Reality and Morality

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Enlightenment raised questions about exactly what ‘truth’ is.

As the enlightenment was about science and reason, it answered that question via same:
Classical physics suggests a world of matter in motion: atoms bumping around in the void. And, carried forward, the ‘Queen of the Sciences’ determined that the only things said to be real were mass, velocity, and, by extension, those things that could be quantified and described in mathematical formulas. Such are referred to as ‘quantities.’




2. Sensations such as color, sound, texture, taste, and smell were called ‘qualities,’ and considered not quite real in the same way: rather, they are said to be subjective effects produced by atoms impinging on our senses. Qualities, then, were considered less susceptible to being mathematically weighed, counted, or measured.
a subset of that category Included moral ideas, values, purpose, love, or beauty. They are merely illusions produced by the human mind.




3. The Industrial Revolution invested ‘quantities’ with import, significance, over ‘qualities.’ The central motivation of this transition of society was to harness technological power to satisfy purely material wants; there is a ruthlessness and power of the machine that fosters the idea of a universe governed by inexorable mechanical forces rather than one of biblical genesis.

a. The mechanistic worldview, therefore, is essentially a substitute religion.

b. One can see the attraction this had for the physicist, and those desirous to share their acclaim! On the one hand, it absolved one of the need to consider or obey anything not within their discipline, and on the other, everything not so contained, mathematically, was demoted to merely a creation of the human imagination, the mind.

c. Materialism: those things that could be measured. Covered in "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning," by Nancy Pearcey, chapter seven.




There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

 

[BlackSand]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Uncertainty principle teaches that we can know where truth lies or we can lie where truth sits but not both at the same time...

 

[BlackSand]

The Uncertainty principle teaches that we can know where truth lies or we can lie where truth sits but not both at the same time...

I don't know ... I think there is benefits in doing good and living by lofty principles. That doesn't mean anyone is perfect and morally righteous ... But it can produce satisfactory results in individual success and moral responsibility at the same time.

.

 

[midcan5]

'The Lesson'

"In that second grade classroom, Mrs. Circle said
each of us carries an ocean inside
bigger than we are, like happiness, and full of
fish that live nowhere else in the world
and tides that are pulled by our heartbeats, and low tide
sand bars to wade far out in the bright sun.
She taught us we can learn to swim there by jumping
out into the water where the water is still
and shallow, holding our breath and moving
our arms and legs gently, gently—try
for yourself she suggested, and we all closed our eyes
sitting there at our desks, while the snow fell outside
and the radiator whispered. I could hear the clock tick
as we held our breath and swam without really
moving our bodies, like jellyfish, across
the beds of coral that were filled with many-colored fish
whose names didn’t matter, Mrs. Circle said,
as long as you let them come to you—
they are like angels—and nibble the tiny
air bubbles that cling to the hairs along your legs and arms.
Feel how they tickle, she said, Take a deep breath,
dive down underwater as far as you can.
Do you see your shadow down there on the sand,
following your body? That’s another form of you,
a kind of memory, swimming down below
your only solid body. Don’t forget it. Then she clapped her hands
and we all looked up, happy to be sitting there
with our young teacher in that drafty classroom
in the age of extinctions and nuclear bombs
we hadn’t been taught about yet."

Michael Hettich

 

[Derideo_Te]

Science is about knowledge, reason and logic as they apply to reality.

Morality is about how we treat each other with respect to our own actions.

Science is not a "religion" and no amount of fatuous threads by PoliticalSpice is ever going to alter "reality" to fit her delusions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

 

[BlackSand]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

Lol ... Except that was not Pascal's wager.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

But...why advertise same?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

But...why advertise same?

I heard "it pays to advertise"....

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

But...why advertise same?

I heard "it pays to advertise"....

Ignorance?

 

[Hollie]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

But...why advertise same?

Can we, "quote" you on that?

1. Your comments tend toward the dull side when you're trying to string words together into coherent sentences, so,

a. Stick with cutting and pasting,

b. Edit and parse those "quotes" as you usually do, and,

c. Retreat to your usual pattern of snappy, childish attempts at insult when your "quotes" are dismissed.

Thanks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

But...why advertise same?

Can we, "quote" you on that?

1. Your comments tend toward the dull side when you're trying to string words together into coherent sentences, so,

a. Stick with cutting and pasting,

b. Edit and parse those "quotes" as you usually do, and,

c. Retreat to your usual pattern of snappy, childish attempts at insult when your "quotes" are dismissed.

Thanks.

Liar.

 

[Hollie]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

But...why advertise same?

Can we, "quote" you on that?

1. Your comments tend toward the dull side when you're trying to string words together into coherent sentences, so,

a. Stick with cutting and pasting,

b. Edit and parse those "quotes" as you usually do, and,

c. Retreat to your usual pattern of snappy, childish attempts at insult when your "quotes" are dismissed.

Thanks.

Liar.

You need to enclose that in "quotes".

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I like Pascal's Wager ... Pascal s Wager Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.

Yup!

Pascal makes a good argument not to waste your life pretending to worship and serve something that doesn't exist.

Lol ... Except that was not Pascal's wager.

.

His logic was faulty in my opinion because he was placing more weight on something he had zero knowledge about than the weight he was giving to what he had actual first hand knowledge of experiencing himself.

