NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: PintOGuinness on October 12, 2003, 06:55:47 am
-
The Austin American-Statesman features an op-ed (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/editorial_f3588084a524321300c3.html;COXnetJSessionID=1Jr8RwUh2knA6uZvusUXDRxntsh6vSmEuhfW4hF7Sja1TMn3AW3X!664728683?urac=n&urvf=10659704923510.14430760486455063)by Sgt. Nathan Todd, an Army reservist who served in the Balkans:
After I returned from Bosnia, I visited the "museum" at Dachau. I saw the rebuilt barracks and new barbed wire, the meticulously restored crematoria and killing grounds. I knelt there in a field that had been used to dump the ashes of the victims of the Holocaust, and lit a candle for the souls who suffered there. I cried and prayed there, remembering what had been done, and thought upon the words "never again." Somehow the thought of it made me cry more, because I couldn't stop thinking about how long it took us to decide to stop the madness in Bosnia. How no one even tried to stop the killings in Cambodia, Kurdish Iraq and the Sudan. How we walked away from Somalia after the tragic sacrifice of American soldiers fighting to build a better world. It occurred to me how much we have forgotten and how empty those brave words had become.
We cannot save the world by ourselves. We cannot stop all the genocides and massacres. We cannot make sure that "never again" becomes a fulfilled promise rather than a hope. But we can return a little meaning to those words, stop some killings and end some suffering. I hope we do, and I would be proud to serve again in Iraq to do so.
This ought to be required reading for those who, for political or ideological purposes, seek to disparage America's moral triumph in liberating Iraq.
-
Isn't it convenient that somehow now it has emerged that Bush was entering for mainly humanitarian reasons? Where has the fear evoked about WMDs gone? Suddenly Bush (or Blair for that matter) has no proof of the reason they went to war so they give us this onslaught of moral rubbish.
Oh and really, America is not some kind of freedom fighting moral force. Don't kid yourself Jason.
P.S please in response to this don't start giving me crap about 'how can i not read that article and cry? or feel some emotion?' because you know i do, that however is beside the point.
-
The No WMD found argument holds no weight with me. ANYONE with 1/2 a brain can understand David Kay's preliminary report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction implications and what it says:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. . . .
Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts . . .:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological weapons] research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km--well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles--probably the No Dong--300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence--hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use--are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.
-
Saddam was a bastard. He should have been out of office ten years ago. Can you really blame him for finishing what his father stupidly stopped?
Who cares about the true motives here? And if you don't believe the WMP schpele, pay attention to what's going on. The documentation is there. But most of the physical evidence is gone. I think someone wanted to go down as a martyr and hide/destroy all that stuff before we invaded.
Why do you think Bush went into Iraq if not for WMP? Don't tell me that's because of oil. There is more oil in Nevada and Utah than Iraq. The dollar vs euro argument also has it's fatal flaws, but that issue is a tad more complex.
Let's review what Saddam did. He invaded a land not his own. He committed genocide against his own people. He tortured his own citizens. He violated his peace agreements by refusing inspections for a time, continuing to develop banned weapons, and misleading weapons inspectors. And it looks like he may have sent money to terrorist organizations.
And you think we were wrong in kicking this guy's regime out? Ha ha!
-
Saddam was a bastard. He should have been out of office ten years ago. Can you really blame him for finishing what his father stupidly stopped?
Who cares about the true motives here? And if you don't believe the WMP schpele, pay attention to what's going on. The documentation is there. But most of the physical evidence is gone. I think someone wanted to go down as a martyr and hide/destroy all that stuff before we invaded.
Why do you think Bush went into Iraq if not for WMP? Don't tell me that's because of oil. There is more oil in Nevada and Utah than Iraq. The dollar vs euro argument also has it's fatal flaws, but that issue is a tad more complex.
Let's review what Saddam did. He invaded a land not his own. He committed genocide against his own people. He tortured his own citizens. He violated his peace agreements by refusing inspections for a time, continuing to develop banned weapons, and misleading weapons inspectors. And it looks like he may have sent money to terrorist organizations.
And you think we were wrong in kicking this guy's regime out? Ha ha!
William- did i state at any point that i thought America was wrong for kicking out Saddam? You are sorely mistaken. What i said was that America cannot justify its main agenda for going to war.
