Reality and Morality

[Derideo_Te]

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

Your own link calls medicine an art as much as it is a science, PoliticalSpice, or did you just search on the term "science"?

Of course you did!

Try reading the entire link and see how many times the term art is used. Who knows, you might learn something but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

Your own link calls medicine an art as much as it is a science, PoliticalSpice, or did you just search on the term "science"?

Of course you did!

Try reading the entire link and see how many times the term art is used. Who knows, you might learn something but I won't be holding my breath.

So....one who practices "the science of medicine" (you might learn from reading the quotes I provide) can't be called a scientist?

How about this, dunce:
"As someone who works in an academic hospital, I know many physician-scientists. They are physicians by virtue of completing medical school, residency, fellowship, and, often, from years of seeing patients. And, they are scientists by the narrow definition of science that seems to be favored these days."
Clinician researchers meet the physician scientists


You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

Your own link calls medicine an art as much as it is a science, PoliticalSpice, or did you just search on the term "science"?

Of course you did!

Try reading the entire link and see how many times the term art is used. Who knows, you might learn something but I won't be holding my breath.

So....one who practices "the science of medicine" (you might learn from reading the quotes I provide) can't be called a scientist?

How about this, dunce:
"As someone who works in an academic hospital, I know many physician-scientists. They are physicians by virtue of completing medical school, residency, fellowship, and, often, from years of seeing patients. And, they are scientists by the narrow definition of science that seems to be favored these days."
Clinician researchers meet the physician scientists


You can run, but you can't hide.

You just proved my point!

They need to be called "physician-scientists" in order to distinguish them from physicians and from regular scientists.

Physicians are well aware that no matter how much scientific knowledge they acquire, (and no, mere knowledge of science doesn't make you a scientist) their primary role is health CARE. They don't treat each patient as a science experiment which is what an actual scientist would do.

Being clueless comes so naturally to you, doesn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

Your own link calls medicine an art as much as it is a science, PoliticalSpice, or did you just search on the term "science"?

Of course you did!

Try reading the entire link and see how many times the term art is used. Who knows, you might learn something but I won't be holding my breath.

So....one who practices "the science of medicine" (you might learn from reading the quotes I provide) can't be called a scientist?

How about this, dunce:
"As someone who works in an academic hospital, I know many physician-scientists. They are physicians by virtue of completing medical school, residency, fellowship, and, often, from years of seeing patients. And, they are scientists by the narrow definition of science that seems to be favored these days."
Clinician researchers meet the physician scientists


You can run, but you can't hide.

You just proved my point!

They need to be called "physician-scientists" in order to distinguish them from physicians and from regular scientists.

Physicians are well aware that no matter how much scientific knowledge they acquire, (and no, mere knowledge of science doesn't make you a scientist) their primary role is health CARE. They don't treat each patient as a science experiment which is what an actual scientist would do.

Being clueless comes so naturally to you, doesn't it?

How about we leave it up to readers of our respective posts as to whom the title "clueless" applies.

I promise it won't hurt the reputation you've earned.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

Looks like you have worn out yet another shovel on that hole you insist on for yourself.

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

Your own link calls medicine an art as much as it is a science, PoliticalSpice, or did you just search on the term "science"?

Of course you did!

Try reading the entire link and see how many times the term art is used. Who knows, you might learn something but I won't be holding my breath.

So....one who practices "the science of medicine" (you might learn from reading the quotes I provide) can't be called a scientist?

How about this, dunce:
"As someone who works in an academic hospital, I know many physician-scientists. They are physicians by virtue of completing medical school, residency, fellowship, and, often, from years of seeing patients. And, they are scientists by the narrow definition of science that seems to be favored these days."
Clinician researchers meet the physician scientists


You can run, but you can't hide.

You just proved my point!

They need to be called "physician-scientists" in order to distinguish them from physicians and from regular scientists.

Physicians are well aware that no matter how much scientific knowledge they acquire, (and no, mere knowledge of science doesn't make you a scientist) their primary role is health CARE. They don't treat each patient as a science experiment which is what an actual scientist would do.

Being clueless comes so naturally to you, doesn't it?

