All very interesting but really nothing that wasn't said in Augustine's City Of God.

Religion is subjective which includes seeking truth through faith and revelation. — Harry Hindu

Science is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. — Harry Hindu

Meanwhile, back in the real world, away from this idealised notion of both that you seem to have ...

The standard cosmological model is so sacrosanct that it is necessary to invent propose dark matter to maintain its authority whilst Deuteronomic theology is subjected to a rigorous critical peer review (Job) and then rejected entirely when observation (the exile to Babylon) proves it counterfactual.

The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. — Harry Hindu

Hardly! It has been known for many years that the majority of published papers even in peer reviewed journals contain errors, false inferences, or conclusions that are not justified by the data and that far from being objective are biassed by all manner of subjective forces such as the pressure to succeed, the need to impress funders, personal ambition, and of course the simple reluctance to be proved wrong. (See also Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors in Nature this year)

What claims? I asked you if you could honestly say that there were no examples of the alleged methodologies crossing the rigid boundarioes you have set for them. As you've avvoided that question I can only assume that you cannot!

It is curious, then, that Catholics and Calvinists both believe in the Bible, yet Calvinism is fatalistic in a way that Catholicism is not. — Wayfarer

It is always worth reflecting on the fact that from the point of view of the Eastern Churches there is barely any difference between Catholic and Protestant at all. Both are built on a theology which pictures God as absolute monarch and judge directly electing those who will be saved by vertical acts of power. And that has far less to do with the Bible than the political landscape within which the western Church grew, especially after its (un)holy alliance with the Emperor Constantine. Calvinism represents something of an extreme of this theology but it is far less remote from Catholicism than you imagine. The saints that are appointed by God in Calvinism may lack the capital letter that denotes their Catholic counterparts but how they are appointed is essentially identical.

I would also advise caution in saying that any Church 'believes in the Bible'. They certainly believe that the Bible authorises their particular understanding of theology, soteriology etc. but that is nearly always a reading back into the text beliefs that are formed outside it. We are familiar with this process in creationists and so-called fundamentalists today but the truth is that it has been going on from the very earliest days of Christianity in the established churches as well as the sects, and schismatics, and 'heretics'.

Any chance we could get a moratorium on you invoking quantum mechanics (which you clearly don't understand) in ways that make no sense and do not advance your argument a jot?

Though possibly not far out enough!

You know what. I really don't care any more. You carry on spouting you're error strewn nonsense and I'll get back to my bacon sandwich with a clear conscience. My involvement in this thread is finito.

Seasons and other variations such as the position of stars and phases of the moon make that extremely unlikely, I would have thought.

In any case the murder of a non-human sentient would be similar to the murder of a human — darthbarracuda

Yes it would if the non-human sentient was human! You've continually failed to (or more likely refused to) address this simple fatal flaw in your argument long enough. It is an inescapable truth that human rights (if such a concept has any meaning anyway) are the distillation of ethical arguments by humans, about humans, and for humans. There is no rational or logical argument by which the qualifier 'human' may be erased. They do not, by definition, apply to any species other than humans. For any other species to have these rights they must not simply resemble humans they must be humans or identical to humans.

The whole basis of your argument is that every ethical principle which applies in defining human rights is transferable without modification to other animals and that is simply not the case for the simple reason that every ethical principle which applies in the definition of human rights is predicated on the uniquely human.

I am coming from a perspective that affirms the concept of equality and the ethical importance of suffering. In order to argue against my claim, then, you will need to argue that equality shouldn't be applied universally (and thus not be equality in any meaningful sense), and that suffering is not the only ethically important notion - and from my view, the former would depend on arbitrary moral constraints, and the latter fails to fulfill the open-ended question. — darthbarracuda

This is high order sophistry! One is never required to prove a negative. It is the plaintiff that must prove his case, something which you have singularly failed to do in my opinion. The defendant is not required to prove anything.

