cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[alexey]

I'm asking why the only path in terms of longer term societal growth is the result of behavior we have deemed "good" based on activity in the brain.

At best, couldn't we be agnostic about the process?

Another way of saying what I'm saying would be something like, we have to think through these things, work through them, etc. Everybody has to do this regardless of whether they are religious. It is the only way because that is how our behavior is determined. Knowledge about brain activity is certainly not the only input into this process.

My other point is that it may not be a good idea to over-rely on texts that have been passed down from the dawn of humanity. Our morals have evolved a great deal since then.

[Destino]

How about I propose an hypothetical now.

You hear God's voice saying that you must follow Abraham and kill your son. You have no doubt that this is a voice of God and the command is valid.

You, with your morals from God, would have a moral conundrum.

I, with my morals based on knowledge and reason, would go get my brain scanned for tumors.

I would have no such conundrum being that I wouldn't make the assumption that a disembodied voice was actually the voice of God. Just because I hear someone say "hey this is God, do me a favor and get all stabby with that kid" doesn't mean that I'm going to do it. Believing in God doesn't mean that I surrender my ability to think or question things.

Are you under the assumption that I think science is the devil and think Jesus rode around on a triceratops?

[alexey]

There is one important point that I want to drive home here. God does not give you objective morals because other Gods may give other morals. Religion does not give you objective morals because other religions may give other morals.

You are not solving the "relativistic morals" problem by introducing objective grounding based on faith.

[Destino]

What if God created that tumor in order to communicate with you?

Then no doctor would be able to remove it without being turned into a pillar of salt.

[alexey]

I would have no such conundrum being that I wouldn't make the assumption that a disembodied voice was actually the voice of God. Just because I hear someone say "hey this is God, do me a favor and get all stabby with that kid" doesn't mean that I'm going to do it. Believing in God doesn't mean that I surrender my ability to think or question things.

You do not give up the ability to think or question, but you do modify it.

It is quite possible that your brain tumor will grow in a place that makes the experience extremely vivid thus removing all doubt. You may indeed proceed to do as God commands. If I had the same tumor in the same place, I would be less likely to do the same thing.

[Larry]

Also seems like a good place to post a link to one of my favorite pieces from The Onion.

Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom

WASHINGTON, DC—Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God.

Carry on.

[Destino]

You do not give up the ability to think or question, but you do modify it.

It is quite possible that your brain tumor will grow in a place that makes the experience extremely vivid thus removing all doubt. You may indeed proceed to do as God commands. If I had the same tumor in the same place, I would be less likely to do the same thing.

Your assumption that you'd be more apt to resist a sudden bout with insanity is based on what exactly? You're assuming there is a "God tumor" that operates independently of the brain it happens to reside in. Does this tumor have a particular God it sounds like? Does it speak English?

I haven't modified my ability to think, I've made a decision and chosen a rule book. You've decided the best course of action is to write our own moral code. Are you operating without a moral code currently or is there a draft we can review?

[PeterMP]

Another way of saying what I'm saying would be something like, we have to think through these things, work through them, etc. Everybody has to do this regardless of whether they are religious. It is the only way because that is how our behavior is determined. Knowledge about brain activity is certainly not the only input into this process.

My other point is that it may not be a good idea to over-rely on texts that have been passed down from the dawn of humanity. Our morals have evolved a great deal since then.

But that doesn't make the decisions reached by one person based on whatever reasons superior to anybody else's based on their reason.

Without some sort of long term criteria to judge "good" it is a meaningless exercise.

And those texts have played an important role in that evolution.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't see the state action here. I'm assuming its a 1987 claim for discrimination. Indiana may have some other discrimination employment laws that give her a claim. I do think the First Amendment will be a pretty good defense for the church though.

[alexey]

Your assumption that you'd be more apt to resist a sudden bout with insanity is based on what exactly? You're assuming there is a "God tumor" that operates independently of the brain it happens to reside in. Does this tumor have a particular God it sounds like? Does it speak English?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...isions_For_All

I haven't modified my ability to think, I've made a decision and chosen a rule book. You've decided the best course of action is to write our own moral code. Are you operating without a moral code currently or is there a draft we can review?

My position is that the moral rulebook which all humans naturally have is not written in religious terms and will function better without religion or belief in God.

[alexey]

But that doesn't make the decisions reached by one person based on whatever reasons superior to anybody else's based on their reason.

Without some sort of long term criteria to judge "good" it is a meaningless exercise.

How much meaning do you create by adding God? Good is what God says is good. Great. Now let's figure out what God says... and we're back at square one.

Except now we have given human organizations an ability to override moral intuitions of individuals.

And those texts have played an important role in that evolution.

These early attempts at writing, philosophy, and many other things did play an important role. They are an important part of human history.

The question is, what role should these human creations play in current society 2000 years later.

[twa]

I don't see the state action here. I'm assuming its a 1987 claim for discrimination. Indiana may have some other discrimination employment laws that give her a claim. I do think the First Amendment will be a pretty good defense for the church though.

EEOC says disability discrimination claim....it never ends

[mbws]

While pharmacies can't fire pharmacists for not filling birth control prescriptions.

Birth control is a good thing

[twa]

I read another article that said they simply did not renew her contract.....make a difference?

[PeterMP]

How much meaning do you create by adding God? Good is what God says is good. Great. Now let's figure out what God says... and we're back at square one.

Except now we have given human organizations an ability to override moral intuitions of individuals.

1. It takes me in a completely different direction. Right, off the bat, my logic and reasoning are essentially worthless.

2. There is no way around that happening. Given your way, you'll just have some people in some institution saying we "know" more than you, and your "moral intution" is "wrong"

(What the heck is moral intution?)

These early attempts at writing, philosophy, and many other things did play an important role. They are an important part of human history.

The question is, what role should these human creations play in current society 2000 years later.

They DO play an important role. Churches were very important in ending the slavery here and in Europe. The most ardent members of abolition movements were cleregy and people associated with Churches,

Samethign with Civil Rights and ending the dictorial communist regimes.

Your acting like religion hasn't recently shaped moral judgements and actions over the last few decades.