Religion has no place in politics!

[ToadBrother]

No, I am trying to discover if you assert that belief in a deity or religiousness are immoral positions.

How strange. Where would you have got that from any post I've ever made here?

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps I phrased things somewhat poorly before. I am not suggesting that I do not think quantum mechanics is correctly describes something that is happening. What I am suggesting is that I do not buy the " out of existence " part. I am guessing when a particle pops " out of existence " it is going somewhere; just nowhere we can so far detect.

You seem to be suggesting that someone out there is claiming QM violates conservation of energy. Unfortunately, when describing phenomena, particularly very unusual phenomena like subatomic particles, scientists tend to use a literary shorthand. But, as I said, vacuum energy explains virtual particles, and they are very real.

[GostHacked]

So what you are saying, in effect, is that your a moral relativist? That it is 'right,' but mostly 'right' for you. Is that about how you see it?

Everything seems to be relative. Including morals.

[ToadBrother]

Everything seems to be relative. Including morals.

Pretty much. It's seems to have been a singular constant of human nature that we need to follow rules of conduct. The exact makeup of those rules is highly variable in space and time, suggesting that the rules themselves don't matter as much as the presence of rules which allow a society, big or small, to organize itself.

Slavery is an awfully good example. In that book Christians keeping waving under my nose all the time there were in fact laws governing slavery, meaning it was quite permissible. In fact, it was easily found throughout the Mediterranean world, and even when it was replaced in Christendom, it was with an economic system cribbed from late Roman times that evolved during the early Middle Ages into seigneurialism, which created the feudal hierarchical that effectively made land-bound peasants a slave class in all but name (and, in fact, slavery itself persisted even at this time). When trans-Atlantic slavery, instigated by the Spanish and Portuguese because they managed to kill off most of the Indians in their colonies, there was little outcry from religious leaders. In the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in large part to defend slavery. While religious groups like the Quakers certainly were motivated by their beliefs to combat slavery, in the end it was economic and constitutional issues that drove the slavery question.

Now, of course, throughout Christendom, slavery is seen as bad and evil, and the notion that every man should be a freeman is seen as gospel (despite the fact that the notion itself didn't really exist prior to the Enlightenment). Religion, like all the other aspects of society, simply altered its dogmatic proclamations. The moral landscape changed in the post-Enlightenment world.

[GostHacked]

Pretty much. ...

... The moral landscape changed in the post-Enlightenment world.

Just a few more reasons why religion should have no place or say in government. What is 'right' now, may not be 'right' later on. Things change. However, my common sense tells me that if religion is always changing it's views and dogmas, religion has been sidelined for the most part then.

Morals have changed as we gain more knowledge and grow as a species. Common sense would tell me we need to treat all people equal to avoid things like slavery. Not only do I feel that this is right and correct, it is also morally true because slavery is no longer acceptable.

[ToadBrother]

Just a few more reasons why religion should have no place or say in government. What is 'right' now, may not be 'right' later on. Things change. However, my common sense tells me that if religion is always changing it's views and dogmas, religion has been sidelined for the most part then.

Morals have changed as we gain more knowledge and grow as a species. Common sense would tell me we need to treat all people equal to avoid things like slavery. Not only do I feel that this is right and correct, it is also morally true because slavery is no longer acceptable.

I don't know if I would phrase it as "religion has no place". When we're talking moral issues, it's inevitable that an individuals entire framework is going to be invoked at some point. Rather I think moral codes should be recognized for what they are, the current consensus of society on an issue. Clearly, in large part, we agree on the major points, but the problems are always at the fringes, and its inevitable that someone's religious beliefs, if they have them, will enter the fray. I'd rather have it put this way; that moral justifications, regardless of where they are derived, must have some rational backing, and if they can not be supported by a formula other than "God says so", then it is improper to impose them on the wider society.