How about we leave it up to readers of our respective posts as to whom the title "clueless" applies.

I promise it won't hurt the reputation you've earned.

Thank you for conceding that you cannot defend your ignorance and your futile attempts to disparage science. Have a nice day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Physicians aren't scientists,..."

"Medical practice properly requires both a detailed knowledge of the academic disciplines (such as anatomy and physiology) underlying diseases and their treatment – the science of medicine – and also a decent competence in its applied practice – the art or craft of medicine."
Physician - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Three strikes.

You're out.

Your own link calls medicine an art as much as it is a science, PoliticalSpice, or did you just search on the term "science"?

Of course you did!

Try reading the entire link and see how many times the term art is used. Who knows, you might learn something but I won't be holding my breath.

So....one who practices "the science of medicine" (you might learn from reading the quotes I provide) can't be called a scientist?

How about this, dunce:
"As someone who works in an academic hospital, I know many physician-scientists. They are physicians by virtue of completing medical school, residency, fellowship, and, often, from years of seeing patients. And, they are scientists by the narrow definition of science that seems to be favored these days."
Clinician researchers meet the physician scientists


You can run, but you can't hide.

You just proved my point!

They need to be called "physician-scientists" in order to distinguish them from physicians and from regular scientists.

Physicians are well aware that no matter how much scientific knowledge they acquire, (and no, mere knowledge of science doesn't make you a scientist) their primary role is health CARE. They don't treat each patient as a science experiment which is what an actual scientist would do.

Being clueless comes so naturally to you, doesn't it?

How about we leave it up to readers of our respective posts as to whom the title "clueless" applies.

I promise it won't hurt the reputation you've earned.

Thank you for conceding that you cannot defend your ignorance and your futile attempts to disparage science. Have a nice day.

I did defend and prove it.

You, on the other hand....

1. Were pilloried when you posted this false statement: "Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist."


2. Then, this: "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

a. Of course you attempted to hide your faux pas with this obfuscation: " Euthanasia has been around long before science,..."
....when there was no post that suggested any time frame.


3. And this..."Physicians aren't scientists,..."



What is clear from those posts is that kernels of truth in your posts are harder to find than an out-of-order parking meter downtown...
..., and revealing ignorance isn't something rare for you,either.

So....let's allow readers to decide who is "clueless."



I’d love to hear the rest of your rant, but I’m very busy…I have several more quarters to flip

 

[Derideo_Te]

.let's allow readers to decide

Both you and Peach are using the exact same moronic cop out tactic because you cannot defend your feckless positions against the hard facts.

Were you both reading the same extreme rightwing talking points or did you hear it on Hate AM instead?

 

[PoliticalChic]

.let's allow readers to decide

Both you and Peach are using the exact same moronic cop out tactic because you cannot defend your feckless positions against the hard facts.

Were you both reading the same extreme rightwing talking points or did you hear it on Hate AM instead?

If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid.

 

[Ava]

Science is about knowledge, reason and logic as they apply to reality.

Morality is about how we treat each other with respect to our own actions.

Science is not a "religion" and no amount of fatuous threads by PoliticalSpice is ever going to alter "reality" to fit her delusions.

"PoliticalSpice" I like that for her as she is one necessary ingredient for fine and satisfying OPs for all sides. Just look at all the people who partake of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is about knowledge, reason and logic as they apply to reality.

Morality is about how we treat each other with respect to our own actions.

Science is not a "religion" and no amount of fatuous threads by PoliticalSpice is ever going to alter "reality" to fit her delusions.

"PoliticalSpice" I like that for her as she is one necessary ingredient for fine and satisfying OPs for all sides. Just look at all the people who partake of them.

If I'm a 'spice'.....you're a peach!

Thank you, AA

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1. The Enlightenment raised questions about exactly what ‘truth’ is.

As the enlightenment was about science and reason, it answered that question via same:
Classical physics suggests a world of matter in motion: atoms bumping around in the void. And, carried forward, the ‘Queen of the Sciences’ determined that the only things said to be real were mass, velocity, and, by extension, those things that could be quantified and described in mathematical formulas. Such are referred to as ‘quantities.’