Just because a country is ruled by an awful leader does not mean you can invade; America is not the world's police force. Do you honestly think America is on the moral highground constantly? Did it ever appear to you that maybe the way of life you lead is not a correct one? You are suffering from ethnocentrism.
I am well aware of what Saddam did, my Grandpa was the British Ambassador there for a number of years- he was kicked out for saying democracy would never be reached under Saddam. However, that was not the reason given for going to war. And you know that all too well, saving the Iraqi people was merely an 'extra benefit'. What Bush staked his claim on was the threat it posed to your country and indeed the world.
So what has come about i am satisfied with, however i am not satisfied with the reasoning behind it.
-
William- did i state at any point that i thought America was wrong for kicking out Saddam? You are sorely mistaken. What i said was that America cannot justify its main agenda for going to war.
Just because a country is ruled by an awful leader does not mean you can invade; America is not the world's police force. Do you honestly think America is on the moral highground constantly? Did it ever appear to you that maybe the way of life you lead is not a correct one? You are suffering from ethnocentrism.
Firstly, I point to Jason's point above.
Secondly, I know America has messed up and will continue to mess up in the future. Ethnocentrism? Hmmm... I suffer from it? Ad homiem. I'm out of this discussion.
-
I thought at the very beginning of the war, it's to prevent another 9/11...and many people believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11. Then it went to WMD, yay they found evidence of planning and "possible" crap. So now it is on to we defeated an evil man. Well no shit, I thought he was the nicest guy alive.
Maybe if we stuck to one reason I would be for the war, but it doesn't seem to work like that.
I would like to know where Osama is?...I thought we were suppose to find him dead or alive.
-
William- did i state at any point that i thought America was wrong for kicking out Saddam? You are sorely mistaken. What i said was that America cannot justify its main agenda for going to war.
Who are you to say what America's "main agenda" was? Just because it was ONE OF BUSH'S MANY AGENDAS does not make it "AMERICA'S" main agenda. Don't make the mistake of confusing the man with the country.
Just because a country is ruled by an awful leader does not mean you can invade; America is not the world's police force. Do you honestly think America is on the moral highground constantly? Did it ever appear to you that maybe the way of life you lead is not a correct one? You are suffering from ethnocentrism.
First off, that's the wrong word. America is an EXTREMELY Ethnically diverse nation, and ethnocentrism had absolutly NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. So hit a dictionary and figure out what word you were looking for and then come back.
Second of all, who are YOU to say that America is not the world's poilice force? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the way of nature that the most powerful get to make and enforce the rules? Why shouldn't we protect ourselves from things we see as threats?
Give me ONE GOOD REASON why the US SHOULDN'T destory anything or anyone we see as a threat to our way of life.
How about this, THE WORLD IS NOT AMERICA'S POLICE FORCE and as such, you don't get to tell us what we can and cannot do.
To quote one of my favorite movies "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do".
---Andrew
-
I thought at the very beginning of the war, it's to prevent another 9/11...and many people believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11. Then it went to WMD, yay they found evidence of planning and "possible" crap. So now it is on to we defeated an evil man. Well no shit, I thought he was the nicest guy alive.
Maybe if we stuck to one reason I would be for the war, but it doesn't seem to work like that.
I would like to know where Osama is?...I thought we were suppose to find him dead or alive.
Joey, nothing is ever that cut and dry. There are a million reasons and they are all valid. Pick your favorite and stick to it.
Who cares WHY we did the right thing? I just care that we did it.
---Andrew
-
First off, that's the wrong word. America is an EXTREMELY Ethnically diverse nation, and ethnocentrism had absolutly NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. So hit a dictionary and figure out what word you were looking for and then come back.
Second of all, who are YOU to say that America is not the world's poilice force? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the way of nature that the most powerful get to make and enforce the rules? Why shouldn't we protect ourselves from things we see as threats?
To quote one of my favorite movies "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do".
---Andrew
Ethnocentrism has a lot to do with 'anything'. Ethnocentrism is not a word to describe a nation that is not ethnicly diverse. Do you think i don't know what it means? I would certainly be precarious to use it if i was unsure of the meaning. It means believing that your country, or culture is correct to the point that others is wrong.
"ethnocentrism
noun; belief in the intrinsic superiority of the nation, culture, or group to which one belongs, often accompanied by feelings of dislike for other groups."
