nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

A hypothetical dilemma?

Soul Winner

What would you do if you were faced with this hypothetical dilemma?

You find out tomorrow that a new scientific study has projected that caring and looking after the old, the weak, the feeble, the diseased, the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, in short the burdensome of society, was going to cause the sure demise of the human race within 70 years?

That because we use up so much resources and spend so much time and money taking care of the weak and sick in hospitals and homes etc, that using up the resources of the fit in caring for the weak will result in the life force and strength being sucked out of the human race rendering itself weak, capable only of procreating more weak into society and less fit, spiraling down to a situation where there are only weak remaining and no fit left to take care of them resulting in death for all.

How would you personally view the weak and needy of society if this was an irrefutable and - should things continue as they are - irreversible outcome based on a valid and sound scientific projection on the future of the human race?

Would you:

A) Agree that we should never again care for people in need in order that the human race as a whole will survive and benefit in the long run?

Or:

Say 'to hoot with what science projects, I'd rather we died out as a race caring for the needy instead of surviving, because morally that is the right thing to do?'

Curious to know what your answers will be and why, giving that your answer can only be either A or B above.

If your answer is A, then what is the ultimate point of simply surviving in a world which treats its weak and needy in this way?

If your answer is B, then why would you allow your race to die out based on an inner sense of morality that is ultimately meaningless?

Find more posts tagged with

eugeniks

Quick Links

Comments

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know but once given the evidence from the research then you either proceed on the basis of that evidence or not. If you do then you are acting in faith on the basis of the evidence. At some point you must act in faith.

No, you may be too lazy or uncaring, or simply not smart enough to replicate them yourself, but at no stage must you act in faith.

Science is what you learnt in school - remember repeating experiments? You may current be taking it on 'faith' that the force of gravity is 9.8 m/s2, but you don't have to, and that's true of all science.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Could that be possibly that you don't understand the difference between personal proclamations about the supernatural (I saw a ghost!/I speak with God!/I feel the world is going to end tomorrow!) and scientific research (we have accurately modelled a photon and here is all the research and data and you can, if you want to, do the same thing we did and you should come up with the same results)

Nope. I know the difference. My point is that at some point you must act in faith on the information you are given, be it by religious pronouncements or from a scientific study. In the scenario I posted it was made certain that the outcome would be either A or B based on scientific research. But what happens after that is action based upon the reliability of the evidence that is presented.

Soul Winner

darjeeling wrote: »

Was there a clash? How exciting! And how did I miss it?
We had different ideas of what you were asking. Is that what characterises the 'right to life' debate?

Clash was probably too strong a word, sorry bout that.

darjeeling wrote: »

Does a belief in a god who created humans to fulfil some divine plan not mean you think humans ought to survive long enough to see it through? Could not an equally valid religious case be made for keeping humans - who, if memory serves, were instructed by God to 'be fruitful and multiply' - surviving as a species?

Yes I'm sure it could. But I would still have a right to pick option B wouldn't I?

darjeeling wrote: »

I think that was because they were only following orders. Your scenario premised that the science was correct and asked, given that, what was the right course of action. Some people went along with you, others (including me) stepped outside your scenario and said they would see the scientific claims as unsound.

The claim for the outcome to be correct was based on scientific research which was incontrovertible by other scientific research.

Soul Winner

pH wrote: »

No, you may be too lazy or uncaring, or simply not smart enough to replicate them yourself, but at no stage must you act in faith.

Science is what you learnt in school - remember repeating experiments? You may current be taking it on 'faith' that the force of gravity is 9.8 m/s2, but you don't have to, and that's true of all science.

Your conclusion stems from a misunderstanding of what the word faith means. Faith is any action that is based on any belief, it doesn't have to be religious, it can be a belief which is held because of an exposure to scientific evidence that is presented. I don't need to understand what gravity is before I act in faith that it is real. I'm so convinced that gravity is real that I never get out of bed and expect my feet to hit the ceiling instead of the floor, I will always act as though they will hit the floor. At some point from the taking in of knowledge that such and such is true based on whatever research is presented there will always come the point where you will act as though it is true. That is faith.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nope. I know the difference. My point is that at some point you must act in faith on the information you are given, be it by religious pronouncements or from a scientific study.

I'm struggling to understand the definition of "faith" you are using if you genuinely believe that and understand what scientific research is.