2. Sensations such as color, sound, texture, taste, and smell were called ‘qualities,’ and considered not quite real in the same way: rather, they are said to be subjective effects produced by atoms impinging on our senses. Qualities, then, were considered less susceptible to being mathematically weighed, counted, or measured.
a subset of that category Included moral ideas, values, purpose, love, or beauty. They are merely illusions produced by the human mind.




3. The Industrial Revolution invested ‘quantities’ with import, significance, over ‘qualities.’ The central motivation of this transition of society was to harness technological power to satisfy purely material wants; there is a ruthlessness and power of the machine that fosters the idea of a universe governed by inexorable mechanical forces rather than one of biblical genesis.

a. The mechanistic worldview, therefore, is essentially a substitute religion.

b. One can see the attraction this had for the physicist, and those desirous to share their acclaim! On the one hand, it absolved one of the need to consider or obey anything not within their discipline, and on the other, everything not so contained, mathematically, was demoted to merely a creation of the human imagination, the mind.

c. Materialism: those things that could be measured. Covered in "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning," by Nancy Pearcey, chapter seven.




There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

Happiness rests in the bearing of the responsibilities intrinsic to one's rights. Depression and angst (Unhappiness) stem from the minds chronic attempt to plot solutions to the problems that are created through the failure the meet the obligations inherent in one's responsibilities. Such becomes readily apparent where one fails to discipline one's appetites, overextending financially, over-eating, abusive behavior... such failures produce endless mental plots in vane search of a solution... .

This is typically considered to be a problem common to modernity, but in truth such has always been a problem for humanity.

Religion, particularly Christianity requires the individual to look beyond one's self, to objectively seek happiness through living as God intended, in the service of others, disciplining one's appetites... .

Naturally, the Ideological Left, resting entirely in Relativism... rejects objectivity, thus rejects God, further rejecting all mores, customs and standards which require any discipline, eschewing any idea which encourages anything which can possibly promote happiness.

In short, all behavior causes an effect... the effects are predictable, the consequences of such being inevitable.

Behavior which predictably produces positive effects, brings happiness... that which produces tends toward negative consequences, does not.

 

[Steven_R]

Physicians aren't scientists, PoliticalSpice. Physicians take a Hippocratic oath where they acknowledge that science is just one small aspect of what they do as healers. Scientists don't take oaths.

Physicians are in the business of dealing with pain. Once it reaches a point where they can no longer help their patient they are no longer physicians since there is nothing further that they can do under their oath.

I'd argue that physicians are more along the line of engineers than scientists. Medicine and engineering are Applied Sciences in that they generally rely on the Pure Sciences to make a discovery and then do something with that knowledge. However, the line get blurred along the way in that both Applied and Pure can make discoveries, and use newfound knowledge in applications. A physician can discover a new disease process and a scientist can invent something. It's just medicine and engineering don't have discovery as their primary motivation.

 

[Skylar]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Satisfaction with one's life is usually a product of achieving goals or outcomes that one feels should be met. Those expectations are probably more influenced by outside input than self generated ideals in most people. Being social animals, the quality of outcome is often perceived as a product of comparison with the outcomes experienced by other people. Status, for example, is difficult to measure with only one person. But easier with two.

Internally generated expectations are often drawn from our meat following a more hedonistic trend where we crave things that look, smell, taste, and feel good. The default state of an unexamined life is that of enlightened hedonism where we try and maximize good sensations.

Examined lives generally transcend EH, at least in part, attempting to connect to something larger. I'd say that the greater the degree of internal motivation for that transcendent connection, the greater the satisfaction in life will depend on issues of morality and ethics. With the inverse also being true. Moral systems can be transmitted through religion, but they don't necessarily have to be. One can use science or religion as the basis for assembling them. Moral systems tend to be easier to internalize via religion when we're younger and science when we're older.

So.....with all of the above in mind, I'd say that morality isn't necessary to live a satisfying unexamined life. But it is for a satisfying examined life. And that morality is accessible through both religion and science. Though I think you generally get moral systems that focus on actual harm to a greater degree than assumed harm through scientific system than religion

For example, murder is a genuine harm, as you take everything from a person. Having a cheeseburger may be an egregious violation of certain religions. But there's nothing inherently harmful about it. Religion tends to be riddled with the latter. Science, less so.

