View Single Post
Old 01-04-2010, 05:12 PM   #104
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
As for the golden rule and questions in relations to the "HOW", I agree with that too. But from a philosophical point of view, my own point of view, I believe it to be the "WHY" also.
I'll simply repeat what I said last time:

I don't see how

Quote:
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Well I never saw that before, that's kinda interesting. I'm suprised that I never heard of Kant's Categorical Imperative view before until you introduced it to me just recently, thank you sir for the reference.

But still.. as for the reasons that I adopt the inferior ver. (The Golden Rule) is because it's simple and direct in it's meaning, from my philosophical point of view only; as I mentioned above.
No doubt that "the golden rule" works in a majority of situations. The point was that we don't need to have "the golden rule" in order to come to the conclusion it proffers (in fact, we can create a better version). If the argument is "religion is good because it gives us the golden rule", then what happens when we realize that we don't need religion in order to have something that serves the same function? What purpose does religion serve at this point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Well over time those religions became corrupt and lost the true direction in which they were actually meant to go; as most religions do eventually.
Based on what? What makes one religion "right" and other religions "wrong"? Please be specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
But some of the philosophies that they incorporate within there teachings do appeal to me, yet I don't accept them as a religion for me; or any religion for that matter, really just the truths that make sense. Yes, I know..that's unheard of isn't it?
If the philosophies are what appeals to you, then why not simply study philosophy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
"Secular Humanism" you say. Well, as a matter of fact...once upon a time..I too followed that way of thinking for a long time without ever hearing of the words "Secular Humanism." The need of proving things only through a scientific method was my belief at one time too. But, as I got older..some of life's experiences force me to change my idea's about that and so it became clear to me that not everything can be explained within the use of the scientific method.

Although I would agree with some aspects of Secular Humanism, like the search for truth, ethics and building a better world, the scientific method dosen't always help me in a explanation of the many different mysteries that still lurk out there and that the scientific method just cannot explain; and may never explain as well too.
First, I'm not sure why we're conflating "secular humanism" with "scientific method". I'm sure that if we were to do a poll we would find that many secular humanists are science-minded and that many scientists are secular humanists, but there is nothing inherently tying the two groups together. Your implication otherwise is a little confusing.

Second, I'm fully willing to accept that there are things that science cannot currently explain and may never be able to explain (string theory springs to mind). However, I'm not sure how "making stuff up" becomes a superior methodology for uncovering "truth" in that void. If you could explain to me what I'm missing here, I think it would be very helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Well the "eternal universal truth" statement that I associated the "golden rule" with, is from my own philosophical point of view more than anything, yet it can be the idea of a "universal morality" from another point of view as well. And I agree too as for the "good idea" over "bad idea" point you made, can't be wrong with that way of thinking as far as I'm concerned.
I'm certainly glad to hear that we're in agreement on this point.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,