Hello again, Everyone.
I am aware my updates have been sporadic - different arguments take time to form, so bear with me.
As far as textual uploads go, the person who is helping me with the technical aspects of this blog is still trying to figure it out.
I hope you enjoy it - and there is a question for all of you which I will replicate here.
"Why do humans have rights?" I have never heard a good response to this, certainly not in the form of an argument.
Enjoy!
Oh my. You've got my hackles raised on this one. I think that one of the biggest problems with your argument is your inability to accept an opposing argument that isn't based solidly on proven, hard facts. Those of us who were raised with a belief in God (which, according to you, is a being that cannot be proven) are able to point to many things that simply cannot be explained ("miracles") by science of today. It is this basis of belief that makes those of us who are in the theist camp disappointed in some of your tenets. First, that humans have no intrinsic value. The majority of us that populate the earth believe that we were created in God's image, and that IN that creation comes the intrinsic value. Thought alone doesn't give us this. Second is your equality argument, which is tied in most cases to intrinsic rights (your third point). I will (again) look for philosophical backing for this one, but simply find it hard to believe you'd deny the right of life & pursuit of happiness to individuals. Those without would be like those living in Dante's Il Purgatorio, absolute misery with MAYBE a glimmer of hope of ascending out of it. Fourth point of importance of the individual. You simply cannot deny the importance that SOME individuals have made in human history. Not every individual is a quark, and there are no hadrons to use to summarize the qualities and importance of an individual. Sure, some of us are LESS important than others; I grant you that we don't all have the same level of importance. But if we impact society in any way (for positive or negative), we ARE important for the change we have made. Was Einstein important? Majority of us would say yes. Is Joe Blow down the street important? Probably not, unless he touches someone else's life in such a way that they make an impact on the world. It would be very difficult to fully analyze the import of every individual to a turning point in human history, as most of those individuals may have only made subtle changes in the major players in the event (if at all). But I don't think you can completely discount the import of individuals here. Progress is an honorable goal to have, but I personally think that improving the human condition needs to be kept along with that goal.
ReplyDeleteI admit that I refuse arguments not based on hard, proven facts. This is, however, I think, a good thing. Arguments based on things which are NOT proven facts don't tend to go over very well.
ReplyDeleteAs far as intrinsic value, there really isn't a good argument there - but you're welcome to keep trying to find one.
Lastly, as far as important individuals go - I have two arguments:
The first: Those individuals were important not because of something intrinsic about individuality, but because they PROVED, through EFFORT, that they were important.
The second: It is possible, indeed probable, that they could have had the same ideas, inventions, and discoveries in a society which was not individualistic.
OK, if you refuse arguments not based on hard, proven facts, then what about elementary particles in science? You reference quarks, which have mostly been defined by their interaction with hadrons. There's a good bit of theory in science that simply doesn't have the base scientific proof. Intrinsic value - I WILL try to find a good argument there, and would welcome help from other readers in this endeavor. Arguments re: individuals - I didn't imply that there was something intrinsically important about them based on their genomes. The only way for an individual to make an impact on his surroundings is to ACT on or within the surroundings, to cause an effect. I highly doubt the second argument would be possible, as you must have specific conditions in order for things to occur. Look at the development of inventions and technology in the western world where capitalism is king, vs development in parts of the world where socialism is king. No comparison. My understanding is that socialistic society is about as far from an individualistic society as you can get, ergo your argument is erroneous.
ReplyDeleteScience takes known data and extrapolates it using logical tools. Therefore, they are still using proven facts as a baseline, even if the tools draw them rather far from it.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Argument:
Stalin's scientists beat America's scientists not only to space with an artificial ship but also to space with an animal and a man, just as three examples.
Additionally, a lot of inventions are useless. For example, due to lobbies, America spent millions developing a pen that could write in space.
The Soviet Union sent up packets of pencils.
More invention is not the same as better science.
I'm still looking for solid evidence I can use with you to support the resurrection of Christ. I know it exists, and will post it for you when it's found. I refuse to accept nor believe that this was a myth. Going back to your scientific argument - do you honestly think that scientific leaps can be made (and many discoveries) if one stays within the strict confines of logical thought when addressing interpretation of data? I would argue that abstract thinking, which humans are quite good at, is what germinates many of these novel and new ideas. If they can be supported by scientific discovery, all well and good, but the IDEA still had to come from random interchanges between neurons in the researcher's brain. Second argument re: inventions. You've picked three examples which I believe are more ABnormal for the old USSR than are the multitude of inventions made in the free western societies. I had not meant to say that more invention is better science, simply that the freedom of thought and imagination that precedes and fosters inventions is what allows said inventions to take place. Granted many inventions are fluffy and serve no great purpose to the common good, but I would argue that getting rid of lobby groups would take care of the "space pen" problem and hopefully prevent it from recurring. I would argue that many of our technological inventions would not have been possible IN THE TIMEFRAME IN WHICH THEY OCCURRED had they not taken place in a free society, and that the science is better simply because there is funding for research on such projects to take place (even without the lobbyists).
ReplyDeleteYou are not going to find that evidence - resurrection of a human body after it has been dead for three days is physically impossible because the brain has lost cohesion.
ReplyDeleteAnd adoption of logic does not preclude abstract thinking. The "spontaneous idea generation" of the human brain would not be damaged in the slightest by logic, except to shut down ideas which are illogical - that is to say, except to shut down ideas which would not work anyways.
As far as Soviet inventions go, I can list more, albeit only from my specific area of expertise:
1)They were the first to fit reactive armor onto their tanks.
2)They were the first to fit composite armor onto their tanks.
3)They were the first to develop a point-defense system for a tank (the "Arena" system).
Among other military developments:
They were the first to boost their atomic bombs with lithium and cobalt.
They built the largest nuclear submarine class - often considered an amazing engineering achievement.
What they did not develop were things like dishwashers. But that's because their development was directed by a government and had different priorities.
I disagree that there is more funding in a capitalist system. There may be more money overall, but it is so scattered onto things such as space pens and dish washers that much of it fades into irrelevancy.
You know what is really funny to me... you won't see the humor but I'll tell you anyway. No one agrees with you accept God... you have similar plans on almost every account of the way you think things should be EXCEPT that when He designed us HE thought emotions were a GOOD idea. But the authority the people all following one mission, willing to die for the result, not thinking of the individual but the plan, all flowing in one mind and one body, using self control to surpress the desires of the flesh, giving all authority up for the greater purpose, even the same issue that not everyone is on board. Too bad you are spiritually blind because man would you be like the most incredible warrior for God I have ever seen in my life... and God promises peace and rest in Him but I'm not gonna get into that because I don't know that you are unhappy so whatever. I'll await the lame on sentence "I vehemently dot't believe in God" remark and then let it drop... well probably not because I am God's machine and won't stop unless He stops me. <3
ReplyDelete