 

[Skylar]

Happiness rests in the bearing of the responsibilities intrinsic to one's rights. Depression and angst (Unhappiness) stem from the minds chronic attempt to plot solutions to the problems that are created through the failure the meet the obligations inherent in one's responsibilities.

In as much as 'responsibilities' are recognized by society with social pressure being applied for their bearing of them, I agree. If, for example, it was expected that you care for your children until they are 12, you're probably not going to be happy if you're being shunned or judged harshly be other members of society if you only raise your kid to 6. But if the kid is 13, and society expect that they your duties have been met, then happiness is on the table.

All of it is subject to your own personal perception as well. If society says 12 but you say 18, and you end up with 13....society's expectatoins may have been met, but your perception of meeting goals and experience outcomes that you should meet and experience would fall short. And gum up happiness.

The 'intrinsic' part is problematic. As is happiness being based on rights. If happiness is defined as satisfaction with one's life (as it is in the OP), there are many roads to the top of mount fuji. And many ways to find such satisfaction, dependent on your perspective and self awareness. I think your description would be valid for a person who believed as you do. But for someone who doesn't, they might find satisfaction is say, job excellence. Or personal expression. Or achieving a particular role of status. Or making a particularly significant journey.

I think its the meeting of milestones, fulfilling expectations (self generated or externally generated) and experiencing expected outcomes that result in satisfaction. What those milestones and expectations are can vary wildly between cultures, and less so between people.

Such becomes readily apparent where one fails to discipline one's appetites, overextending financially, over-eating, abusive behavior... such failures produce endless mental plots in vane search of a solution... .

I would chock that up to the 'experiencing the expected outcomes' part. Consequence can be a superb teacher. And generally speaking, people get what they deserve. But there enough exceptions to that rule to make any claim of 'intrinsic' very difficult to apply. As intrinsic assumes a set of universal consequences that may or may not play out. There's certainly likely consequence. But likely doesn't mean universal. And depending on what behavior we're talking about, the consequences can vary wildly depending on circumstance.

There's also self awareness. If you perceive yourself to be meeting your expectations and perceive your experiences to be your expected outcomes, you'll be satisfied. But that perception doesn't necessarily mean reality. If you perceived yourself to be say, witty or charming. And lacked the self awareness to recognize that others didn't think so, you'd experience satisfaction. Despite failing to meet your goals in truth.

And self awareness is most often connected to self examination. Which is where issues of morality and ethics most often come into play. So less self aware people may actually be the happiest, despite living lives that lack examination. And morality not being necessary for satisfaction in unexamined lives.

This is typically considered to be a problem common to modernity, but in truth such has always been a problem for humanity.

I think you're hung up on issues of universality. And there are too many exceptions, too many issues that contradict or don't support your assertions for any 'always' or universal application to be credible. Satisfaction is largely based on the perception of outcome. And perceptions are far from universal.

Religion, particularly Christianity requires the individual to look beyond one's self, to objectively seek happiness through living as God intended, in the service of others, disciplining one's appetites... .

Religion tends to be very subjective. So as a method of drawing 'universal truths', the subjective nature of religion makes that problematic. I think its value is in its organization. It organizes moral anecdotes in one place, making them easier to access. It renders them in memorable stories that are easier to recall and assimilate. This is especially true for children, or in religions where personal interpretation is discouraged or actively opposed. The former not really questioning, and the latter not allowed to.

But religion is subject to societal changes, to personal context, personal priority, to culture, to changes over time. And with that you get different emphasis and priority. In the age of the puritans for example, they were very focused on the Old Testament. And the harsh punishments outlined there. So they executed adulterers and sodomites. The founders had a different emphasis still, with executions coming only for sodomy. Modern Christians have different priorities still, executing for neither.

Religion being so subject to such arbitrary changes due to different focuses puts a halter on the 'intrinsic' and universal nature of it. And while Christianity may put an emphasis on others, it may be to feed them and tend to them....or burn them on the stake. Depending on which scriptures are being emphasized.

