Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A hypothetical dilemma?

24

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    There is no ultimate meaning, that is the point. There is no such thing as right and wrong, only circumstance. I'm really trying hard to see where you are going with this, if anywhere.

    I'm not going anywhere with it. I just popped it up in here to see how it would fly. It has turned out more interesting than I thought.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    marco_polo wrote: »
    If God exists it would still be a moral dilemma should scientists discover such a fate was on the cards for humanity.

    What would be the meaning of choosing either option in that case, apart from the fact that the one that happens was (in retrospect of course) Gods will?

    In the absence of God there is no right or wrong choice. Both are made based on internal moral value systems and neither choosers of option A or B can say that the other is wrong.

    In the presence of God and without a divine command in choosing either or, then the best way to proceed is to go with one's own conscience. Without a divine command in respect of the choosing, a just God can only judge you by your motives. He sees the heart so He would know why you chose what you chose, so if your motives in choosing either or were based on what you have internalized as the right choice then there would be nothing to worry about.

    But in the presence of a divine command in choosing either A or B, then obeying the divine command would be the way to go no matter what option that might be.
    marco_polo wrote: »
    In fact if there is absolute morality, how is it that moral dilemas can even exist?

    I could ask the same question but in reverse, if there is no absolute morality then how is it that moral dilemmas can even exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    I can find no other reason for choosing option B that is why I added the moral reason. What other reason could anyone have for choosing option B other than a moral reason? If you think of one let me know.
    One (not very good) reason might be that you or someone you love would be killed off if option A was chosen.
    How do know that my decision is based on "gut feeling"?
    Might be a badly chosen word. In fairness though "gut feeling" isn't a horrible way to describe the voice in your head that says "you can't do that" from time to time.
    Option B is based on a moral decision that is held by people who value the sick and the needy. Option A is based on a moral decision that is held by people who value the survival of the human race. Choosing B doesn't in anyway mean that you are wanting the destruction of the human race anymore than choosing option A means you want to see the sick and weak die.
    I nearly agree with you. However I think you're missing one crucial point though. Regardless of which option you choose the sick and needy will die. So the question becomes which of the two the two consequences would you find the easiest to live with (assuming you survive). This is where we differ. I would justify my choice (A) mathematically (more people survived), biologically (the human species lives on) etc. whereas you presumably justify you decision based on gut feeling morality.

    Besides I fully believe that what is considered unthinkable now may not be so unthinkable in the future. As resources become more sparse it might seem fully justifiable by an overwhelming majority to not take care of the week and needy. The heuristic used for measuring morality has changed a lot over 1000 years, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't change over the next 1000 years.
    But from the perception of someone who chooses option A, choosers of option B look as if they want the destruction of the human race which is a wrong perception just like those who choose option B thinking that choosers of option A want to see the sick and the weak die. Both perceptions are wrong if that's the case but in terms of choosing one or the other both options are as right or as wrong as eachother. What would you choose if this was the case and these were the only options?


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    It's retty black and white to me.

    A) Not everyone dies

    B) Everyone dies

    I choose A.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    pts wrote: »
    One (not very good) reason might be that you or someone you love would be killed off if option A was chosen.

    Why is that not a good reason? Some choosers of option A might call you a selfish fool but who says what they think is right?
    pts wrote: »
    Might be a badly chosen word. In fairness though "gut feeling" isn't a horrible way to describe the voice in your head that says "you can't do that" from time to time.

    I'm not against gut feeling just because I asked you why you think my decision is based on gut feeling. I have gut feeling all the time. When something doesn't feel right for me, nine times out of ten it turns out that way.
    pts wrote: »
    I nearly agree with you. However I think you're missing one crucial point though. Regardless of which option you choose the sick and needy will die. So the question becomes which of the two the two consequences would you find the easiest to live with (assuming you survive). This is where we differ. I would justify my choice (A) mathematically (more people survived), biologically (the human species lives on) etc. whereas you presumably justify you decision based on gut feeling morality.