And secondly, yes- i know that you are right in some senses. But if you believe in such a brutal theory that "what a man can and can't do" dictates the world's current affairs and indeed your own life i do worry Andrew. Where do morals come into the equation? I know you have morals andrew. Where does equality (a key philosophy of America) come into the equation? You have to believe in something higher than that, or this whole world would be damned. The theory that 'might is right" is one that Hitler used. Just because you can do something, why does that mean you should? Men could easily beat women and opress them, but the majority of men have morals so they don't. What morals do you rely on? What morals does america rely on?
Give me ONE GOOD REASON why the US SHOULDN'T destory anything or anyone we see as a threat to our way of life.
America is 6% of the world's population, you do not rule the world. If the other 94% decided to 'gang up' on america you know forewell we could destroy it in second. You could say a lot of things is a threat to America's way of life, you could say the European Union threatens to take away money from America's economy and thus threatening American's way of life, but America doesn't destroy the European Union does it? If Iran saw America as 'a threat to its way of life' (which perhaps, in light of recent events it should), does it give them the right to attack?
How about this, THE WORLD IS NOT AMERICA'S POLICE FORCE and as such, you don't get to tell us what we can and cannot do.
If you use that theory, then America cannot tell Saddam what he can and cannot do- but that is what America did. The UN is useless if you use this theory too. As is NATO.
-
Second of all, who are YOU to say that America is not the world's poilice force? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the way of nature that the most powerful get to make and enforce the rules?
It is indeed. And the black widow spider is a product of nature. Does that mean it's okay for a woman to kill and eat her husband? hehe. Just a random point, but it does demonstrate an opinion of mine that the natural way of things isn't a good base from which to measure right and wrong.
Why shouldn't we protect ourselves from things we see as threats?
Yes, you (we) should. The problem is in accurately judging what constitutes protection and what constitutes a threat. The issue (in my eyes at least) isn't was the US/UK wrong for protecting themselves from a threat, but was there actually any significant threat requiring such costly protection (costly in human life and to a much lesser extent tax payer's money).
Give me ONE GOOD REASON why the US SHOULDN'T destory anything or anyone we see as a threat to our way of life.
Two jump to mind (although they are linked). The same two reasons I am against the death penalty. 1) The fallibility of humankind and 2) The irreversibility of the process of extinguishing human life. Okay they're not reasons why the US should not destroy anything they see as a threat, but they do place limits on how far they can go and how sure they must be before going that far. The question (again) is not should America destroy threats, but were these limits stretched/broken in Iraq?
I will add: I thought America and the UK were justified in going to war. Something I still believe. Even so, it's still important to continue to question these things with an open mind.
-Kev
-
"ethnocentrism
noun; belief in the intrinsic superiority of the nation, culture, or group to which one belongs, often accompanied by feelings of dislike for other groups."
Hu. Well..... so, i checked two definitions of "ethnicity" and one of them did in fact use nationality as a definition of ethnicity. I always considered enthinicity as your race or religious group. It's more genetics than just where you were born. But apparently the definition you used is accepted.
However, maybe the inference there is that many countries have a single ethnic group. I just don't think you can logically call the US a single Ethnic group.
I guess, The point I was making is that ethnocentrism refers to your ethnic group, and I wouldn't call the US a single ethnic group. We are many ethnic groups. Therefore, something like nationality-centric (not a word, i know, but i'm not sure what the right word is), would seem to be a better fit.
Regardless, I know what you meant. I was just nit picking.
... But if you believe in such a brutal theory that "what a man can and can't do" dictates the world's current affairs and indeed your own life i do worry Andrew. Where do morals come into the equation? ...
First off. Just because I argue it, doesn't mean I believe it. It just means I think an argument can be, and should be, made for it. So my morals really aren't reflected in this discussion. Having said that, there is a very popular philisophical idea commonly refered to as relative morality that I'm gonna throw around for a bit.
It basically says that what's moral for me may not be moral for you. So Hitler's actions may have been morally correct to him, regardless of how the rest of the world felt about it. And who am I to judge Hitler's morals? How do I know that in the grand scheme of things his morals aren't "better" than mine?
