Re: Fw: Alliance for Science

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <fritziematt@yahoo.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Alliance for Science

>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:30:07 -0700 "Matt \"Fritz\" Bergin"
> <fritziematt@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > Morality isn't just the laws of the land. There are things that
>> are
>> > considered immoral that aren't against the law. I don't kill or
>> steal
>> > because its wrong not because I will be punished for it by
>> society. People
>> > break laws and cause war and death because that's human nature.
>> >
> You're right that morality is not just legal prohibitions and
> requirements. There are many actions that are either commended or
> penalized that are not covered by laws. Indeed, legal enactments are a
> rather blunt instrument relative to the fine distinctions that may be
> made morally.
>
> Some people break laws because they think they can get away with the act.
> Some years back I had opportunity to talk to a chap who was in charge of
> training at a penal institution. He noted that many of the inmates
> recognized that they had made a mistake that allowed them to be caught.
> This did not persuade them to give up crime. They expected to continue
> their criminal life after serving the sentence, being careful not to make
> the mistake that sent them to jail. He also noted that it was very
> difficult to have an effective training program with the inmates because
> most had low intelligence. The reason, he claimed, was that it was mainly
> the stupid ones that got caught.

Some criminals do work into their criminal activities ways to not get caught
but I don't see how that shows that people aren't criminals because of the
consequences. There are a few different ideas on how to deal with crime and
only one deals with deterence. There is specific deterrence which is
designed to stop the actual person from doing the crime. There is also
general deterrence which deals with the whole population. The others are
retribution (revenge), rehabilitation which sees criminals as people who
don't know how to live in society and they need to be taught. Also it looks
like age is a major factor in crime where a lot of violent crime happens in
youth and then drops off later in life. Alcohol and drugs can be another
facilitating factor for crime. I don't think that there is one reason why
people are criminals or not criminals. Getting caught can be a factor for
some but most people who want to be criminals will be. It all depends on if
we are talking about career criminals, violent criminals, or some guy who
kills his wife in the heat of passion because he caught her cheating.

>
> As to human nature, the situation is more complex. There are psychopaths.
> Some of these are very tenderhearted when it comes to animals. But there
> are other individuals who are very sensitive to human hurt. It's not
> possible to paint all with the same brush.

I disagree that psychopaths can be tenderhearted or sensitive. They may be
able to appear that way because thats what they believe they should do in
that situation. I don't know how much we really know about psychopaths but
everything that I have read would suggest that they don't have any real
feelings for anything. They know what they are doing but lack any emotion or
feelings regarding their actions or other people. They can appear to be
normal caring people though. There's a good book on psychopaths called
Without Concience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us by Dr.
Robert D. Hare. Also if you want to get into sex related psychopaths the
book Sex-Related Homicide and Death Investigation by Vernon J. Gerberth is
good if you can read stuff about serial killers and rapists. Anyway...this
and crime is more my area of expertise although I'm still a forensic science
student so I'm sure I will learn more along the way.

This is all I have time for right now...I've been debating all night and it
my last night of spring break! I just wanted to mention the books on
psychopaths and some ideas on crime. I will leave the last word to everyone
else.

~Matt

>
>> > Whats the difference between saying that there is no absolute
>> truth and
>> > that we can't know what it is? The outcome is the same...and are
>> you
>> > saying that your statement is an absolute truth that we do know?
>> or don't
>> > we know that either? We are still faced with the same problem.
>> >
> There is a large difference between denying absolute truth and
> recognizing that it is beyond human reach. The latter springs from a
> recognition of human finitude. I cannot prove that God exists, but I
> place my full confidence in trusting that he does. Note that the author
> of Hebrews says that the human suppliant must believe (not know) that he
> exists, and that he rewards those who seek him. The claim to know is, if
> reasonable, a toned down version, something one is committed to, or else
> is foolish. C. S. Peirce wisely noted that all human beings will admit
> that a human being may be wrong, always making exception for themselves
> in this instance.
>
> I note that science properly recognizes the tentative nature of their
> theories. Unfortunately, there are those who think that science
> determines the right answers to metaphysical, moral and other matters
> that cannot be touched by scientific investigations.
>
>> > I really don't think that atheists and christians have the same
>> reasons
>> > for being moral. Sure we obey the laws because we agree to keep
>> the laws
>> > as part of being citizens. I would be willing to guess that most
>> > Christians want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus for reasons
>> that don't
>> > include not wanting to be punished by society. I'm saying that
>> atheists
>> > have no reaon at all to be moral and no reason to tell other
>> people to do
>> > the same. I'm not saying that there aren't atheists that aren't
>> good
>> > people or that follow the law. There are atheists now that are
>> moral
>> > because they were raised that way in a society that is influenced
>> by
>> > religion (an observation by my atheist prof.). What about people
>> and
>> > societies in an atheist future that will be raised on the idea
>> that there
>> > are no morals or absolute truth or that their existence is just an
>>
>> > illusion and that other people are just a clump of molecules and
>> > electrical and chemical signals? You can't really say otherwise if
>> you
>> > only use science to look at the world or people.
>> >
>> > I'm very weary of the atheists that say religion is the cause of
>> every
>> > problem (Dawkins), that morality is just an illiusion created by
>> our genes
>> > (Ruse), that people are just a buch of molecules and signals that
>> create
>> > an illusion of existence (Crick), ect. I don't know about you but
>> I don't
>> > want anyone who thinks that morality is a genetic illusion working
>> on
>> > anything that has to do with experimenting with human DNA. Maybe I
>> just
>> > don't have enough experience in genetics and DNA but I can't help
>> but
>> > think of the horrors that humanity could create with this also.
>> Science
>> > can be used for great good...but if we destroy any idea of
>> morality where
>> > is that going to lead science in the future?
>> >
>> > ~Matt
>> >
> To be sure, Christians and atheists have very different foundations for
> their moral claims, but not always. There are various matters that have
> been claimed to be basic. Even the same basis may be developed to produce
> vary different moral rules. However, in practice, both Christians and
> atheists may apply "I would feel very bad if ..." This is an area that
> gets very complicated when examined broadly and dispassionately. As
> noted, some atheists act as Christians ought to act. Some Christians act
> like the devil.
> Dave
Received on Sun Mar 12 03:18:02 2006