    I'm not trying to justify my position though, I'm just telling you what I would choose. The fact that you are justifying your position in choosing option A is very telling. It tells me that for some reason you must convince yourself that choosing option A is the right option based on mathematical and biological reasoning. It tells me that your wanting to be right in the decision also stems from an internalized moral obligation to do so. Where does that come from?
    pts wrote: »
    Besides I fully believe that what is considered unthinkable now may not be so unthinkable in the future. As resources become more sparse it might seem fully justifiable by an overwhelming majority to not take care of the week and needy. The heuristic used for measuring morality has changed a lot over 1000 years, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't change over the next 1000 years.

    So if the majority agree does that make it OK? What about the right of option B choosers who don't agree?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    In the absence of God there is no right or wrong choice. Both are made based on internal moral value systems and neither choosers of option A or B can say that the other is wrong.

    In the presence of God and without a divine command in choosing either or, then the best way to proceed is to go with one's own conscience. Without a divine command in respect of the choosing, a just God can only judge you by your motives. He sees the heart so He would know why you chose what you chose, so if your motives in choosing either or were based on what you have internalized as the right choice then there would be nothing to worry about.

    But in the presence of a divine command in choosing either A or B, then obeying the divine command would be the way to go no matter what option that might be.

    So basically with a God there is no right answer in that case either? And once you believe you made the right choice that God is ok with that?

    I still don't see how that give any more meaning to the decision.

    I could ask the same question but in reverse, if there is no absolute morality then how is it that moral dilemmas can even exist.

    Eh, because different people have different interpretations of what is the moral course of action and what is not? Its all relative ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Why is that not a good reason? Some choosers of option A might call you a selfish fool but who says what they think is right?
    I'm not against gut feeling just because I asked you why you think my decision is based on gut feeling. I have gut feeling all the time. When something doesn't feel right for me, nine times out of ten it turns out that way.
    I'm not trying to justify my position though, I'm just telling you what I would choose. The fact that you are justifying your position in choosing option A is very telling. It tells me that for some reason you must convince yourself that choosing option A is the right option based on mathematical and biological reasoning. It tells me that your wanting to be right in the decision also stems from an internalized moral obligation to do so. Where does that come from?
    To answer the above questions. I think it is important to be able to justify my decision. If someone asked me, after I picked option A why I picked A I would like to have an answer (because I just killed billions of people, and the decision will kill billions more in the future).
    I think that a decision, based on all known facts at the time which has been logically derived can't be faulted. The information I had may be wrong, but as long as the derivation is sound how can my decision be criticized?
    However if I make my decision based on my morality I think it would be very easy to disagree with, as people have different value systems.
    So if the majority agree does that make it OK? What about the right of option B choosers who don't agree?
    Depends on how you look at it. If morality is relative (which I believe) then it means that option A is not necessary "right". Option B choosers can disagree as much as they like, but it wasn't their decision to make, it was mine. Something that would probably haunt me for the rest of my life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    marco_polo wrote: »
    So basically with a God there is no right answer in that case either? And once you believe you made the right choice that God is ok with that?

    You asked if God existed, then what. I said that in the absence of a divine command from God that the decision to choose what you thought was the right one would be ok even if God didn't agree. God cannot expect you to know what He thinks unless He reveals what He thinks to you. But if He reveals what He thinks to you and commands you to choose option A then you choosing option B would be wrong. Right and wrong stop with God if He exists, so whatever He says is wrong then that is wrong and whatever He says is right then that is right. If He doesn't exist then neither of the options are right or wrong. One option has long term benefits for the fit in society and the other has short term benefits for the weak. That's it.
    marco_polo wrote: »
    I still don't see how that give any more meaning to the decision.

    Well I can't make it mean anything to you, I can only explain what it means to me.
    marco_polo wrote: »
    Eh, because different people have different interpretations of what is the moral course of action and what is not? Its all relative ;)

    By what is it that makes us want to be right about our choices? Why can't we just do it? Why analyze it to see if its right or not? If there is no God then there is no ultimate definition of what's right and what's wrong, all that's left are subjective opinions on the the matter with nothing ultimately to anchor those opinions to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    It's retty black and white to me.

    A) Not everyone dies

    B) Everyone dies

    I choose A.