[GostHacked]

I don't know if I would phrase it as "religion has no place". When we're talking moral issues, it's inevitable that an individuals entire framework is going to be invoked at some point. Rather I think moral codes should be recognized for what they are, the current consensus of society on an issue. Clearly, in large part, we agree on the major points, but the problems are always at the fringes, and its inevitable that someone's religious beliefs, if they have them, will enter the fray. I'd rather have it put this way; that moral justifications, regardless of where they are derived, must have some rational backing, and if they can not be supported by a formula other than "God says so", then it is improper to impose them on the wider society.

It would be hard to disagree with you here. Religion may still have a place, but in terms of governance it no longer is relevant and should have no place or say in government. It does have some personal spiritual value, but that is where it should end.

[Shwa]

How strange. Where would you have got that from any post I've ever made here?

This board alone is filled with people are basically teat-sucking hero worshipers, with little capacity to formulate an independent thought, or at the very least the courage to speak it.

Now insofar as it would be a stretch to consider this board as having the same sort of religious demographic as mainstream Canada, your missive above does bear some resemblance to your usual take on religious followers and in the same sense appears to be a form of moral condemnation.

[Shwa]

It would be hard to disagree with you here. Religion may still have a place, but in terms of governance it no longer is relevant and should have no place or say in government. It does have some personal spiritual value, but that is where it should end.

But you are only speaking for yourself as you are an admitted moral relativist. The problem is, those masses of religious followers, who believe their morals to be somewhat more objective and sound are in the vast majority, even IF their morality is disguised as a sort of arms-length or unwitting relationship with whatever particular religion they lightly adhere to. In some case, this religion - to them - is their culture. And I am not talking about Muslims and Aboriginals, I am talking about Catholics and Protestants.

They believe that their morality has a duty to belong in politics. You - as a moral relativist - must grant them this duty because, you know, to each his own.

[Shwa]

I don't know if I would phrase it as "religion has no place". When we're talking moral issues, it's inevitable that an individuals entire framework is going to be invoked at some point. Rather I think moral codes should be recognized for what they are, the current consensus of society on an issue. Clearly, in large part, we agree on the major points, but the problems are always at the fringes, and its inevitable that someone's religious beliefs, if they have them, will enter the fray. I'd rather have it put this way; that moral justifications, regardless of where they are derived, must have some rational backing, and if they can not be supported by a formula other than "God says so", then it is improper to impose them on the wider society.

I agree, but would extend it further to mean that by saying "God says so" as to be a face-saving way of admitting one does not know. In the tradition of the philosophy of the past few thousands years. The problem is that society has built upon these sorts of moral justifications into what it presently is. And it wasn't all too long ago that not fully knowing the justifications (or implications) was no obstacle for advancing certain moral imperatives anyways.

In fact, we see the results of this in the news everyday. It will be a very long, long time before religious aspects to mainstream politics are minimized.

[ToadBrother]

Now insofar as it would be a stretch to consider this board as having the same sort of religious demographic as mainstream Canada, your missive above does bear some resemblance to your usual take on religious followers and in the same sense appears to be a form of moral condemnation.

I was referring more generally than just religion, but to politics as well. I think certain religious traditions certainly encourage a myopic, follow-the-leader approach, but most of the big ones have considerable differences of opinion.

For the record, I don't think being religious makes on immoral. By the same token, it doesn't make one moral either.

[Oleg Bach]

But is that 'common-sensical?'

Much peace and security has been generated by war and violence. So does this mean that war - that has generated much violence, sorryow death and bad health - is also 'right?' How about rape where the female victim is impregnated with "life" is that also 'right?'

Oh shut up! That's all I can say - what the hell you talkin about Willis? "Impregnated with "life" - you can not make good life through violence _ I would kill the unborn infant out of sheer spite...and I don't believe in abortion - but revenge and retribution might be up my ally... Put it this way - If I was an ancient tribal leader - I would force the rapist to eat the fetus...does that make me a bad person - or a person that makes sure rapists do not run rampant?

[GostHacked]

But you are only speaking for yourself as you are an admitted moral relativist.

I did not admit to such thing. I've not declared myself a moral relativist. But the shoe seems to fit, so I really don't have a problem with it. So I will admit it now.

