is reason alone valid knowledge, or do we always need evidence grounded in science to act .

[Sapiens]

I agree with that

Then tell us how to choose. When does a therapeutic abortion become murder? The ancient Greeks would expose children up to age one so that they'd die, they considered this fine because they believed the soul did not enter the body until after the first year. Was this murder?

 

[osgart]

Then tell us how to choose. When does a therapeutic abortion become murder? The ancient Greeks would expose children up to age one so that they'd die, they considered this fine because they believed the soul did not enter the body until after the first year. Was this murder?

it is self evident that it is murder

 

[Sapiens]

it is self evident that it is murder

While you and I may (likely) agree, many of the founding thinkers of the Western tradition would not ... that makes it somewhat less than "self evident."

 

[Nakosis]

no way, a serial killer deserves severe punishment. I was talking about people other than criminals

Obviously an extreme case. I was just pointing out that not everyone possesses the same conscience/feelings about what is acceptable behavior.

 

[shunyadragon]

it is self evident that it is murder

Only from the subjective view of one culture over another.

 

[Grandliseur]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

Many decisions are based on sound reason at the time which later with better facts turn out to be truly bad choices.
Some hellish choices are made because the facts do not permit a better solution.

Sorry, I do not have any real great answer to this. No epiphany. Perhaps my reason for answering was poor.

 

[osgart]

While you and I may (likely) agree, many of the founding thinkers of the Western tradition would not ... that makes it somewhat less than "self evident."

I say they are culpable for it not being so.

 

[Sapiens]

I say they are culpable for it not being so.

... and I am sure that they would find you quite the ignorant barbarian and brush your objections aside as sheer foolishness, because everybody knows that the soul does not enter the body until after the first year and with the soul comes personhood. How can the passive killing of a non-human possibly be self-evident murder?

 

[osgart]

Many decisions are based on sound reason at the time which later with better facts turn out to be truly bad choices.
Some hellish choices are made because the facts do not permit a better solution.

Sorry, I do not have any real great answer to this. No epiphany. Perhaps my reason for answering was poor.

how would th

... and I am sure that they would find you quite the ignorant barbarian and brush your objections aside as sheer foolishness, because everybody knows that the soul does not enter the body until after the first year and with the soul comes personhood. How can the passive killing of a non-human possibly be self-evident murder?

than they'd laugh their heads off right before they slaughter me for being an infidel.

 

[Sapiens]

how would th

than they'd laugh their heads off right before they slaughter me for being an infidel.

Slaughter you? Doubtful. Ridicule and laugh at you ... likely. Nevertheless, your attempt at demonstrating "self-evidence" has gone down in flames and with that crumbling foundation your entire argument slides down the hill into the sea. Don't take defeat hard, use it powerfully as a step toward wisdom ... you might be surprised!

 

[osgart]

... and I am sure that they would find you quite the ignorant barbarian and brush your objections aside as sheer foolishness, because everybody knows that the soul does not enter the body until after the first year and with the soul comes personhood. How can the passive killing of a non-human possibly be self-evident murder?

if that is their honesty, that honesty is a moral failure. blind evil conscience without regard where it belongs.

 

[osgart]

Slaughter you? Doubtful. Ridicule and laugh at you ... likely. Nevertheless, your attempt at demonstrating "self-evidence" has gone down in flames and with that crumbling foundation your entire argument slides down the hill into the sea. Don't take defeat hard, use it powerfully as a step toward wisdom ... you might be surprised!

nothing hard taken. the founding fathers of America held certain truths to be self evident, and it is because of these truths being right, we have civilization in America. granted not everyone holds these self evidences as true, but they are, and they must respect the laws to enjoy those freedoms. the alternatives are disastrous.

it's far from perfect truth, but there's enough truth in it to enable a form of civil society.

and while there are many people who don't hold in their consciences anything as self evident, I would say they lack good intentions and lack in pure honesty and are often only self serving relativistic to only what suits them and not others as deserves

 

[leibowde84]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

It depends whether you watch out for and avoid logical fallacies. Reason can easily be fraudulent with ideas like arguments from ignorance (God of the gaps).

 

[leibowde84]

... and I am sure that they would find you quite the ignorant barbarian and brush your objections aside as sheer foolishness, because everybody knows that the soul does not enter the body until after the first year and with the soul comes personhood. How can the passive killing of a non-human possibly be self-evident murder?

Is this a joke? Where did you get the notion that the soul enters the body after 1 year?

 

[Sapiens]

Not my notion, just a construct to dispel the claim of "self-evident."

Try this on for size: Man Who Killed Three Women Says He Did “Nothing Wrong in God’s Eyes.” A Canadian man who admitted to killing three women told police he felt that god was on his side because the victims “were not innocent.”

 

[QuestioningMind]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

By far the most effective means people have developed for determining the truth about the physical world is the scientific method. It's certainly not perfect, but it's definitely better than any other method available.

 

[Sapiens]

nothing hard taken. the founding fathers of America held certain truths to be self evident, and it is because of these truths being right, we have civilization in America. granted not everyone holds these self evidences as true, but they are, and they must respect the laws to enjoy those freedoms. the alternatives are disastrous.

it's far from perfect truth, but there's enough truth in it to enable a form of civil society.

and while there are many people who don't hold in their consciences anything as self evident, I would say they lack good intentions and lack in pure honesty and are often only self serving relativistic to only what suits them and not others as deserves

Clearly the royal houses of Europe did not find them to be self evident. Frankly I'm not sure I do either. Preferable, yes ... but self-evidence, I think not.

 

[osgart]

Clearly the royal houses of Europe did not find them to be self evident. Frankly I'm not sure I do either. Preferable, yes ... but self-evidence, I think not.

Europe's loss. why would anyone revert back to submitting to royalty?

humans have rights based on reasons, why would I forfeit reason for someone else to decide for me. things become self evident by observing their effects, and anyone with good conscience will find evidence of their reasons if they are honest without necessarily testing effects because they are knowable without causing the effect.

in general, don't punch your mother has reasons that are self evident without testing for the results.

 

[gnostic]

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

Sorry, but aren’t you contradicting yourself?

Isn’t a creed by definition is set of religious beliefs?

If you remove the religion, then you would be removing the creed.

Why would you remove a religion, only to replace that religion with another religion?

Really you are not making sense.

 

[osgart]

Sorry, but aren’t you contradicting yourself?

Isn’t a creed by definition is set of religious beliefs?

If you remove the religion, then you would be removing the creed.

Why would you remove a religion, only to replace that religion with another religion?

Really you are not making sense.

a creed is a set of aims or beliefs that guide people, and unify their stance.

perhaps your creed among others is that we should only live our lives according to empirical evidence, objectivity that is testable, and falsifiable, and is subject to peer review. That would be your belief and your conviction.