    You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    You asked if God existed, then what. I said that in the absence of a divine command from God that the decision to choose what you thought was the right one would be ok even if God didn't agree. God cannot expect you to know what He thinks unless He reveals what He thinks to you. But if He reveals what He thinks to you and commands you to choose option A then you choosing option B would be wrong. Right and wrong stop with God if He exists, so whatever He says is wrong then that is wrong and whatever He says is right then that is right. If He doesn't exist then neither of the options are right or wrong. One option has long term benefits for the fit in society and the other has short term benefits for the weak. That's it.
    Well if you do not know in advance of any given decision which one is morally correct it is not much use as a moral compass. How would that even work? When you die and go to heaven does God go over every decision to make and tell you which ones were right and which ones were wrong.

    If that is the case is it not bit late to use it as a basis for your morality throughout life, what with being dead and all that.
    Well I can't make it mean anything to you, I can only explain what it means to me.



    By what is it that makes us want to be right about our choices? Why can't we just do it? Why analyze it to see if its right or not? If there is no God then there is no ultimate definition of what's right and what's wrong, all that's left are subjective opinions on the the matter with nothing ultimately to anchor those opinions to.

    Exactly. Just because you find that distasteful does not mean it isn't true.

    Out of curiousity say for arguements sake I proved there was no God, do you believe you would start running around killing grannies and eating babies?


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maxine Short Pussycat


    You tell me. What does meaning have to do with your ethical choices? I have mine but what meaning is their in choosing option B in a purely naturalistic world? I'm not saying that there is no meaning in a purely naturalistic world view, I just find it difficult to see what meaning there could be in a world without ultimate meaning and without God there is no ultimate meaning IMO.

    lol?
    with god there is no ultimate meaning, you're some deity's plaything, fit for nothing more than mindless worship, grats.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

    Do we recognise a human right to life? Yes
    Do we recognise a human right to be conceived? No (though the Pope may have something to add on this).

    This leads me towards B, though that's also simply the reality of how we do and ever will behave, meaning this is our best hope of ensuring our species' survival.

    We've evolved to prioritise our blood relatives over the 'greater good of humanity' - that's how evolution works. If one person decided to try to go against this, others wouldn't, and the 'altruist' would end up getting suckered - it's the prisoner's dilemma again. The only way to prevent people helping their needier relatives survive would be to make it illegal: tear up human rights and ruthlessly enforce a law that many feel is wrong. So now you have authoritarianism, which stifles creativity, ties up huge numbers in snooping and policing, and makes people miserable and ill. And this is going to improve the chances of humanity's continued survival? That was the original 'scientific' claim, wasn't it?

    To summarise - the likelihood of humans going on existing into the future (option A) is greatest when you have societies that allow cooperation and mutual help (option B).


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

    Yea i understand, but either option would involve the weak and the needy dying,at least with option A the fit still get to live. Instead of condemning both I'm only condemning one group.

    Personally the thought of living in a world where the needy and weak are rejected repulses me and i'm not sure i could do it, that doesn't make it the right choice in this situation. Sacrifice for survival.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I find it baffling how complicated this thread has gotten.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maxine Short Pussycat


    Zillah wrote: »
    I find it baffling how complicated this thread has gotten.

    to summarise: hypothetical dilemmas are silly, god is the answer to everything, etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Actually to be honest I'm a little irked at all of the people arguing and struggling against the criteria of the hypothetical. It was constructed to reveal your opinions in regard to a particular principle. Trying to redefine the scenario or arguing that it wouldn't happen is utterly irrelevant. Answer the question within the criteria defined or don't bother getting involved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Zillah wrote: »
    Actually to be honest I'm a little irked at all of the people arguing and struggling against the criteria of the hypothetical. It was constructed to reveal your opinions in regard to a particular principle. Trying to redefine the scenario or arguing that it wouldn't happen is utterly irrelevant. Answer the question within the criteria defined or don't bother getting involved.

    Well, what was the principle then? Was it whether the continuation of our species through distant future generations of people should be prioritised over the welfare of the living? If so, I don't agree, as indicated in my last post. You seem to take a different line on what the principle is though:
    Zillah wrote: »
    We're saying that this study is irrefutably correct for the purposes of the hypothetical? Assuming yes:

    Let the weak die.