The problem is, those masses of religious followers, who believe their morals to be somewhat more objective and sound are in the vast majority, even IF their morality is disguised as a sort of arms-length or unwitting relationship with whatever particular religion they lightly adhere to. In some case, this religion - to them - is their culture. And I am not talking about Muslims and Aboriginals, I am talking about Catholics and Protestants.

You might be a moral relativist as well.

They believe that their morality has a duty to belong in politics. You - as a moral relativist - must grant them this duty because, you know, to each his own.

To each his own, as long as it is his own and does not make it mine without my consent.

[maple_leafs182]

Corruption will continue in politics and the rest of the world as long as we continue to live with a money based economy. That is the root of all our problems.

[WIP]

Perhaps I phrased things somewhat poorly before. I am not suggesting that I do not think quantum mechanics is correctly describes something that is happening. What I am suggesting is that I do not buy the " out of existence " part. I am guessing when a particle pops " out of existence " it is going somewhere; just nowhere we can so far detect.

From our understanding of what existence means, the rules of physics show that particles and entire universes can pop in and out of existence. I am not a physicist, but my interest in physics books written for a general audience, that started with Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" was motivated by how poorly our intuitive notions of how things should work are completely out of step with the way things work at very small and very large scales where the rules of General Relativity apply.

Our intuitive understanding of solidity, cause and effect, and existence, are rules that work in the physics of "middle dimensions" where we live and work; but it appears that they are rules that are useful for our needs, but not accurate descriptions of reality. Our intuitions also predispose us towards teleological explanations (everything has a purpose!) and vitalism (life forces). These intuitions keep giving rise to supernatural beliefs in spirits, souls, special healing energies, and belief that the universe and us had to be created by a life force. These sorts of phenomena never pass tests to determine if they exist, yet belief in them carries on. Even many atheists who claim they don't believe in God, still carry on with other supernatural beliefs.

So, for the longterm, I'm skeptical about whether more than a minority of people will embrace naturalism. But, that's okay with me as long as we don't adopt pseudo-medicine in medicare plans, provide religious exemptions to mandatory childhood vaccinations, creationism in science textbooks, religious courts, and before I forget -- end government funding for Catholic schools once and for all!

[WIP]

Yes. it's pretty easy as well.

The difference is the brain is hardware and the mind you can look at as the operating system or software.

My brain is a physical organ in the human body that connects and controls all other organs in the body. My brain is no different from your brain for the most part when talking about physical make up. My mind would be how I process information based on experiences, all that information gets stored in the brain. That process can change over time in light of new evidence.

My mind is contingent on the brain being alive and synapses are firing due to electrochemical reactions in my brain because of recieved input from the senses. Without that there is no place for the mind to work.

They are two different things but completely dependent on each other.

The problem is that our brain creates a sense of mind that is unified and separate from, but controls our bodies. The conscious sense of mind is important to help us function in everyday life, but it leads to notions that our minds are non-physical and must continue on after death of the body.

[ToadBrother]

Corruption will continue in politics and the rest of the world as long as we continue to live with a money based economy. That is the root of all our problems.

You actually believe that a non-monetary economy (however that would work) would be immune to corruption?

Edited June 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

From our understanding of what existence means, the rules of physics show that particles and entire universes can pop in and out of existence. I am not a physicist, but my interest in physics books written for a general audience, that started with Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" was motivated by how poorly our intuitive notions of how things should work are completely out of step with the way things work at very small and very large scales where the rules of General Relativity apply.

I think you need to reread that a bit. Hawking does go to some length in that and in other publications to explain what is meant by particles popping in and out of existence. How it actually works is that there are things called virtual particles, which are in fact, quanta of elementary forces, that behave in some respects like particles, but are not in and of themselves matter. They can, in certain situations, become matter (E=MC^2 kinda thing), as when a virtual particle pair are formed at the event horizon, and one of the virtual particles is captured by the black hole and the other becomes a photon. This is the basis of Hawking and Penrose's revolutionary discovery that black holes do, in fact, radiate, and can thus, over very long stretches of time (depending on the size of the black hole), evaporate.