The idea that you "act on faith" based on scientific research is rather nonsensical. The very point of scientific research is that you assess what we know about something, how much we know about something and what we don't know about something.

Where does the faith come into it?

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the scenario I posted it was made certain that the outcome would be either A or B based on scientific research. But what happens after that is action based upon the reliability of the evidence that is presented.

Yes and part of science itself is the assessment of how reliable something is. These are known as error bars.

You never go "God I hope this is right" in science.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Faith is any action that is based on any belief, it doesn't have to be religious, it can be a belief which is held because of an exposure to scientific evidence that is presented.

That is a some what ridiculous definition of faith. Under that definition me wanting to use the bathroom is an act of faith. What if it turns out I didn't actually want to!!

That just makes "faith" as a term some what meaningless.

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your conclusion stems from a misunderstanding of what the word faith means. Faith is any action that is based on any belief, it doesn't have to be religious, it can be a belief which is held because of an exposure to scientific evidence that is presented. I don't need to understand what gravity is before I act in faith that it is real. I'm so convinced that gravity is real that I never get out of bed and expect my feet to hit the ceiling instead of the floor, I will always act as though they will hit the floor. At some point from the taking in of knowledge that such and such is true based on whatever research is presented there will always come the point where you will act as though it is true. That is faith.

Surely by definition "the knowledge that such & such is true based on whatever research is presented" means there is no need for faith - you have proof?

I always thought faith was used to describe peoples beliefs with regards to the unprovable. I don't need faith in gravity because everyone can see it exists & everyone experiences it. The same can't be said about God.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a some what ridiculous definition of faith. Under that definition me wanting to use the bathroom is an act of faith. What if it turns out I didn't actually want to!!

That just makes "faith" as a term some what meaningless.

You wanting to use the bathroom is based on the need to relieve yourself of unwanted bodily fluids and/or solids. This is brought on by the assimilation of liquids and solids into the body through the process of ingestion and digestion. Gravity pulls on these substances through the body and triggers nerve sensors in the bowels and bladder which sends a message to your brain which tells you that you need to go to the bathroom, only then can you want to go to the bathroom. If you get to the bathroom and find that you do not want to relieve yourself then I can only put that down to a short circuitry in your nerve endings in your bowels which you might need to ask your doctor about. However be that as it may, it has nothing to do with faith as I have described it and why you brought it up is a mystery to me.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your conclusion stems from a misunderstanding of what the word faith means. Faith is any action that is based on any belief, it doesn't have to be religious, it can be a belief which is held because of an exposure to scientific evidence that is presented. I don't need to understand what gravity is before I act in faith that it is real. I'm so convinced that gravity is real that I never get out of bed and expect my feet to hit the ceiling instead of the floor, I will always act as though they will hit the floor. At some point from the taking in of knowledge that such and such is true based on whatever research is presented there will always come the point where you will act as though it is true. That is faith.

So what's the word used for believing in something without evidence?

Soul Winner

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely by definition "the knowledge that such & such is true based on whatever research is presented" means there is no need for faith - you have proof?

I always thought faith was used to describe peoples beliefs with regards to the unprovable. I don't need faith in gravity because everyone can see it exists & everyone experiences it. The same can't be said about God.

Well before you even get that knowledge, you are assuming that the process - in this case the scientific method - by which you obtain that knowledge is sound (and it more than likely is) but to act as though the process of attaining the knowledge is sound is also acting in faith, never mind what you do after you receive said knowledge. The tired and tested scientific method of drawing conclusions based on available evidence, experimentation, testing and so on is so good that it is not even questioned anymore (and I'm not for one minute suggestion that it should be) but is is still assumed and therefore acted upon as though it were true. That is faith by definition.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

You wanting to use the bathroom is based on the need to relieve yourself of unwanted bodily fluids and/or solids. This is brought on by the assimilation of liquids and solids into the body through the process of ingestion and digestion. Gravity pulls on these substances through the body and triggers nerve sensors in the bowels and bladder which sends a message to your brain which tells you that you need to go to the bathroom, only then can you want to go to the bathroom. If you get to the bathroom and find that you do not want to relieve yourself then I can only put that down to a short circuitry in your nerve endings in your bowels which you might need to ask your doctor about. However be that as it may, it has nothing to do with faith as I have described it and why you brought it up is a mystery to me.