But that still amounts to a kind of artifice. Maybe you could say that freedom requires the real risk of failure. If there's no risk, then there's no real freedom; we are still essentially puppets, or inhabitants of an artificial environment. — Wayfarer

But surely there cannot ever be absolute freedom in any physical Universe. Popular as the phrase appears to be amongst the positive thinking brigade it is not literally true that "you can do anything" and never could be. There is no such thing as infinite choice and that, as I've suggested before, is no bad thing. Greater choice is greater paralysis. Infinite choice would be infinite paralysis and that is the very negation of freedom.

Whereas, I would interpret the first of the two verses as a kind of rhetorical flourish on the part of Paul; i.e. not to be interpreted literally. — Wayfarer

Then I would venture to suggest that you interpret it wrongly. There is absolutely no doubt that Paul believed that every act of human will is sin, that no act of human will could ever count as a step toward God or to the fulfillment of God's will and it is therefore always a step away from God, a turning of the back on God.

science is in no way related to religion. They are different methods of seeking truth. One is based on authority and tradition, while the other is based on experiment and observation by your peers. — Harry Hindu

Are you seriously suggesting that there is as clear a dichotomy as that? There is no part of science based on authority and tradition? No part of religion based on experiment and observation by peers? I'm sure it is very comforting to live in this black and white world of yours but it is clearly a delusion.

To say that something is beautiful or great or a work of genius is to (implicitly at least) claim that it is so — John

To claim that it is so, yes. But claiming something to be true doesn't make it so!

it is not merely your arbitrary opinion that it is so simply because you happen to like it. — John

But that is exactly what it is. Of course that opinion may be informed by cultural and social factors. It may be entirely learned or even coerced (by peer pressure for example) but none of that makes it any less arbitrary. Any examination of the history of art or music makes that obvious. It explains why pure landscape painting is virtually unknown until the 19th Century in Europe but had been the foremost artistic expression in China for centuries. It explains why Van Gogh 'sold' only one painting in his lifetime and compositions by Bartok and Beethoven were described as the most painful experiences of their critic's lives. Shakespeare was widely considered a hack for at least a century after his death. And Philistines are now considered one of the most culturally advanced civilisations of their time!

There simply is no 'ugly' thing that nobody claims beautiful nor 'beautiful' that someone does not claim repellent. The aesthetic status of any object or experience is a relative not an absolute truth. When I say "Isn't that beautiful?" it is wholly an expression of opinion that is neither right nor wrong except for me and me alone. While it may be considered to be a correct or incorrect judgement by a cultural elite or society at large there is no absolute standard by which it is measured (something which the commissioners of art in all its forms would do well to remember). It cannot be tested in the way that mathematics is.

The size of Everest (it's stature or status as the tallest mountain) is not merely a matter of subjective opinion. — John

Well, actually ... its status as the tallest mountain is disputable as there is at least one challenger in the form of Mauna Kea so there is a subjective judgement involved. There is no doubt that the peak of Everest is the highest piece of land in the world but that's a different criterion.

Two problems with that. Firstly it doesn't have the imperative but speaks of a situation which is already in place. In other words it is not a command(ment) but a description of the state of grace of the disciples. Second it's a very dodgy translation. in v. 15 ...

I pray not that thou
shouldest take them out of the
world, but that thou shouldest
keep them from the evil.

the phrase 'ek tov kosmov' is rightly taken to mean 'out of the world', yet when it appears again in v. 16, the translators ignore 'ek' altogether. Consistency demands that the verse should read ...

They are not out of the world,
even as I am not out of the world.

... which speaks not at all to the meaning of 'of this world' as expressed in the OP.

A blue plaque on your London home!

I made it clear that your use of should made Kant doubly mistaken. Now you've removed it it simply returns it to being singly mistaken.

Has anyone actually disagreed with this position in this thread? — zookeeper

Yes. Several times on the basis that the whole nonsense is a massive category error. I described it as a load of dingo's kidneys at one point. I understand that it might be difficult to spot in this exchange of largely meaningless verbiage which other posters are prone to but my colours are firmly nailed to the mast!