I think religions value is best met when used as a supplement for one's own capacity for moral reasoning. When you judge a passage valuable and assimilate it by choice. Or judge another less valuable and deemphasize it by choice. As self examination and moral systems go together like peas and carrots. And choosing a moral priority is much more internally motivated than having priorities imposed upon you.

Naturally, the Ideological Left, resting entirely in Relativism... rejects objectivity, thus rejects God, further rejecting all mores, customs and standards which require any discipline, eschewing any idea which encourages anything which can possibly promote happiness.

The obvious problem with that perceptive being the subjective nature of religion. Unless you're talking about a religion that violently enforces obedience to a particular set of tenets that are beyond question or criticism, you're dealing with individuals applying their own moral reasoning to find a priority that fits the life they want to live. Which is the same basis used by 'the ideological left'. Or most anyone in a free society.

So your basis of condemnation is also your basis of belief; the application of your own moral reasoning.

In short, all behavior causes an effect... the effects are predictable, the consequences of such being inevitable.

All behaviors cause an effect. But not necessarily the same one. There's far more variability and complexity in circumstance, culture, status,

For example, in the age of the Puritans, adultery would have the effect of getting you executed. In our day and age, it merely dramatically increases the odds of divorce. Same behavior, different effect. Nixing the 'inevitability' aspect of your claims. You're assuming univeral outcomes just like you assume universal basis for happiness. And both are far more varied than you're accounting for.

Behavior which predictably produces positive effects, brings happiness... that which produces tends toward negative consequences, does not.

"Positive Effects' are vague and arbitrary value judgments. Its how those judgments fit into 1) the meat 2) the expectations of society 3) How you perceive both that result in happiness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Satisfaction with one's life is usually a product of achieving goals or outcomes that one feels should be met. Those expectations are probably more influenced by outside input than self generated ideals in most people. Being social animals, the quality of outcome is often perceived as a product of comparison with the outcomes experienced by other people. Status, for example, is difficult to measure with only one person. But easier with two.

Internally generated expectations are often drawn from our meat following a more hedonistic trend where we crave things that look, smell, taste, and feel good. The default state of an unexamined life is that of enlightened hedonism where we try and maximize good sensations.

Examined lives generally transcend EH, at least in part, attempting to connect to something larger. I'd say that the greater the degree of internal motivation for that transcendent connection, the greater the satisfaction in life will depend on issues of morality and ethics. With the inverse also being true. Moral systems can be transmitted through religion, but they don't necessarily have to be. One can use science or religion as the basis for assembling them. Moral systems tend to be easier to internalize via religion when we're younger and science when we're older.

So.....with all of the above in mind, I'd say that morality isn't necessary to live a satisfying unexamined life. But it is for a satisfying examined life. And that morality is accessible through both religion and science. Though I think you generally get moral systems that focus on actual harm to a greater degree than assumed harm through scientific system than religion

For example, murder is a genuine harm, as you take everything from a person. Having a cheeseburger may be an egregious violation of certain religions. But there's nothing inherently harmful about it. Religion tends to be riddled with the latter. Science, less so.

1. " And that morality is accessible through both religion and science."
There is no morality associated with science.
God is required, or any moral guidance becomes simply what appears to be a good idea at the moment.

2. If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.

3. Once reason becomes one's morality, anything can be rationalized.

a. Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

b. “Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.”
Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

4. Slavery….rational arguments can be made re: profit, easier life, due to slavery. No moral arguments.But with the Bible as the basis for one's actions, one must see that all men are created in God's image...hence, equality.

a. Reason suggests. God makes demands…because God can punish.

5. Reason, science, philosophy, supports a lot of things. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
Dennis Prager, a lecture.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.

 

[Gadawg73]

Happiness is being able to easily pick the quality from the available quantities of life.

 

[Agit8r]

"Saving Leonardo"

What are they gonna do; go back in time and give him heteronormative therapy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Saving Leonardo"

What are they gonna do; go back in time and give him heteronormative therapy?

An excellent book....give it a look.

Happy New Year