The real issue is not if it's MORALLY correct to do something, the issue is weather or not you can get away with it. I think you are mixing together the distinction between law and morality. I wouldn't try and tell you what is and is not morally right. That's your own decision to make. You can't argue morality; It's just something you believe or don't and arguing won't change anyones opinion. So weather or not it's "morally" right for the US to practice imperialism isn't a good topic for debate.
Now what IS a good topic for debate is what the US should, or should not, do from a logical and political POV. Is it good for the US in the long term? Is our current foreign policy more likely to hurt us than help us in the long run? Can anyone stop us if we continue? What's the cost/benefis analysis?
With Hitler, the answer was eventually "no, its not good for Germany and yes everyone will stop you". So far, no one has told the US "NO, stop!". Until someone tells the US "NO" then there is no reason for the US to stop it's curreny policy of proactively protecting itself. Since it continues to benefit the US (we believe), then why should we stop?
Not to parallel the US and Hitler... because from a moral point they are WILDLY different... but from an international law POV it's a similar situation. If the world at large is so opposed to what the US does then they have to tell us "NO" in some way or another. Not neccesarily war, but there are other ways.
Now, it's up for debate weather or not the other 94% of the worlds population could stop the US even if they wanted to. 80% of that 94% is incapable of properly organizing, motivating or mobilizing and kind of military force and the other 14% is likely to spend all their time in UN meetings talking about it. The best bet would be the get Japan (one of the US's biggest allies) and England (another strong ally) to economically turn on the US. THAT would motivate us to change our policy. In the mean time, there's no logical reason why what the us does is "wrong".
Now, if you believe in the platonic idea of absolute morality, then maybe you can tell me that what the US does is morally wrong. But where do you get this absolute code of morality? Rational Moral Law? Innante Human Morality? This is something philosophers have been debating for a long time. You can't have an asbolute moral law when no one can agree on one.
In theory, America is based on rational moral law (Kant?). In practice, we are based on relative morality. Whatever WE think is right is what we are going to impose on everyone else until someone makes us stop.
---Andrew
-
It is indeed. And the black widow spider is a product of nature. Does that mean it's okay for a woman to kill and eat her husband? hehe. Just a random point, but it does demonstrate an opinion of mine that the natural way of things isn't a good base from which to measure right and wrong.
But the blackwidow spider doesn't have a police force around to prevent her from doing so. If the US had no police force and women had a good logical survival based reason to kill and eat their husbands (for example, her husband would kill their child) then it would, in fact, be "right". Right <> Moral. Right = Decision with the best possible outcome for the decision maker.
See my above post for a comment on the difference between making the right logical choice and being "morally right".
Yes, you (we) should. The problem is in accurately judging what constitutes protection and what constitutes a threat. The issue (in my eyes at least) isn't was the US/UK wrong for protecting themselves from a threat, but was there actually any significant threat requiring such costly protection (costly in human life and to a much lesser extent tax payer's money).
Ah! That's a valid discussion. The answer is "I don't know". Was there a valid threat? That's the central question. If you think Sadam was a real threat, then going to war was the "right" decision. My hunch is that he was.
Two jump to mind (although they are linked). The same two reasons I am against the death penalty. 1) The fallibility of humankind and 2) The irreversibility of the process of extinguishing human life. Okay they're not reasons why the US should not destroy anything they see as a threat, but they do place limits on how far they can go and how sure they must be before going that far. The question (again) is not should America destroy threats, but were these limits stretched/broken in Iraq?
Those two reasons are somewhat valid but, when logically followed, they create quite a conundrum in logical decision making. Because humans are fallible does that mean we shouldn't do anything we can't reverse because we might make the wrong decision? Or does this only hold true where human life is concerned?
If my friend is hanging from a cliff, holding on with one arm, and screaming for help should I help her? If I help her, the edge might give way and we might both die. If I don't help her, i'm leaving my options open for a better solution to come along (such as a rope to throw) but I am risking her falling while I wait. Which is the right decision? Obviously this might not be enough information to decide what the "right" decision is, but you see how sometimes you have to make decisions that endanger people in order to arrive at the desired solution. As fallible as people are, we still have to take risks and hope for the best.
When making decisions you can only make the best decision based on the information you have, and if that decision doesn't have the desired outcome then you deal with it as best as you can. We can't only make the "safe" decision all the time because the safe decision is often the wrong decision.