[maple_leafs182]

You actually believe that a non-monetary economy (however that would work) would be immune to corruption?

Maybe not immune, but we wouldn't have to live with war, poverty, theft, recession/depressions if we switched to a Resource Based Economy.

The current economic system is outdated.

In a Resource Based Economy, there would be no need for corruption because there is nothing to gain from being corrupt.

Edited June 11, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[ToadBrother]

Maybe not immune, but we wouldn't have to live with war, poverty, theft, recession/depressions if we switched to a Resource Based Economy.

The current economic system is outdated.

In a Resource Based Economy, there would be no need for corruption because there is nothing to gain from being corrupt.

I read a lot of "with a resource-based economy this" and "with a resource based economy that", but what I'm not seeing is an actual model.

[maple_leafs182]

I read a lot of "with a resource-based economy this" and "with a resource based economy that", but what I'm not seeing is an actual model.

I think it would be easier to watch this just to get an idea of what it is.

[ToadBrother]

I think it would be easier to watch this just to get an idea of what it is.

I think it would be best if you could point to an actual proper academic economics study, or hell, even an article by an economist, because from what I could tell, it looked like some sort of neo-communist-semi-anarchist fantasy trip.

[Bonam]

The video is nonsense for one reason above all others. It lists examples of technology that it claims could be used to free people from work and eliminate scarcity from society, and denounces the profit motive as evil and fascist. And yet it utterly forgets that the only reason any of this technology was ever developed was because people could make a profit from it. Eliminate rewards for doing work, for developing technology, and no one will do it.

Perhaps once we've reached a star trek level of advancement, when you can simply have a replicator powered by an antimatter reactor instantly materialize any object of your desire, it will make some sense. But for now it is silly fantasy.

Take the example of the intercontinental vacuum tube maglev train system proposed in the video. Such a project would take vast amounts of manpower, engineering design, construction and manufacturing, and advanced materials that are difficult to extract, to refine, and to make things out of. By modern economic standards it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars. Who is going to build this thing for free?

[maple_leafs182]

The video is nonsense for one reason above all others. It lists examples of technology that it claims could be used to free people from work and eliminate scarcity from society, and denounces the profit motive as evil and fascist. And yet it utterly forgets that the only reason any of this technology was ever developed was because people could make a profit from it. Eliminate rewards for doing work, for developing technology, and no one will do it.

Actually it does talk about inventive in the movie.

Here, from the website

MOTIVATION, INCENTIVE & CREATIVITY

It is claimed that the so-called free-enterprise system creates incentive. This may be true, but it also perpetuates greed, embezzlement, corruption, crime, stress, economic hardship, and insecurity. In addition, the argument that the monetary system and competition generate incentive does not always hold true. Most of our major developments in science and technology have been the result of the efforts of very few individuals working independently and often against great opposition. Such contributors as Goddard, Galileo, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and Einstein were individuals who were genuinely concerned with solving problems and improving processes rather than with mere financial gain. Actually, very often there is much mistrust in those whose incentive is entirely motivated by monetary gain, this can be said for lawyers, businessmen, salesman and those in just about any field.

Some may question that if the basic necessities are accessible to all people, what will motivate them? This is tantamount to saying that children reared in affluent environments, in which their parents provide all the necessary food, clothing, shelter, nutrition, and extensive education, will demonstrate a lack of incentive or initiative. There is no evidence to support this fallacious assumption. There is overwhelming evidence to support the facts that malnutrition, lack of employment, low wages, poor health, lack of direction, lack of education, homelessness, little or no reinforcement for one's efforts, poor role models, poverty, and a bleak prospect for the future do create monumental individual and social problems, and significantly reduce an individual’s drive to achieve. The aim of a resource based economy is to encourage and develop a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people to pursue different goals, such as self-fulfillment and creativity, the elimination of scarcity, the protection of the environment, and the alleviation of suffering in their fellow human beings.

