Posted on 09/14/2009 8:30:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 13, 2009 — What’s an article advocating hedonism doing on Science Daily? Sure enough, an article entitled “Hedonism As the Explanation of Value” appeared today on the science news site without controversy or debate. The entry gave David Brax of Lund University a platform to preach that “pleasure is the only thing that is valuable in itself.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Every once in a while the evos reveal what their evo-religion is really all about...this is one of those times. Ping!
Prove that scientifically.
“Like man, it’s such a blast!”
“Psychology has come a long way in the last century, providing interesting findings about phenomena that philosophers have long been interested in, especially regarding how emotions affect our thinking and decisions. We philosophers should be part of this project rather than narrowing down the type of questions we address. The various disciplines can benefit from each other, and the best exchange takes place when they develop in tandem and to some extent together,” says David Brax.”
Taking an article based on a yet unpublished doctoral thesis by a philosophy student is hardly relevant to evolutionary discussions.
The interpretation itself can be anything from simultaneous creation of all living species within the last few thousand years to the necessity of the Sun moving around the Earth, doesn't matter; to them if you disagree you are ‘putting the science of man above the word of God’.
Not only can they not prove that scientifically, it makes no logical sense either. How can pleasure be valuable in itself when it can only be valued by a human being? As Cornelius Hunter might say (with a slight addition from yours truly), the Temple of Darwin’s evo-religion is driving science, and it matters!
I give the author of that list credit for accurately describing Einstein’s views, but I disagree with his decision to include him on a list that (at least at first glance) appears to be otherwise entirely comprised of biblical creationists.
The entire article, including the poster who seems to be afraid to post a link to the original, makes a conclusion similar to “Because there was gasoline, man invented cars”.
Yeah, it’s just about that stupid.
knowledge? wisdom? natural rights? health? friends?
I wanna bask in the glow of an incandescent light bulb.
I wanna set my thermostat to 72 in the winter and 68 in the summer.
I wanna showerhead with the water pressure of a firehose.
I wanna ten gallon flush toilet.
I wanna eat steak, rare, veal, foie gras, and fried chicken.
Am I a hedonist?
“OK, preachers: if he can do it, you can do it. If Science Daily will print the opinions of a hedonist just because he alludes to neuroscience, all you need to do is a little research into the latest findings on how the brain works and apply it to support your position that people are basically selfish and evil and need redemption. Doesn’t your philosophy also have roots in antiquity? Is there any other reason this hedonist earned free publicity in Seance Daily?”
—I’m not sure about Science Daily as it’s a magazine I rarely read, but I have actually seen such arguments in other science magazines and journals under heading of behavioral science or psychology. And I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen the famous Milgram experiment referenced or talked about, so this stuff is nothing new.
“Still, any system built on hedonism is doomed. If my pleasure is my highest value, why should I care about anyone else’s pleasure? Why would a marine throw himself on his grenade to save his buddies? That’s not very pleasurable.”
—I think for most people (sociopaths being an exception) one’s pleasure depends in part on the pleasure of others. It makes me happy helping others be happy.
Perhaps the marine threw himself on the grenade because he wouldn’t have been able to live with himself if he let his buddies all die (if he managed to survive the blast himself)?
Except it does when liberals ignore they go on and on about peer review and “philosophy isn’t part of science”, then say nothing about this kind of thing whatsoever...indeed the article mentions it went unchallenged.
hypocrats.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.