Because that is what you are claiming "faith" is, an action based on a belief. I believe I have to go to the bathroom, I get up and go to the bathroom. Is that an act of faith? No, of course not. It is though an act based on a belief I hold.

I agree totally that me going to the bathroom has nothing to do with faith but then neither does the stuff you are talking about.

Faith is trust that something or someone will be or act in such a way that produces a favourable or desired outcome for you without strong evidence to support that idea. No one ever says they have "faith" that their little girl is going to be found raped and murdered in a ditch some where.

You have faith your lost puppy will be found ok, despite you not knowing where he is or what has happened to him. What that means is that you trust the universe will not cause your lost puppy to be harmed and that he will be returned safely

You have faith your girlfriend is not going to cheat on you in Ibiza, despite you not going with her and her being surrounded by horny men for a week. What that means is that you trust your girl friend will not do something that would hurt you

You have faith that the Bible stories are correct despite them being written 2000 years ago by people who you cannot meet making claims you cannot verify. What that means is that you trust that the Bible was inspired by God and that it is accurate.

Faith is ultimately an act of trust, you trust someone or something that they will not let you down. Trusting someone to do something bad is some what meaningless (why would anyone do that?) and thus so is faith that doesn't produce a positive outcome.

The point is that trust is exactly what you do not do with science. In science you don't trust anyone. Nothing is to be taken on faith.

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

So what's the word used for believing in something without evidence?

Also faith. Any action based on any belief whether there is evidence for that belief or not is faith. Every act you do is faith based when yo think about it. You assume that the universe is not going to disintegrate within the next five seconds and you act accordingly, that is faith too. You don't know that it won't disintegrate, you have no evidence that it will stay as is and yet you act as those it will.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Also faith. Any action based on any belief whether there is evidence for that belief or not is faith. Every act you do is faith based when yo think about it. You assume that the universe is not going to disintegrate within the next five seconds and you act accordingly, that is faith too. You don't know that it won't disintegrate, you have no evidence that it will stay as is and yet you act as those it will.

Is that not the same as belief so belief = faith, faith = belief? I have faith that if I put two apples and two oranges in a bowl there will be four pieces of fruit in that bowl, I have faith my name is Adam, I have faith i'm sitting down right now, I have faith I can speak English. Is there not one word in the English language that distinguishes belief without evidence from all other belief and is that word not faith? I believe it is and I base my belief on wiktionary.

Sam Vimes

Faith is believing something without evidence. If you define faith in a very specific way, ie I personally don't have the evidence right now, then I am taking it on faith that gravity makes us accelerate at 9.8m/s2

But that is of course the wrong way to define faith. I may not have looked at the evidence for the theory of gravity but it most certainly exists and if I wanted to I could go and look it up and once I look it up, if the equations are not convincing enough I can do the experiments for myself.

So a better way to define faith would be believing despite no evidence existing

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know but once given the evidence from the research then you either proceed on the basis of that evidence or not. If you do then you are acting in faith on the basis of the evidence. At some point you must act in faith.

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. If you have evidence indicating that something might be true and you proceed with your experiments based on this evidence, there is no requirement to have faith in the evidence. The evidence can be demonstrated and proven. The only way faith comes into it is you have to have faith in your own ability to interpret the evidence properly. The evidence will always be the same, the only thing that might ever change is your perception of it

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well before you even get that knowledge, you are assuming that the process - in this case the scientific method - by which you obtain that knowledge is sound (and it more than likely is) but to act as though the process of attaining the knowledge is sound is also acting in faith, never mind what you do after you receive said knowledge. The tired and tested scientific method of drawing conclusions based on available evidence, experimentation, testing and so on is so good that it is not even questioned anymore (and I'm not for one minute suggestion that it should be) but is is still assumed and therefore acted upon as though it were true. That is faith by definition.

I'm not sure what you mean. If I drop a stone a billion times it will always fall and hit the floor. If you do it, the same will happen. If anyone else does it, the same will happen. No one in the history of dropping stones on earth has ever had a stone ever do anything other than hit the ground...and so I can safely say that tomorrow, if I drop a stone, it will hit the ground. It's not faith driving that assumption, it's the fact that a stone being dropped millions of times, in millions of places by millions of people has always behaved the same way regardless of tester or location. Anyone can pick up a stone & do likewise, at any time.

