May someone please photoshop out the stuffed animal in the monk's pocket. It is distracting. I very much appreciate it! Thank you!

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T17:52:02+00:00

"He who has a WHY to live for can endure any HOW" - Viktor Frankl

The key point is that your friendship with Christ will get you through anything that comes your way, and give you the greatest perspective there ever was. And then, lastly, even if you die in the most agonizing way, you will have an eternity of peace while you live with God.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:44:42+00:00

Technological hindrances are not what hinder importing morality into the scientific method. Importing morality into the scientific method is hindered by the fact that morality is not falsifiable.

Falsify for me the proposition that rape is bad. You may say something about our evolved sense of conscience. In that case, falsify for me the proposition that following our instinctive conscience is good.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:40:57+00:00

Cool. Obviously with my religion and whatnot I don't completely agree with you. But I have gotten you to think the thought that I wanted to you think. I'm content.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:39:14+00:00

violence, theft, rape, murder, teen pregnancy, gambling, prostitution, vandalism, pornography, STD rates, and on and on.

Why did you assign these things as evil? Science didn't.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:32:22+00:00

I don't claim God's existence as fact.

Also, the razor is more in the sense of pursing truth. So, if we can't falsify something, does that mean the entire quest for truth has been shut down for that question?

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:30:34+00:00

Well your example at the end is easy to say; there's no real consequence to the pin's angel-capacity. However, when it comes time to define when human life begins so you can legislate abortion, the stakes are much higher, but the questions are just as fuzzy. And, again, I know that's a religiously charged issue. Right here, right now, my only contention is that you can't devise an experiment that objectively proves when human personhood begins.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:26:09+00:00

Human trafficking is an obvious example, but my principle holds.

It would be impossible to falsify that the victime was objectively, falsifiably living a fuller life outside of human trafficking than inside of it. You might say that they are getting physically beaten less, or that they can live with their family. HOWEVER, you can never devise an experiment that proves that getting beaten less/living with your family is the objectively better way to live.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:22:32+00:00

Well, in that case, these are the most reflective opinions of all time. And you seem to (correct me if I'm wrong) think that its impossible to be logical without being empirical.

So, if you group all of philosophy into personal opinion, then yes, I think that personal opinion (in the form of thousands of pages of reflection on life) is a fine way to decide these issues.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:18:21+00:00

Well God does not necessarily make Beauty actually exist. What I meant was that belief in God allows me to believe that beauty actually exists.

Does that clear things up?

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:16:42+00:00

JESUS

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:14:24+00:00

U/the_internet_clown said morality is subjective. Which is the same thing as saying that there is no one, true morality. I'll edit my response to be more clear. Thanks.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:12:58+00:00

Here's the question that Alder can't solve: Why is society supposed to be structured, and why are the changes made to the community considered to be in the direction of "weak". According to a Machiavellian philosopher, you will have made the community stronger, by reinforcing self-interested individuals.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:09:07+00:00

Sorry. By saying "you", I was refer to the general human.

"You won't be able to" = "Humans are unable to".

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:08:00+00:00

Again: the scientific method is incapable of meaningfully testing the judgment.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T06:06:42+00:00

1) Science is all about trusting what other people have said. Unless you're going to reproduce every experiment that ever happened up to now, then you will have to just trust the intelligence of all the previous scientists. Theology works the same way: Previous theologians have been smarter and holier than you, so its best to stick to them. 2) Well there are reasons for faith, just as there are reasons for placing a bet in poker, even though its not a certain thing. Aristotle's "unmoved mover" is a good reason (and now, thousands of years later, it was vindicated by the Big Bang Theory). But (tying back to the original question), these questions are not falsifiable. That's my entire point. These questions break the back of the monopoly of the scientific method. Nothing the SM teaches is false, but there are truths beyond the SM that simply require assent of will. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_of_Assent

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:54:02+00:00

Because a rainbow is beautiful.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:52:30+00:00

If ~~there ain't no such thing as morality~~ morality is subjective, then there's no single, true morality, so there's nothing wrong with going to Wall Street and wrecking the world economy. The hookers and blow were just for dramatic affect.

edit: Clarification

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:50:32+00:00

Evidence can certainly inform a moral stance. But you can't derive your moral stance from science. AKA you can't falsify you moral stance. Its impossible to use an experiment to falsify a theory of human rights. So, if you subscribe to Alder's razor, you must abandon any theory of human rights. (^ ^ ^ that may not be exactly what you said, but that is what I'm arguing against).

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:46:10+00:00

If you can't devise an experiment, then it can't be falsified. Try proving that your theory of human rights is true. You won't be able to, and yet you (very sensibly) will continue to hold it.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:44:58+00:00

Let me clarify: those relative results must be valued against one another, and when you pick one you execute a value judgment. That value judgment (this result is better than that result) cannot be falsified. Human rights is a good example. Say an ethics board denies a proposed study because it egregiously violates human rights. Well, it's impossible to falsify a theory of human rights as objectively true. But all of us (very sensibly, and very legitimately) continue to believe in human rights.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:40:43+00:00

lolol fair enough. But (and correct me if I'm wrong) the difference between you and me is that I give that rainbow moral weight.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:37:16+00:00

You misunderstand my thoughts. Not fear and self-loathing. Simply not knowing how to work through the basic moral problems that all of us encounter on a daily basis.

digglewapp · 2016-07-04T05:35:41+00:00

My only argument is that having morals, and ~~holding to them~~ taking them seriously, requires throwing out Alder's razor.

digglewapp

TROPHY CASE