Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
"Catholics" is a proper noun and should be capitalized.
Is their some sort of study out there that finds the correlation to be causal?
Yes, according to your ad hoc definition. Thus, by your definition it was "moral" for certain Teutonics to do certain things to certain Semites. It was for the children.
Even without some great [moral] dictator, yes, there are morals within the society. There are norms to which everybody conforms to keep society running efficiently.
Maybe we should close the windows in the maternity wards, lest our offspring fly out the window...hmmm?
Never attended one. But I'll take your word for it. That's my understanding as well.
Not everything that's taught in Catholic school is Catholic dogma. Dogmatic Catholic Church teaching regarding human origins can be found in the following documents:
Media Twists Papal Statement on Evolution
Evolution: What the Pope Said [in 1996]
The two articles addressing the distortion of the Pope's comments regarding theories [plural!] of evolution is very important. And if you can club some sense into some Catholic school principals I'm all for it. You might want to direct them to arn.org
What basis does evolution provide jlogajan to condemn any belief whatever, since all beliefs are nothing but the result of chemical and physical forces in the first place? What could possibly be "wrong" with a neurochemical, physical phenmomenon in an impersonal universe that is nothing but physical forces at work? What could possibly be wrong with a physical force? Exmarine is nothing but a concatenation of physical forces. Is jlogajan implying that examarine has some moral or empistemological duty imposed on exmarine by this impersonal universe to 'believe' certain things, or not to 'believe' certain propositions? What basis other than neurochemical reactions in jlogajan brain could there possibly be for believing that ANY product of evolution (which by definition is EVERYTHING, including examarine and exmarine belief) is "wrong", or even dysfunctional, as signified by the words "crazy, sick freaks"?
By defintion, NO evolutionary process is dysfunctional.
Cordially,
I've seen some that suggest that, but I'm on an anecdotal basis for my question. I've never attempted a literature search on the topic.
I did a search on the link between red meat and heart disease and discovered that most of well done studies suggest that red meat greatly reduces the risk of heart disease, with the caveat that you don't want to be greatly overweight. Beef being such rich food that a 10-ounce steak every day isn't necessary.
Let's go back to the relevant part of your definition:
Morality is the complex interplay between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group, with the group's long-term needs taking precedence over the individual's short term needs.
This says that individual rights exist only so long as the needs of the individual are congruent with those of the group. This is not always the case, and by this definition it may be morally permissible to sacrifice one or many members of the group in support of the long-term group interests. IOW, individuals have no "unalienable rights." The "lifeboat problem" suggests that the needs of the starving many can be served by killing and eating the tastiest-looking one.
Groups are made of individuals and the group must recognize the needs, indeed the "rights" of the individuals within it or it ceases to function (cf., the Soviet Union).
This does not offer any way for us to call the USSR "wrong" other than that it didn't succeed. At any rate, individual rights do not follow from the group's "recognition of needs and rights" does , except perhaps in a conditional sense. For example, the ruling groups of ancient Rome, Egypt, and even the U.S. South survived very nicely, even though they relied for their success on the conquest and/or enslavement of others. (The jury is still out on China.)
You're not a libertarian, are you?
So, suppose you were living in the NAZI era and a Jewish person comes to you for refuge. What should you do, if by definition whatever society says at any given time is right?
Cordially
You do what you feel is right. If that defies society, then you must take the heat for your actions.
Then among other things you'd have no logical basis for your opposition to intrusive government, imposition of force, and all those other things that libertarians get so spun up about.
What about detrimental mutations? Evolution accounts for them nicely, but does not claim they are not dysfunctional. Methinks you made that up by yourself.
other than the fact that it is against the interest of all for the government to dictate your life. in the current system, more can be gained through a less obtrusive and smaller government.
True enough, though that can be traced more to a few remarkably bad military decisions on the part of the Teutonic group's leadership, than in anything intrinsically wrong with their attempt to exterminate the Semitic group.
No. This definition states that an individual's short-term needs take a back seat to the group's long-term needs. Rights are not necessarily defined as a short-term need. Hell, rights are usually defined as that which, when exercised by an individual, invokes no obligation on the part of anyone else. In other words, individual rights should never conflict with the survival of the group (and most probably should contribute to that survival). That is why there is no "right" to housing, or medical care, or even food. One does have a right to voice one's opinions, but that doesn't mean others have to listen.
Needs, on the other hand, are things like food, shelter, sex -- that whole hierarchy thing I remember from psychology class. Sometimes the individual's needs will conflict with the group's survival (sex, for instance -- the individual sees this as a need, but rape and adultery place strains upon the group and because of this need to be discouraged).
Because of it's nature -- that evolution can't be observed, cannot be tested in the laboratory -- evolution is based on faith, or requires a blind leap to have it hold together. That's what I meant in it being akin to religion for the ardent evolutionist. And, again, the stridency with which they defend the theory (a theory which lacks proof and cannot be submitted to the scientific method) is analogous to the fervency of religionists. In point of fact, many evolutionist are secular humanists (not all, but many). They claim not to have a religion, but indeed secular humanism is their religion.
As to the quote that "[Punctuated Equilibrium] no more proves Darwin wrong than Einsteinian relativity proves Newton wrong," I never suggested that Gould's theory disproved Darwin. What it does is attempt to prop-up some aspects of evolution that were sagging under the weight of conflicting evidence (the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record).
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.