I'm not seeing a correlation between that & having faith in something that only some people can see/hear/experience. Surely there is no standard by which you can set religious faith, no worldwide test that can say everyone in the world equivocally will have the same experience? That's the basis for scientific claims, that anyone doing the same experiment will replicate the exact same results, each & every time.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Also faith. Any action based on any belief whether there is evidence for that belief or not is faith. Every act you do is faith based when yo think about it. You assume that the universe is not going to disintegrate within the next five seconds and you act accordingly, that is faith too. You don't know that it won't disintegrate, you have no evidence that it will stay as is and yet you act as those it will.

I can sort of see your point in a "we cannot truly know anything" kind of way. When it comes down to it, the only thing I can be absolutely sure exists is my own consciousness. It is actually impossible to prove that we are capable of rational though because we must first assume that our reasoning is sound

But that is a very high level philosophical argument and doesn't really apply to the real world. I know my computer is here because I can touch it. Knowing it is there does not require faith in the conventional sense. It can be demonstrated to the best of human ability that it is there. The same is not true of God, so faith is required to believe.

Basically, not all faith is equal. There is the faith that comes from lack of confidence in human ability to interpret evidence and there is faith that comes from no evidence to be interpreted one way or the other. The former is not normally called faith, it's called knowing

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

The point is that trust is exactly what you do not do with science. In science you don't trust anyone. Nothing is to be taken on faith.

From "Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig:

"...Compare the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Crucial to that theory is the so-called Light Postulate, which asserts that light travels in vacuo at a constant speed c. Not only is there no evidence for this postulate, but as numerous commentators have explained, the Light Postulate is inherently unprovable because we can only measure the round-trip speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein claimed, grant me this assumption along with the theory’s other postulate, the Relativity Postulate (which is also impossible to prove!), and I shall provide you with the best explanation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Despite the unprovability of its postulates, the theory as a whole is considered by the majority of physicists to be the best explanation (within its restricted domain of flat spacetime) in view of its theoretical virtues like economy and empirical success."

That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

From "Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig:

"...Compare the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Crucial to that theory is the so-called Light Postulate, which asserts that light travels in vacuo at a constant speed c. Not only is there no evidence for this postulate, but as numerous commentators have explained, the Light Postulate is inherently unprovable because we can only measure the round-trip speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein claimed, grant me this assumption along with the theory’s other postulate, the Relativity Postulate (which is also impossible to prove!), and I shall provide you with the best explanation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Despite the unprovability of its postulates, the theory as a whole is considered by the majority of physicists to be the best explanation (within its restricted domain of flat spacetime) in view of its theoretical virtues like economy and empirical success."

That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The special theory of relativity has shown to be extremely accurate and the theory only works if light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum so the fact that it is accurate is considered evidence that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. This does not mean that the theory could not be proved wrong tomorrow but it is based upon the best currently available evidence.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

From "Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig:

"...Compare the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Crucial to that theory is the so-called Light Postulate, which asserts that light travels in vacuo at a constant speed c. Not only is there no evidence for this postulate, but as numerous commentators have explained, the Light Postulate is inherently unprovable because we can only measure the round-trip speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein claimed, grant me this assumption along with the theory’s other postulate, the Relativity Postulate (which is also impossible to prove!), and I shall provide you with the best explanation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Despite the unprovability of its postulates, the theory as a whole is considered by the majority of physicists to be the best explanation (within its restricted domain of flat spacetime) in view of its theoretical virtues like economy and empirical success."

That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.

Those postulates are accepted because they fit the evidence of what is being presented. Assuming those two things makes all the equations work so it can be reasonably assumed that they are correct without inherently proving them

A more common example would be: we do not currently completely understand the atom, it contains many mysteries and there are many unproveable theories. But that does not mean we can't stick a load of them together and build a house from them

"Faith" based on evidence is not faith, it is "reasonably assuming". It cannot be reasonably assumed that the Judeo Christian god exists any more than we can reasonably assume that pixies exist. We cannot rule out the possibility but we cannot assume it either

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

Is that not the same as belief so belief = faith, faith = belief? I have faith that if I put two apples and two oranges in a bowl there will be four pieces of fruit in that bowl, I have faith my name is Adam, I have faith i'm sitting down right now, I have faith I can speak English. Is there not one word in the English language that distinguishes belief without evidence from all other belief and is that word not faith? I believe it is and I base my belief on wiktionary.

