementary and high school was the way American history was taught. In September we started with the Pilgrims. By June we had gone through the Civil War and, if very lucky maybe made it up to 1890 or so, Next year we start all over with the Pilgrims. Hey Teach. Could we try this year to get to WWI and II, the Depression, the Jazz age, and so on? Do I have to learn about Lindbergh by watching a Jimmy Stewart movie?

Yes exactly! They always went chronologically and generally ran out of time around the great depression or earlier, every year.
0

#51 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2009-September-16, 02:32

PassedOut, on Sep 16 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

Dawkins argues that moving god back into the figurative arena won't settle the matter:

Quote

Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

Interestingly, in the bible belt of The Netherlands, there is a protestant congregation that is 100% behind a minister who denies the existence of God.

This minister's philosophy is roughly: "God doesn't exist in any concrete way: There was no Creator or anything like that. God is a state of mind, a way of living, a sense. This sense stands for things like love, how we deal with ourselves and others." (I do not claim that my understanding of his ideas is accurate.)

This minister got into trouble with the "higher powers" (not capitalized :() in his church. I didn't follow the story, but he seemed to be fully backed by his congregation in an area that is known as very conservative when it comes to religion. (The Netherlands may be known for euthanasia and gay marriages, but the religious spectrum in The Netherlands is very wide. The South is Roman Catholic, and the West (with Amsterdam) may be referred to as 'Sodom and Gomorra combined', but there are other areas in the country that are dominated by conservative protestantism.)

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#52 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,087
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2009-September-16, 03:07

It seems to me that Armstrong and Dawkins don't contradict each other. Armstrong said that theologists of the 16th century and before had one concept of "existence". Dawkins says that most religious people today have another concept. They could both be right.

FWIW I recognize Armstrong's version more that Dawkins' among religious people I know personally. I could be wrong as I never have deep theological discussions with anyone. I could base my impression on a biased sample. Anyway, Dawkins' description of theists is apparent in the folders of Jehova's Witnesses as well as some anecdotes I hear from the USA, and from the propaganda of militant islamists.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#53 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,055
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2009-September-16, 07:12

My deep theological discussions concern the Law of Total Tricks. I hope to be burned at the stake beside Mike Lawrence. But in my youth I had these discussions that seemed deep at the time and which did in fact have consequences in my eventual choices.

One of my close friends became a Methodist minister. He would have fit right in with the minister that Rik described. We would discuss whether or not it was possible to be a religious atheist. My view was no, but he was inventive in his thinking. Sometime in the early sixties he got into some trouble with the church by performing a marriage ceremony for two men. However the church authorities searched through their church laws and could not find anything that forbade it, so they dropped the issue. The rules that hey were following were written in the nineteenth century and it's my guess that no one ever thought it would be necessary to insert a rule that prohibited a Methodist minister from sanctioning a homosexual marriage. One of those duh things, from their viewpoint. He left the church for a while but later returned and had a ministry that was especially welcoming to gays and lesbians. He is retired now but still is involved with various socially conscious activities, restorative justice being one of them (for crimes involving property damage, the miscreant is required to at least partially restore the damaged property and then the sentence is reduced).


My own views are fairly simple. First we deal with the practical necessities of our own lives, then we see if we can help make the world a better place. Everyone has his own demarcation about how much is enough when addressing the first task and I am by no means sure that the religious folks among us are, by and large, more generous than the non-religious. As to the theology, I don't much care.
Ken
0

#54 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,087
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2009-September-16, 07:30

kenberg, on Sep 16 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

We would discuss whether or not it was possible to be a religious atheist.

Albert Einstein described himself as a "very religious non-believer".
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#55 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2009-September-16, 07:53

kenberg, on Sep 16 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

One of my close friends became a Methodist minister. He would have fit right in with the minister that Rik described. We would discuss whether or not it was possible to be a religious atheist. My view was no, but he was inventive in his thinking.

I know two people like this (not friends exactly, but I like them) and, oddly enough, one of them is also a Methodist minister. They work so hard to help others that one just has to pitch in to help now and then. And I don't remember hearing either of them use words like "salvation" or the like. Maybe they do in church.

People like these and like your friend certainly make their communities better, whatever their motivations.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#56 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,415
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2009-September-16, 14:49

I think the word that's often used to describe these "religious atheists" is "spiritual". They believe in something beyond simple materialism, but not the literal God of the Bible, who performs miracles in response to prayers. Their spirituality supplies the "meaning of life" that they feel they need, but don't get from a sterile, clockwork universe.

Personal beliefs like this don't bother me much. I think these people are deluding themselves, and that's too bad for them, but they probably think the same of people like me. They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

#57 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,195
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2009-September-16, 18:18

I read something interesting a couple weeks ago that defined a "soft atheism" as more like what I would consider agnostic - a disbelief simply based on a non-ability to prove the existence of.

The fascinating thing to me is that I find the concept of atheism and death without an afterlife to be comforting and uplifting. If this is the only life I will get it behooves me to make the best of it. Oddly, I have found the way to make the best of my time has many similarities to many religious ideas. Doing good things has better rewards than doing bad things.

I have no problem with the concept of a Higher Power - only I don't find a necessity to define that power or even try to understand it. The real benefit of acknowledging any Higher Power is to relegate self to "less than" status.

It means you are not a god - you are equally human with the rest of the world.

Just another scum of the earth.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#58 User is offline   Lobowolf 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,030
  • Joined: 2008-August-08
  • Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.

Posted 2009-September-16, 18:27

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?
1. LSAT tutor for rent.

Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light

C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.

IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk

e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
0

#59 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,195
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2009-September-16, 18:59

Lobowolf, on Sep 16 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#60 User is offline   Lobowolf 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,030
  • Joined: 2008-August-08
  • Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.

Posted 2009-September-16, 19:07

Winstonm, on Sep 16 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 16 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws?

Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though:

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?
1. LSAT tutor for rent.

Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light

C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.

IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk

e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
0

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users