 

[georgephillip]

The manipulation of reality and morality:

Those who elevate their subjective reality of personal accomplishment over the greater good are saying "manipulation is more appropriate than influence and honesty."

"Being perceived as manipulative is problematic for CIOs and all leaders; however, actually being manipulative is a necessity. CIOs who are perceived as manipulative simply aren’t doing it right."

The Machiavellian CIO Morality versus reality ZDNet

 

[BlackSand]

His logic was faulty in my opinion because he was placing more weight on something he had zero knowledge about than the weight he was giving to what he had actual first hand knowledge of experiencing himself.

Well .. I am willing to wager on Pascal's philosophy over your opinion any day.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'The Lesson'

"In that second grade classroom, Mrs. Circle said
each of us carries an ocean inside
bigger than we are, like happiness, and full of
fish that live nowhere else in the world
and tides that are pulled by our heartbeats, and low tide
sand bars to wade far out in the bright sun.
She taught us we can learn to swim there by jumping
out into the water where the water is still
and shallow, holding our breath and moving
our arms and legs gently, gently—try
for yourself she suggested, and we all closed our eyes
sitting there at our desks, while the snow fell outside
and the radiator whispered. I could hear the clock tick
as we held our breath and swam without really
moving our bodies, like jellyfish, across
the beds of coral that were filled with many-colored fish
whose names didn’t matter, Mrs. Circle said,
as long as you let them come to you—
they are like angels—and nibble the tiny
air bubbles that cling to the hairs along your legs and arms.
Feel how they tickle, she said, Take a deep breath,
dive down underwater as far as you can.
Do you see your shadow down there on the sand,
following your body? That’s another form of you,
a kind of memory, swimming down below
your only solid body. Don’t forget it. Then she clapped her hands
and we all looked up, happy to be sitting there
with our young teacher in that drafty classroom
in the age of extinctions and nuclear bombs
we hadn’t been taught about yet."

Michael Hettich

Nice, middy.....but could you relate that to the premise in the OP?


There is the question of happiness, or satisfaction with one's life, as a result of an obedience to science, and materialism, or to that quality called morality, or religion.....the poet Edward Arlington Robinson gives a certain perspective:

Richard Cory
BYEDWIN ARLINGTON ROBINSON

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,

We people on the pavement looked at him:

He was a gentleman from sole to crown,

Clean favored, and imperially slim.


And he was always quietly arrayed,

And he was always human when he talked;

But still he fluttered pulses when he said,

"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.


And he was rich—yes, richer than a king—

And admirably schooled in every grace:

In fine, we thought that he was everything

To make us wish that we were in his place.


So on we worked, and waited for the light,

And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;

And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,

Went home and put a bullet through his head.

 

[Mindlight]

1. The Enlightenment raised questions about exactly what ‘truth’ is.

As the enlightenment was about science and reason, it answered that question via same:
Classical physics suggests a world of matter in motion: atoms bumping around in the void. And, carried forward, the ‘Queen of the Sciences’ determined that the only things said to be real were mass, velocity, and, by extension, those things that could be quantified and described in mathematical formulas. Such are referred to as ‘quantities.’




2. Sensations such as color, sound, texture, taste, and smell were called ‘qualities,’ and considered not quite real in the same way: rather, they are said to be subjective effects produced by atoms impinging on our senses. Qualities, then, were considered less susceptible to being mathematically weighed, counted, or measured.
a subset of that category Included moral ideas, values, purpose, love, or beauty. They are merely illusions produced by the human mind.




3. The Industrial Revolution invested ‘quantities’ with import, significance, over ‘qualities.’ The central motivation of this transition of society was to harness technological power to satisfy purely material wants; there is a ruthlessness and power of the machine that fosters the idea of a universe governed by inexorable mechanical forces rather than one of biblical genesis.

a. The mechanistic worldview, therefore, is essentially a substitute religion.

b. One can see the attraction this had for the physicist, and those desirous to share their acclaim! On the one hand, it absolved one of the need to consider or obey anything not within their discipline, and on the other, everything not so contained, mathematically, was demoted to merely a creation of the human imagination, the mind.

c. Materialism: those things that could be measured. Covered in "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning," by Nancy Pearcey, chapter seven.




There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment. For centuries knowledge had over focused on the Divine and on spiritual world. That combined with a scholastic tendency to allegorisation had resulted in a world view that was out of touch with the natural world and our basic humanity. In the Christian world in which the Enlightenment occurred this had resulted in artificialities in the culture of worship as Christ's humanity was neglected in favour of His Divinity. The Enlightenment was therefore a rebalancing of perspective that allowed a revolution in understanding of our humanity - medicine and the natural world. Most of the major benefits came in the centuries until the1960s in the Developed world since when the rebalancing has shifted to a new and distorted scientific materialism that represents a reduction of human beings to the merely natural and a loss of transcendence.

I would describe happiness in terms of that peace that comes from being reconciled to the heart of reality which is in God and with the circumstances of the natural world in which one finds oneself.

It is therefore simplistic to say either / or and the answer is more on the lines of both / and!

 

[Derideo_Te]

His logic was faulty in my opinion because he was placing more weight on something he had zero knowledge about than the weight he was giving to what he had actual first hand knowledge of experiencing himself.

Well .. I am willing to wager on Pascal's philosophy over your opinion any day.

.

I absolutely 100% support your right to believe in whatever you want and to waste your life as you see fit.