    And I'll call any man who says otherwise a murderous, selfish, short sighted fool.

    Because I think allowing billions of people die to indulge my short sighted sympathies is a wretchedly selfish thing to do.

    Who are these billions who are dying? Presumably people who are already walking around and not their unborn descendents, who would actually be spared from dying if our premature extinction stopped them being conceived in the first instance.

    So if we've different opinions on what the principle was, maybe there's a problem with the whole question.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Zillah wrote: »
    Actually to be honest I'm a little irked at all of the people arguing and struggling against the criteria of the hypothetical. It was constructed to reveal your opinions in regard to a particular principle. Trying to redefine the scenario or arguing that it wouldn't happen is utterly irrelevant. Answer the question within the criteria defined or don't bother getting involved.

    The far fetched dilema is loaded so that you also have to accept the assertion that life is meaningless without the existence of absolute morality.

    If it is you accept that it is life was pointless just because it is going to end in a years time, then what is the difference in accepting it is also pointless if it ends in a billion years. To the Universe that is hardly any time.

    A - By the way ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    My understanding of the initial scenario was this: We know for sure that continuing to support the elderly, sick and poor of the world (for simplicity sake, let's say those who consume more taxes than they generate) will result in the rapid collapse of human society, resulting in the extinction of our species. The billions dying are those that are alive now, and those that will be born between now and our extinction.

    I suppose that those who would have been born post-extinction should we not have become extinct are a factor to consider, in the sense of wanting our species to continue into the future, but I'm not even factoring those into my response; dooming all those currently alive and soon to be alive is enough for me.

    Perhaps Soul Winner can clarify: I presume the majority of people alive currently would suffer premature deaths as a result of this hypothetical over-consumption/unwise use of resources?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    marco_polo wrote: »
    The far fetched dilema is loaded so that you also have to accept the assertion that life is meaningless without the existence of absolute morality.

    No I don't think so. The initial scenario makes no value judgements. It presents a hypothetical (if admittedly far fetched) scenario and asks you which of two options your response would be.

    The follow up questions imply Soul Winner's views on the matter, but you're fully capable of presenting your own opinion or justification, as I did.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Zillah wrote: »
    No I don't think so. The initial scenario makes no value judgements. It presents a hypothetical (if admittedly far fetched) scenario and asks you which of two options your response would be.

    The follow up questions imply Soul Winner's views on the matter, but you're fully capable of presenting your own opinion or justification, as I did.
    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?

    I believe it is implied by this statement.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Then contest the statement, what's the big fuss about?

    "I would go with option B, however blah blah blah". Certainly doesn't require five pages of contrariness.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

    I would also choose A.

    In this hypothetical, the weak and needy will die slightly later anyway.

    Good thing we will never have to live in that world though, as the hypothetical is ridiculous in the extreme, and loaded to make the pragmatic look bad.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Who defines weak and who defines poor, btw?

    Seems to me that person would need to be completely uncorruptable or the whole thing falls apart anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Caring for people, empathy, is an evolutionary trait, it has served us so well we dominate the globe, now, an issue that we never encountered, hence havn't evolved our empathy to deal with, is our huge success could lead to our downfall due to a lack of resources.

    But our other evolved skill at play, is logic.

    If we have to let the weak die to continue as a species, failing the plethora of other tactics we could use (my starship troopers moment was quite serious), then yes, we would take the logical step, ignoring empathy, and continue the human race, rather than go extinct.

    Down the line obviously we would find a solution other than that, but heck, there would be war quite literally, long before we all starved out, and survival of the fittest, most technologically advanced, and nuclear of nations is a given.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Good thing we will never have to live in that world though, as the hypothetical is ridiculous in the extreme, and loaded to make the pragmatic look bad.

    Crikey, isn't all this fairly pointless?

    Isn't is really easy to come up with "hypothetical" dilemmas such as "OMG the human lifeforce is dying out and it's scientifically proven that the only way of replacing it is to rape babies ... YOU NON-BELIEVERS WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    pH wrote: »
    Crikey, isn't all this fairly pointless?