The first man to make an appointment invented timekeeping. All the ancient civilisations had some kind of timekeeping. As those civilisations became more sophisticated in terms of needing meetings, arranging events, and travelling, timekeeping became more accurate. The monastic orders that arose from Christianity, in Europe particularly, increased the demand for yet more exact timekeeping leading to the first clocks.

Be in the world but not of it', says the Biblical verse. — Wayfarer

There is no Biblical verse that says this so it really doesn't merit analysis. The closest Biblical verse would be ...

Romans 12:2
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

.. in which there is clearly no no ambiguity.

So now you've moved from justifying your understanding of being from a German text to a Latin one? I remain similarly unimpressed.

You also set up a false dichotomy by completely failing to recognise that the emphasis in Aquinas' thought is not on 'not a being' but on 'not of this world'. Of course Aquinas isn't claiming that God is a thing because he's not a being (and nothing in my definition of being requires that he should be) because he's not saying that God is not a being but that God is a being 'but not as we know it' to borrow a phrase from Star Trek.

It would be a rather grave error to take lessons on the use of English words from texts in German, would it not? Whether you choose to accept it or not. in English there is a clear distinction between 'a being' and 'a thing'.

it's a bit unfair to paint me as an advocate of factory farming don't you think? — apokrisis

I'm afraid that crusaders in this field tend to have little time for fairness.

What if time itself were to somehow speed up, or to slow down? Then, everything in our universe would speed up or slow down with it — hypericin

Er ... no ... ever heard of relativity?

Lunchtime doubly so!

There's this other quality of nature that you are forgetting - balance. Nature has achieved a balance among organisms where prey need to have their population limited by predators in order for them to not over populate and eat all their food to extinction and then they become extinct. — Harry Hindu

Except that it hasn't done any such thing. 99.9% of the species that have existed on Earth are now extinct and that ratio will at best remain constant although as nature has failed to find a predator to keep the human species which is doing a bang up job of exhausting its food sources that's pretty unlikely.

The most important aspect of life is competition. Without it life would never evolve into the variety of forms and behaviors that we see today. — Harry Hindu

Somebody's been drinking a little too heavily at the Dawkins trough. Symbiotic and co-operative relationships between species are far more effective at preserving diversity than competition. Competition, by definition, results in a winner and a lot of losers. Co-operation results in a lot of winners. Evolutionary theory tends to fixate on higher order animals as single organisms when in fact they are a co-operative colonies of thousands of species constantly constantly interacting with thousands of other such colonies.

The Christian teaching is, if we were not capable of evil, we would not be capable of good, because we'd simply be robotic. — Wayfarer

No it isn't!

In the general sense, conscious organisms are referred to as 'beings'. 'Human' is used to qualify that, although in practice, if you speak of 'beings', you're generally referring to humans, are you not? — Wayfarer

Well, no. I almost never use 'beings' to refer to humans in practice. I am far more likely to use 'beings' of notional, or less clearly defined groups than of man, mankind, humans, homo sapiens, people (you get my drift!). I talk of extra-terrestrial beings, mythological beings, magical beings, trans-dimensional beings, godlike beings, ineffable beings, unimaginable beings ........ ad infinitum et nauseam .... because it's a useful term for such things. When talking of humans the word 'being' is almost entirely superfluous as far as I can see.

But Dylan wasn't a poet at all, he was just a song-writer. — John

That is such a silly distinction. Is Robert Burns not a poet then? Much of his work that we now read as poetry was originally song writing (far more in fact than most modern readers are even aware). What about the poetry that was later used in lieder, in oratorio, and cantata. Has that somehow become not poetry now we've discovered how well it suits performance to music? Are Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience somehow diminished by association with the song form?

Kant is saying that if you understand yourself to be merely expressing your opinion about or response to a work of art or nature in the form of "I like it" and nothing more than that, then you should not take yourself to be expressing an aesthetic judgement at all. — John

I'm not sure how you think saying the same thing a different way gives it more justification. If Kant is making an imperative out of an opinion as yuour use of 'should' suggests he is doubly mistaken.

