apologies for the tangent
Case History: To be found in its entirety at Nato's Blog.
Ross: You [stan] know that life is unfair, when you say:
“A just God would have at least ask for our consent before having us be created into this world” and “If God is truly just, then He would offer either Heaven or nothing, so that non-Christians who die won’t go to Hell but instead just end.”
Those are profound statements, because they’re certainly not something that a purely scientific world-view would teach you. Science and modern philosophy is *in general* indifferent to the suffering that goes on in this world.
era: Are you serious? Because from what I can tell, between ethics and medicine, they have done far more to help remove suffering from the world than the bible ever has.
Ross: Sorry Era, that statement was very broad and written hastily. When I said science, I was thinking of the theory of Darwinian Natural Selection (and what that implies about suffering) and when I said modern philosophy I was thinking of, I don’t know, Friedrich Nietzsche?
The Tangent
So Ross, with your revised understanding of philosophy and science *in general* as Darwin and Nietzsche, how are we supposed to understand the point you were trying to make when you said to stan "Those are profound statements, because they’re certainly not something that a purely scientific world-view would teach you."?
I find myself incapable of expressing how many things I find wrong with this idea that a scientific world view is completely sterile and is incapable of any humanity. I've come across this idea a couple of times now, and it continues to baffle me. So what I'm really hoping for is an explanation of the position which might stand up to a bit of rational critique.
2 comments:
I certainly agree that science has done a lot to help people, though at the same time when used incorrectly it has also done a lot of harm I'm not so sure about modern philosophy/ethics.
Seeing to me it seems more often it tends to simply codify or provide a logical basis (rather than an emotional one) for behaviors already present in society. Including some behaviors that previously have been given a "religious" basis.
Also like some now discredited religious ideas which have been harmful certain philosophical ideas that are no longer held have been rather harmful as well.
Okay, I will respond to this tangent. However, given that I’m an engineer and you're a lover of philosophy I think the cards are well stacked in your favour to begin with. Accordingly, I ask your patience, as I will need some time to present something that stands up to "a bit of rational critique".
Post a Comment