Faith is not the same as belief. For instance, I can believe that planes fly without ever having to get on one. But to have faith that planes fly is to actually get on one. By boarding the plane I am acting on my previously held belief that planes fly. That is the difference between belief and faith. Belief involves the mind whereas faith involves both the mind and the will.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Faith is not the same as belief. For instance, I can believe that planes fly without ever having to get on one. But to have faith that planes fly is to actually get on one. By boarding the plane I am acting on my previously held belief that planes fly. That is the difference between belief and faith. Belief involves the mind whereas faith involves both the mind and the will.

Your definitions of belief and faith are unlike any I've ever heard before. Seems to me you're giving selective definitions to try to make it look like faith in God is on the same level as faith in planes when it's clearly not. I've seen thousands of planes in my life, it has been demonstrated to me that they can fly. I have never seen god or any conclusive evidence for god. The two beliefs are not even similar

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The special theory of relativity has shown to be extremely accurate and the theory only works if light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum so the fact that it is accurate is considered evidence that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. This does not mean that the theory could not be proved wrong tomorrow but it is based upon the best currently available evidence.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Those postulates are accepted because they fit the evidence of what is being presented. Assuming those two things makes all the equations work so it can be reasonably assumed that they are correct without inherently proving them

A more common example would be: we do not currently completely understand the atom, it contains many mysteries and there are many unproveable theories. But that does not mean we can't stick a load of them together and build a house from them

"Faith" based on evidence is not faith, it is "reasonably assuming". It cannot be reasonably assumed that the Judeo Christian god exists any more than we can reasonably assume that pixies exist. We cannot rule out the possibility but we cannot assume it either

The point was that it is not proven, hence the assumption that it is true is acted on as though it were true without proof. I wasn't trying to point out that what was being assumed wasn't true. It most likely is, but some things have to be assumed as true without proof in order to get there right?

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner, Does that mean you have no faith that a plane would fly unless you were on it at the time?

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Faith is not the same as belief. For instance, I can believe that planes fly without ever having to get on one. But to have faith that planes will fly is to actually get on one. By boarding the plane I am acting on my previously held belief that planes fly. That is the difference between belief and faith. Belief involves the mind whereas faith involves both the mind and the will.

That is a pretty weird definition of faith. I believe Australia exists but if I choose to go there I have 'faith' that it exists.

Soul Winner

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Soul Winner, Does that mean you have no faith that a plane would fly unless you were on it at the time?

Yes, exactly. But you can still believe it will fly without ever having to get on it.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

The point was that it is not proven, hence the assumption that it is true is acted on as though it were true without proof. I wasn't trying to point out that what was being assumed wasn't true. It most likely is, but some things have to be assumed as true without proof in order to get there right?

The difference is that Einstein didn't say "accept this assumption because I want it to be true", he said "accept this assumption because every shred of evidence is indicating that it is true". That is the difference between reasonably assuming and faith

Sam Vimes

Soul winner, what is your point exactly? Are you trying to compare faith in god to faith in Australia or do you acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between the two?

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes, exactly. But you can still believe it will fly without ever having to get on it.

I believe aeroplanes fly because I've seen them fly, I've flown in them before & I know an avionics engineer & a pilot. I know there is a specific amount of thrust required to get an object of a particular weight off the ground because experiments have proven this to be the case.

I only have faith that I will get to my destination because I also know planes have crashed, it's the only unknown quantity in this scenario. At no point do I require faith that planes fly, either on the ground or while on board.

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I only have faith that I will get to my destination because I also know planes have crashed, it's the only unknown quantity in this scenario.

I wouldn't even call that faith, I'd call it hope

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

That is a pretty weird definition of faith. I believe Australia exists but if I choose to go there I have 'faith' that it exists.

Say you lived in present day New Zealand and had been to Australia several times and you had a small sailing boat and you set out for Australia because you believe it existed based on previous experiences of the place having been there, then that is to act on a belief which is faith. But let us say that you lived in the 15th century, and nobody ever heard of Australia and you say that you believe it exists based on a revelation you got in a dream but had no tangible evidence of it and you set sail for Australia then? You are still acting in faith based upon a belief. Faith by definition is simply acting on a belief.