---Andrew
-
With Hitler, the answer was eventually "no, its not good for Germany and yes everyone will stop you". So far, no one has told the US "NO, stop!". Until someone tells the US "NO" then there is no reason for the US to stop it's curreny policy of proactively protecting itself. Since it continues to benefit the US (we believe), then why should we stop?
Wouldn't you count the vito of the UN resolution a 'NO'?
Now, if you believe in the platonic idea of absolute morality, then maybe you can tell me that what the US does is morally wrong. But where do you get this absolute code of morality? Rational Moral Law? Innante Human Morality? This is something philosophers have been debating for a long time. You can't have an asbolute moral law when no one can agree on one.
In theory, America is based on rational moral law (Kant?). In practice, we are based on relative morality. Whatever WE think is right is what we are going to impose on everyone else until someone makes us stop.
---Andrew
I cannot tell you whether i believe in an absoloute morality- because to be perfectly honest i don't know. Have you done philosophy or ethics? Just wondering because a lot of this is involved in my course. And I <3 Immanuel Kant. lmao
-
Wouldn't you count the vito of the UN resolution a 'NO'?
Nope. Cause the UN veto it didn't stop us. When I said "NO" I meant, somehow putting the US (or anyone) in a position where they WON'T or CAN'T do it.
For example, when your dog does something wrong, you smack it on the nose and say "NO!". Your dog at that point wont do it again for fear of getting smacked. That's a "NO". If you just say "Puppy, please stop that" you wont get a reaction.
I cannot tell you whether i believe in an absoloute morality- because to be perfectly honest i don't know. Have you done philosophy or ethics? Just wondering because a lot of this is involved in my course. And I <3 Immanuel Kant. lmao
Yeah, i've studied a lot of philosophy and religion. 16 years of catholic education will do that.
To be honest Rosie, i'm not sure if I believe in absolute or relative morality either. So you're certianly not alone there. The fun part is, we have no way of knowing which is right. So even if you BELIEVE in absolute morality, you still have to acknowledge that it is logically feasible you are wrong :wink:
Thats the best thing about philosophy, it loves to prove itself wrong!
-
Yeah, i got an A on my essay on the Cosmological argument, and no-one else in the class did! I have had to write essays on the Teleological argument, and Utilitarianism since then. They are due in tommorrow! arghh.
Okay, some advice. For my coursework i have to write a 2500 word essay on a question of my choice. I have narrowed the decision down to:
-In what ways has the biblical concept of creation been hindered by modern science?
-A contrasting study of Dualism and Monism.
-A study of Christian Cults and their attractions.
-"A religion founded on reason is more valid than one founded on blind faith" Discuss.
-Or something about AIDS and catholics, that question i would have to devise myself.
-
-A study of Christian Cults and their attractions.
i like that one.
not sure if your teacher will...but i do.
-
But the blackwidow spider doesn't have a police force around to prevent her from doing so. If the US had no police force and women had a good logical survival based reason to kill and eat their husbands (for example, her husband would kill their child) then it would, in fact, be "right". Right <> Moral. Right = Decision with the best possible outcome for the decision maker.
See my above post for a comment on the difference between making the right logical choice and being "morally right".
Given that definition, I'll ammend what I said replacing the word right with moral and the word wrong with immoral. Now which is the right question to ask? Was it moral? or was it right? Pffft. I can't even start to get my head around trying to answer that at the moment (hard day). But yeah, I understand the difference you are pointing out.
-Kev
-
-"A religion founded on reason is more valid than one founded on blind faith" Discuss.
Ooooh. That could be a fun one. You could even discuss rational moral law and how humans are capable of devising a proper way to live based purely on the reasoning abilites given to us by our creator.
OR
You could go the opposite direction and talk about how human reason is flawed and we can never prove the existance of a God therefore reason is fragile and a weak base for religion.
---Andrew
-
-"A religion founded on reason is more valid than one founded on blind faith" Discuss.
Ooooh. That could be a fun one. You could even discuss rational moral law and how humans are capable of devising a proper way to live based purely on the reasoning abilites given to us by our creator.
OR
You could go the opposite direction and talk about how human reason is flawed and we can never prove the existance of a God therefore reason is fragile and a weak base for religion.