In English, the noun 'being' properly only applies to humans — Wayfarer

What? If that's the case why is the word 'human' necessary (I have this weird feeling I've had this argument before) as a qualifier when we talk of 'human beings'?

whenever it is used in a general sense, the referent is 'living beings' — Wayfarer

Whenever is always! And it's a very specific sense of 'living'. Plants are not beings (unless they're triffids ... which reminds me 'beings' need not necessarily be real).

So there are no a priori disagreements? This example would appear to demonstrate that there are.

Kant says we don't really believe that aesthetic judgements are matters of taste. I don't agree with him because I do really believe that aesthetic judgements are matters of taste. The statement is therefore false if it is claiming to be a universal truth or trivial if it's merely claiming that there are some people for whom it is true. This does not require argument, it is self-evident.

You appear to be equating skill with an instrument with musicianship. This is a mistake.

He may not have the greatest singing voice but his musicianship has never been in doubt.

What the ^&$# is humanitarian about letting animals starve to death? You're making no sense at all!

Evidence of what, though, even the authors do not appear to know.

Even if our results suggest a certain degree
of self recognition in ants, they do not explain how ants
take and use such information, how then functions the
underlying cognitive processes, and if ants detain some
self awareness. For many animals, such an assumption is
not unanimous [39, 17]; for ants, we are conscious that it
might even be less plausible.

It's one giant leap to employ this 'evidence' as it has been in this thread.

Non-human animals are not capable of higher level thought process at the tier of humans, so they cannot be seriously expected to be moral agents. They can't even vote.

Yet they can suffer, and that's what matters. Many non-human animals have intellectual abilities on par or superior to babies, toddlers, and the mentally infirm. Yet these animals are often not seen as morally important. — darthbarracuda

In two short paragraphs you completely undermine your own case. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it. Either animals are different to humans in which case the application of human ethical systems is a category error or they are identical in which case the application of human ethical systems is justified but must include all the consequent responsibilities and potential for forfeiture it entails.

Moreover you imply that humans have a right to be spared suffering of which there appears to be no evidence at all. So you're actually arguing for animals not to be treated equally with humans at all but to be given privileges far in excess of them. It simply won't wash.

If your barn's on fire and trapped within it are your wife, a complete stranger who just happened to be visiting, and a pig and you can only save two of them before the roof collapses which are the lucky two?

And you say you're not a specieist? Yeah, right!

I think you're a jump ahead of me here. I wasn't necessarily arguing for or against suicide per se. I was challenging the view that it was not an ethical issue at all. As with any law or ethical code identifying it as a sin/crime does not actually stop anybody doing it nor does it necessarily preclude that so doing can be justified. Just as it is wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road but a reasonable defence can be mounted for it if you're thus avoiding falling down a sink hole or piling into the back of an accident on the right side so there may be circumstances in which suicide can be seen to be defensible. The special problem for suicide, however, is that there is no possibility of facing the suicide with the full consequences of their actions nor of hearing their defence. It does seem to me therefore that no matter how explicable a suicide may be it is always unjust on those left behind.

AS to where the line should be drawn on psychological damage being tortious or otherwise that's really a matter for a judge or jury or ethics committee. I wouldn't pretend for a second that there is a fixed line or that if there were I would have any idea where it might be located though there are certain instances which I would consider indisputably unethical as in the examples I gave. It is certainly right that in UK and US courts it remains possible to sue for compensation for emotional distress.

I guess that makes you literally the exception that proves the rule then! Your position would appear to suggest that you don't disapprove of psychiatrists who have been guilty of implanting false memories in their patients, torturers who employ sensory deprivation, or brainwashers which I think most people would find more than just unusual, definitely objectionable, and quite probably sociopathic.

5 people I've been very close to have clearly committed suicide. — Terrapin Station

Were I the kind of cruel individual you appear to not mind being confused with I might suggest that they're trying to tell you something! Still think that would be not unethical?