People, provided with good nutrition in a highly productive and humane society, will evolve a new incentive system unattainable in a monetary system. There would be such a wealth of new wonders to experience, explore, and invent that the notion of boredom and apathy would be absurd. Incentive is often squelched in our present culture, where a person dare not dream of a future that seems unattainable to him or her. The vision of the future that too many see today consists of endless days of mindless toil, and a wasted life, squandered for the sake of merely earning enough money to survive from one day to the next.

Each successive period in time creates it’s own incentive system. In earlier times the incentive to hunt for food was generated by hunger; the incentive to create a javelin or a bow and arrow evolved as a process supportive to the hunt. With the advent of an agrarian society the motivation for hunting was no longer relevant, and incentives shifted toward the cultivation of crops, the domestication of animals, and toward the protection of personal property. In a civilization where people receive food, medical care, education, and housing, incentives would again undergo change and would be redirected: People would be free to explore other possibilities and lifestyles that could not be anticipated in earlier times.

The nature of incentive and motivation is dependent upon many factors. We know, for example, that the physical and mental health of an individual is directly related to that person's sense of self-worth and well-being. Furthermore, we know that all healthy babies are inquisitive; it is the culture that shapes the particular kind of inquiry and motivation. For example, in India and other areas of great scarcity there are many people who are motivated not to accumulate wealth and material property; they renounce all worldly goods. Under the conditions in which they find themselves, this is not difficult. This would seem to be in direct conflict with other cultures that value the accumulation of material wealth. Yet, which view is more valid? Your answer to this question would depend upon your frame of reference, that is, your culturally influenced value-system.

Many experimental psychologists and sociologist have shown that the effects of environment play a major role in shaping our behavior and values. If constructive behavior is appropriately rewarded during early childhood, the child becomes motivated to repeat the rewarded behavior, provided that the reinforcement meets the individual needs of the child. For example, if a football were given to a child who is interested in botany, this would not be a reward from the child's point of view. It is very unfortunate that so many individuals in our society today are not appropriately rewarded for their creative efforts. In some instances individuals are seemingly able to overcome the shortcomings of their environment in spite of an apparent lack of positive reinforcements. This is due to their own "self-reinforcement" in which they can see an improvement in whatever activity they are engaged in, and achieve an intrinsic sense of accomplishment; their reinforcement does not depend on the approval of others, nor on monetary reward. Those children who do depend on the approval of a group tend to be afflicted with a sense of low self-esteem, while children who do not depend on group approval usually acquire a sense of self-approval by improving upon their own performance.

Throughout history, there have been many innovators and inventors who have been ruthlessly exploited, ridiculed, and abused while receiving very little financial reward. Yet, they endured such hardship because they were motivated to learn and to discover new ways of doing things. While creative individuals like Leonardo de Vinci, Michelangelo, and Beethoven received the generous sponsorship of wealthy patrons, this did not diminish their incentive in the least. On the contrary, it empowered them to reach new heights of creativity, perseverance and individual accomplishments.

This is a difficult concept to grasp because most of us have been brought up with the value system that has given us a set of notions about the way that we ought to think and behave about money and motivation. These are based upon ancient ideas that are really irrelevant today.

It has been stated that war generates creativity. This deliberately falsified concept has no basis in fact. It is government financing of war industries that helped to develop many new materials and inventions. There is no question that a saner society would be able to create a more constructive incentive system if our knowledge of the conditions that shape human motivation were applied.

In this new social arrangement of a resource-based economy, motivation and incentive will be encouraged through recognition of, and concern for, the needs of the individual. This means providing the necessary environment, educational facilities, nutrition, health care, compassion, love, and security that all people need.

[maple_leafs182]

I think it would be best if you could point to an actual proper academic economics study, or hell, even an article by an economist, because from what I could tell, it looked like some sort of neo-communist-semi-anarchist fantasy trip.

The idea is to use all our resources, physical equipment, knowledge to benefit the total population.

What an economist has to think about it is just one persons opinion.