---Andrew
Were you one of those kids that asked your teachers for homework ? :wink:
-
Were you one of those kids that asked your teachers for homework ? :wink:
Only in Sex ed. :wink:
-
Were you one of those kids that asked your teachers for homework ? :wink:
Only in Sex ed. :wink:
i dont think that can be classified as homework...Thats one of the classes where what they teach you is actually applicable in real life, unlike that calculus stuff..yuck
-
-"A religion founded on reason is more valid than one founded on blind faith" Discuss.
Ooooh. That could be a fun one. You could even discuss rational moral law and how humans are capable of devising a proper way to live based purely on the reasoning abilites given to us by our creator.
OR
You could go the opposite direction and talk about how human reason is flawed and we can never prove the existance of a God therefore reason is fragile and a weak base for religion.
---Andrew
Well the thing is, are any religions founded on reason? If so wouldn't that be a deductive argument? And then wouldn't that prove the existance of god? You see, that is easily the one i am most drawn too- but to write a 2500 word essay on it may be hard- because it is hard to think of a religion with reason placed behind it and not 'blind faith'.
ooh P.S- today we were doing rational moral law in Ethics, i was like 'blimey! this is scary!'
-
:) I so want to be doing your A-Levels Rosie!
Here's what I would write on a couple of them.
In what ways has the biblical concept of creation been hindered by modern science?
It would appear to me that the biblical account of creation is in no way hindered by science. But rather it is hindered by both a common misunderstanding that everything naturalistic, including the belief system of evolution, somehow falls under the umbrella of science (true science being only the emprical observation of reality in the present) and the persistence of old paradigms (foundational ideas not rejected in spite of observation to the contrary) within the scientific community. An important question might be, Is it actually science that's hampered?
"A new scientific proof is usually not propogated in such a way that opponents become conviced and discard their previous views. No, the adversaries eventually die off, and the upcoming generation is familiarised anew with the truth." - Max Planck, Philosopher of science (1858-1947)
A religion founded on reason is more valid than one founded on blind faith" Discuss.
At first it would appear to be yes, to say something is founded on blind faith is just another way of saying that it's unfounded. But on second thought, what do we know about the origin of reason? Do we place a blind faith in the reasoning systems within our brains? For instance, if our brains are the result of a chance random process then how can we trust our own reasoning?
Fun :) (yeah I'm a loser, lol)
-Kev
P.S. This reminded me of something from my essay days. I used to write "The End" at the bottom of all my essays for a joke in GCSE English because it annoyed my teacher so badly. lol
-
because it is hard to think of a religion with reason placed behind it and not 'blind faith'.
Almost any belief in God or a god is founded in the reason that the existence of design implies a designer. Maybe that can kickstart a thousand words or so ;)
-Kev
-
Well the thing is, are any religions founded on reason? If so wouldn't that be a deductive argument? And then wouldn't that prove the existance of god? You see, that is easily the one i am most drawn too- but to write a 2500 word essay on it may be hard- because it is hard to think of a religion with reason placed behind it and not 'blind faith'.
ooh P.S- today we were doing rational moral law in Ethics, i was like 'blimey! this is scary!'
I don't know of any religions founded on reason, but I know some that use reason as a basis for argument. Many catholic sects do.
But logic and reason don't prove the existance of God. They just prove the existance of human logic.
Start with Descartes "I think therefore I am" attempt at proving the existence of God. That might spark your thinking and push you in the right direction.
---Andrew
-
Stop it.. you're drifting my thread too far away from politics.. Now I have to tie in somehow.. hmmm... ok:
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they believe in God (by eight percentage points), in heaven (by 10 points), in hell (by 15 points), and considerably more likely to believe in the devil (by 17 points). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they believe in reincarnation (by 14 percentage points), in astrology (by 14 points), in ghosts (by eight points) and UFOs (by five points).
Way to go Dems... (walk slowly away from Andrew without making any sudden movements)
-
lol.. waste of space...
-
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they believe in God (by eight percentage points), in heaven (by 10 points), in hell (by 15 points), and considerably more likely to believe in the devil (by 17 points). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they believe in reincarnation (by 14 percentage points), in astrology (by 14 points), in ghosts (by eight points) and UFOs (by five points).
That's simple to explain. Republicans are 10 percentage points more likely to lie in a random poll.
Way to go Dems... (walk slowly away from Andrew without making any sudden movements)
Don't make me sick Montecore on you.
---Andrew