    Isn't is really easy to come up with "hypothetical" dilemmas such as "OMG the human lifeforce is dying out and it's scientifically proven that the only way of replacing it is to rape babies ... YOU NON-BELIEVERS WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"

    The original hypothetical obviously represents something of interest to Soul Winner, and so is not pointless. You creating random irrelevant hypotheticals is completely pointless, yes, well done. I'll try one: "If bongo drums turned out to be the cause of global warming, would you take and destroy your five year old's bongo drum!?" We can do this all day and it still has no bearing on the original post.
    SDooM wrote:
    Who defines weak and who defines poor, btw?

    Is indulging in the spirit of the hypothetical really that difficult? You have to be able to grasp what Soul Winner is getting at, fill in the irrelevant blanks yourself.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Zillah wrote: »
    Is indulging in the spirit of the hypothetical really that difficult? You have to be able to grasp what Soul Winner is getting at, fill in the irrelevant blanks yourself.

    I did exactly as you asked, I answered the question then went BUT...

    I don't think that blank is irrelevant, tbh. I think it's important. But thats just my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Zillah wrote: »
    The original hypothetical obviously represents something of interest to Soul Winner, and so is not pointless.

    You may choose to believe that I guess.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Was just thinking, maybe letting the human race die off would be more moral... what with them killing the world with pollution and whatnot.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    this thread reminds me of this video:

    The Colbert Reports DOOM BUNKER

    if you want to know what he's parodying, check out Glenn Becks War Room, a man who would be funny if he wasn't so dangerous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    this thread reminds me of this video:

    The Colbert Reports DOOM BUNKER

    if you want to know what he's parodying, check out Glenn Becks War Room, a man who would be funny if he wasn't so dangerous.

    Ha ha Colbert is such a legend! :D


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    c) Train monkeys to look after the elderly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    My simple question was what you would choose between A or B and why. So far only Zilah and Seanybike were courageous enough to answer it.

    Hum... my answer was pretty much 'A', but worse, I've used the Ark model saving only a few (thousand) people from the collapse.
    Even as hypothetical situations go it doesn't make much sense, why would humans die off with in 70 years? Running out of resources?

    No matter how hard we try to take care of the 'weak' and the sick they will be the first to go as we run out of resources thus eliminating the 'problem'...

    We may get knocked back to the stone age (figuratively speaking) but some people will survive even if it's just the Amish and some tribesmen in the amazon.

    If I'm forced to take a pure A or B stand point then I'll say B if you mean population collapse for believable but hypothetical reasons, because frankly it will inevitably lead to A once a sufficient number has died off due to the resource short fall ... Civilization may collapse but Humans won't die out from a mere resource short fall (it'll be one or more of the following: plague (natural or artificial), grey goo scenario, massive asteroid impact, massive volcanism, and so on.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Thank you one and all for all your replies. I know it is a stupid and unrealistic scenario but the replies where interesting all the same. I thought the Zilah and Darjeeling clash was interesting though, just like the right to life debate.

    The post wasn't put up in order to catch anyone out or anything, just something that popped into my head to do. I suppose I just wanted to see what people who don't believe in absolutes would do in such a scenario, the thinking is not as universal as I thought. If I didn't believe in God or the supernatural then I'd probably go with option A.

    Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research. Reminds me of religious people believing in a doom and gloom prophecy prior to which they must act in a cetain way in order to avoid it coming to pass. Again this wasn't the purpose of the thread either, just an interesting latter observation. Anyway thanks guys.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research..

    Scientific research doesn't require faith to believe in. That's what makes it scientific.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    No the 'poor' in this hypothetical scenario would be anyone who would serve as a drain on society. Like Welfare recipients who put no effort whatsoever into finding work, don't involve themselves in any other extra curricular activities whilst in the process of looking for work, that would benefit society in other ways. You know, leaches.

    oh those poor :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research.
    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)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Thank you one and all for all your replies. I know it is a stupid and unrealistic scenario but the replies where interesting all the same. I thought the Zilah and Darjeeling clash was interesting though, just like the right to life debate.

    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?
    If I didn't believe in God or the supernatural then I'd probably go with option A.

    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?
    Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    MatthewVII wrote: »
    Scientific research doesn't require faith to believe in. That's what makes it scientific.

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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?
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement