Athena

Imatfaal said in the logos thread. "The laws of physics do not govern the universe - they are merely a human attempt to model and formalise the underlying reality; they have no existence other than within the human pursuit of understanding."

What in hell does logic have to do with anything? We don't have rule by reason, and the laws of physics do not exist, so there is no such thing as logic. It is all big free for all and anything can happen in any order and it is all good.

Okay smart guy, what word would use?

I am blown away by the argument that democracy is not rule by reason. Even King James understood the people were demanding rule by reason, when he defended his rule by saying he always gives the people his reasoning. Past revolutions may have been about getting better rulers, but the American Revolution was about having a say in how we are governed. Jefferson explains this: If Jefferson is not talking about rule by reason, what is he talking about?

This is amazing to me. You got two votes for missing the obvious. The whole of democracy is about us being thinking creatures, capable of reason, and therefore political animals. Can anyone explain to me why evidently no one understands the obvious? If we are not ruled by reason, how many other choices are there? Do you like the biblicals explanation better? God, chooses the rulers and gives these specially chosen people His commandants, and all we have to do is obey like dogs obey their masters. Is there another choice?

Okay, why does have God have to be supernatural? How about the God Cicero speaks of, and Jefferson refers to in the US Declaration of Independence? This is the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". We are discussing this understanding of God in the Logos thread. For sure not all laws are moral! That is why we have democracy, so no dictator can dictate our laws, and everyone of us has the responsibility of arguing against bad laws and in favor of good laws, even if everyone seems against us, and we might be killed or banned. And for sure we don't even want to attempt putting every moral into a law, because that would destroy our liberty. Liberty is defended with education in The Law, not by making laws. Our laws do not cover all morals, but all morals are based on The Law, which is logos, the controlling force of the universe, and it is universal. The saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse", does not mean ignorance of our local laws based on customs, which can vary from place to place. However, there are some acts considered intolerable by almost everyone, every where. We referred to these as acts that violate human decency. This is what we are arguing, when we argue we do need religion because it is our nature to have a conscience and judge right from wrong. Like there are some things, that no decent human being could consider acceptable, and this is what is meant by "ignorance of the law is no excuse". It is saying, what you have done is so completely unacceptable, there should be no need for a written law to prevent you from doing it. For example, when I was young, the news reported that a man raped a woman and also ate the flesh of her breast. I can not imagine any people, any where on earth, or in any time in history, thinking this is okay. However, our moral judgment changes as we mature, and also emotions can effect our judgment, and both these facts play into our legal system. It seems to me, literacy in Greek and Roman classics is essential to this understanding and protecting our liberty and justice. The Greeks told stories of youthful folly that would be so helpful to us today. It is a fact of life that our judgment changes when we get older, so we need a degree of compassion for youth who can be forgiven their bad judgment, while determining their punishment, as is the case for the 21 year old who exposed his homosexual roommate, who later killed himself. It is so easy to see how the young man was thinking he would become popular by using the internet to expose his room mate, instead of thinking how harmful this act could be, while the judge might say in this case, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", because with his judgment, coming from greater maturity, exposing the roommate was so completely immoral. I am making sense? What is moral doesn't change, but our understanding of it does. The Law does not change, but our understanding of it does. Here is a huge clash between religion, which holds our morality to a past standard, and democracy which makes moral judgments every day, and changes our written laws whenever new reasoning demands a change in our written law. In a democracy, it is not a God who gives man laws to live by, but a consensus on the best reasoning of the people. Wow, thank goodness you persevered and won your case! I am so sorry you had to face such an ordeal alone. This is the cultural crisis we are facing at this time. Our culture is founded on those old moral stories, but since we dropped education in the classics, most people are not aware of that. As individuals can need psycho analysis so can nations need psycho analysis. Occupy is so much about this conflict, but we can't even discuss this, because education for technology does not include the classics, so too much is lost in our subconsciousness. This is a mental breakdown, exactly like an individual can have a mental breakdown. The group is screaming counterdictions instead of counterbalance, and is not aware of the history that brought us to this. We are smart but without the wisdom essential to our newly discovered technological society, and we are as arrogant as the Germans we defended our democracy against, because we replaced our institutions with their institutions. This is causing our mental breakdown on a national level. Oh really. Mind giving us your argument? What makes what I have said false? Sure people can argue against God and always have. I think are mistaking The Law and the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, with religion. However, you are right about the impact of the majority. I had to fight to get my post to stay in the philosophy forum, instead of being transferred to forum for religion, and still feel like I am standing alone against the majority. The Greeks, like everyone else, begin explaining why things are the way the are by telling stories about the gods, as you said. However, they discover mathematics, and reason through things like everything is made of atoms. I have already explained this evolution from believing in the gods, to determining even the gods are subject to logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. The Law is not God given however, it exist. As Imatfaal said in the logos thread. "The laws of physics do not govern the universe - they are merely a human attempt to model and formalise the underlying reality; they have no existence other than within the human pursuit of understanding." I do not agree with Imatfaal about The Law having no existence. I have to switch my attention to a grandchild at the moment, and I am floundering for the right words to express the thought. Maybe while I am gone someone can step in clarifying - oh, oh something just crashed on the floor

Huh, I don't understand your reasoning. How do you know any of these bad things will happen? Is it not by understanding how things work, and is not understanding how things work, understanding The Law, and are you not speaking of morals, the sequence of cause and effect?

I totally love your argument! You wouldn't happen to be a male would you? I think we share many agreements, but understand them differently because we are of different genders? It was Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. book, "Goddesses in Everywoman" who radically changed my understanding of the goddesses importance to democracy. Historically women have struggled to make their voices heard. Historically the best most of us could do was influence our children and perhaps our husbands. Yet, wisdom is associated with goddesses and the creation of civilization is associated with goddesses, and there is anthropological and zoological evidence to justify this. Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice and the Defender of those who stand for liberty and justice. We know Athena as the Statue of Liberty, the Lady of Justice, and the Spirit of America brandishing the Sword of Justice in a mural of the gods in the US Capital Building. The Spirit of America, can also be known as morale, that high spirited feeling that comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. Our liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want, because that could mean destroying our civilization. Our liberty is only the liberty to do the right thing, and our laws are assuring we do the right thing and not the wrong thing, and what is right or wrong, is to be determined democratically, as we are doing right here and right now. Athena, unlike the God of Abraham, did not give man laws, but taught them to govern themselves. However, Athena would have been nothing without her father Zeus. In a patriarchy, female power depends on males. However, before patriarchies there is evidence of matriarchies, and the bonobo are zoological evidence of the difference between patriarchies and matriarchies. Anyway, what we think is important and therefore what shapes our point of view, seems to be influenced by our gender, and while males traditionally ruled, females were the teachers, and we had liberal education, which is essential to our liberty and this education transmitted a culture that comes from Greek and Roman classics. As for Germany this is the difference between a male God, the God of Abraham, and the goddess Athena. Germany was authoritarian and this is most certainly supported by the bible, and also by atheist who insist the only definition of God is the Christian one, and are just as authoritarian, and controlling as the church of old. We replaced classical philosophical with German philosophy, and most of these philosophers were Christian. True or false? Or maybe we shouldn't attempt to answer every question from a true of false frame of mind? Maybe our reality is paradoxical and confusing? For sure, the US defended its democracy against Germany in two world wars, and this was largely because the Prussian institutions organized Germany to be a military might, but after the wars, the US adopted these institutions. The foundation of Germany philosophy is both Christianity and the classical philosophies. You not seeing what I see in the classics, is a good clue to differences in perception. You see law, and I see the importance of education to our liberty. But let's now chew on our understanding of The Law. The Greeks were working on understanding the laws of universe, and what you said and I am saying, has every thing to do with logos and our liberty. I should have done this in the beginning. Here is the Webster definition of logos that is the foundation of my argument. "In Greek philosophy, reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as made manifest in speech." This is knowledge of things like math and physics, and is the foundation of democracy. Before this understanding of math and physics, everyone understood things are as they are, because a god or goddess made them so. The God of Abraham comes from this unscientific understanding of the universe. So are all the gods of mythology, until the philosophers asked, "how do the gods resolve their differences?" Mind you, this question is asked after philosophers investigated how the universe really works, that is after math and conceiving of the atom. They concluded, the gods argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, and here is the point, the gods can not rule by whim, but are themselves subject to the laws of the universe. Get it? The God or Abraham, like all gods and goddesses ruled by whim. What they did or didn't do depended on how they felt, and humans had a part in this. We could please or displease the gods and goddesses, and they would either reward us or punish us, depending on how they felt at the moment. But now, even the gods are subject to the rule of reason, The Law, the controlling principle that is above the gods. Up to this point, the Greeks ruled just like the gods who ruled by whim. Whoever held the most power ruled and he could do whatever he wanted to do. Sure this can be done, but as the philosophers came to realize, in the long run, this did not work so well, because there is a higher controlling principle, and we all experience the consequences of our action. As Socrates argued, it may take 3 generations to fully realize the wrong of our ways, but sooner of later, if we do wrong, bad things happen. Logos, The Law, and democracy, which is people imitating the gods who are subject to the controlling force of the universe, and can not rule by whim. This is essential to our understanding of democracy and constitution. What is wrong today is we no longer understand this and foolishly think politics is a power game that some win and some loose, and our ignorant masses can be manipulated with very expensive control of the media, thanks to education for technology that does not prepare people to be self governing, but makes them dependent on authority, because this is the fastest way to develop technology and the military weapons of defense. But it is not good for democracy. Christianity gives us a God who can rule by whim, and most conservatives worship this God, who can be bought off with sacrifices, prays and burning of candles. If we want to correct the problem caused by Christianity, we need to level the field with Logos as God, and from there, use logic to examine this God, this force that controls the universe, and leads to laws for sanitation, a standard for building broilers, and laws controlling how we distribute national resources, etc.. Democracy is suppose to be rule by reason, not a power struggle. Declaring what I am saying is a fallacy, is not a legitimate argument. If you want to argue, you need to do so with your reasoning. What is the reasoning to support your argument that democracy is not rule by reason? Perhaps, you would agree democracy is rule by law, because we boost of this all time. However, rule by law is a good thing only if the laws are good, and how do we know if the laws are good? This brings us back to our ability to reason. Our laws are based on reason, which is rule by reason, as opposed to rule by rulers who rule by whim just because they have have the power to subject others to their rule.

Yes, I am aware of that and thanks for bringing it up. My post are already way too long, and the reason for doing a thread instead of a blog is to get everyone's input. It always makes my heart happy when others share important information on the subject of democracy. We did have the Articles of Confederation, but the huge increase in the powers of government came with the Constitution.

You are right, but not just any law. On what I was calling the book is the date of the US independence. That means, when our constitutional government protecting our liberty was put into law. Now we have to ask, how was the separation from Britain justified, and how is liberty possible? But first I should correct my errors. I should have used the word tablet instead of book because it is associated with what the Romans would use to declare a law. Wikipedia gives us a much better explanation of the Statue of Liberty than what I could find a few years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty The fuller explanation is all convoluted with Greek and Roman mythology and possibly the Zoroaster religion from Persia, and attitudes towards slavery and freedom, and self control as opposed to debauchery. It all brings us back to only highly moral people can have liberty, and that this morality is something that must be taught and learned. Our Statue of Liberty is wearing a crown of sun rays, seven in number, we have seven seas and seven continents, and the number seven is associated with the mystical or divine and the Virgin Goddess bringing us back to knowledge and wisdom, and the liberal arts. This is the foundation of education since the medieval ages until, military technology and war, focused education on technology. The seven liberal arts are seven paths of learning intended to liberate us from mundane life. Which brings us back the possible insanity of giving everyone liberty! I guess it is the bible that tells us God gave us free will, but the bible also tells us God gives us rulers, and these rulers are chosen by God, and we are to obey them. I don't want to make this too long, the point remains, we must be educated in the liberal arts to have liberty, without destroying ourselves. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR PUSHING ME TO GET BETTER INFORMATION AND TO CLARIFY MY THOUGHTS. NEXT TO MY FAMILY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN MY LIFE. MANY OF OUR FOREFATHERS WERE MASONS AND THEY STUDIED THE ANCIENTS INTENTLY AND FIRMLY BELIEVED IN THE NEW AGE, WHEN ALL OF HUMANITY WOULD BE ENLIGHTENED. THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT FOR US TO DISCUSS. You are quoting the man who devoted his life to assuring us all liberty and establishing free public education, because he thought, liberal education was essential to a strong republic. He stood against the Federalist who could be called conservatives and who would have established strong government over the people. He also edited the bible, removing everything not compliant with science. I think you need to know about him and liberal education than a quote, which speaks to us of the history of Athens and the war with Sparta, in which Socrates fought. All of this bringing us back to why education is essential to democracy! Democracy is rule by reason, and sometimes the reasoning of the people is not so good, on the other hand, the freedom and responsibility of democracy also enables everyone to achieve their human potential, and a well educated population can bring humanity to its full potential. However, this well educated in the liberal arts, not just technology.

Gosh I am sorry. I wonder if Socrates felt as bad when people took offense, when all he was trying to do is get to the truth of something. Here is the problem. Democracy really does depend on knowledge of Greek and Roman classics, and they were the foundation of our education, until be began educating for a technological society with unknown values. The definitions I use are not mine, but were common to those educated before 1958. I do not have this communication with older people. At least not the females. How am I suppose to know which concepts that were common knowledge are no longer common knowledge? I am discovering the communication problem as I go along. It is as though I got moved to Germany, our culture is so changed, and I hope I can be forgiven for feeling like a stranger in this new technological society where the logic is so different from mine own? How do I bridge the gap without being offensive? Do you think we would have manifest reality with the laws of physics, or that we would have civilizations without the laws human nature? Of course not. The law is the cause of all things. It is our job as humans to learn the learn the law, and then govern ourselves with knowledge of The Law. I do not know there can be a democracy without this understanding? Now I can not avoid pissing people off for mentioning the change in education again? The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced our liberal education with education for technology, and the social and political ramifications of this are huge. The young are operating with a completely different consciousness, such as not understanding moral means knowing The Law and good manners, and that people who do not know this are ignorant and can not have liberty, because they do not have good moral judgment. This is not my idea, but was what everyone was taught. We defend our liberty by knowing The Law and then reasoning for our laws and obeying them. Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility and it is our responsibility to argue the reasoning of a law if we believe the reasoning of a law is wrong. See? It is all about understanding The Law, it is not knowing you can make millions of dollars if a law is written for that purpose. Our democracy is going to hell, because the young no longer know, democracy is about knowing The Law and morals and their responsibility to assure our laws comply with The Law. No using the word God without mythology is not contrived. It is about knowing The Law, and damn religion for causing the confusion we have today. We must correct this confusion, by arguing truth. And I have grandchildren needing my attention, so I have to run.

Good morning. It is really a delight to start the day with a good laugh. I hope you see the humor in your argument and do not take this as an insult, but there would be no manifest reality without The Law. That mob or crowd is acting on reason. If their reasoning is good, their action will have excellent results, like sanitation laws that save thousands of lives. If their reasoning is bad, their action will have terrible results, such as the invasion of Iraq and destruction of their cities and all the human suffering, and the following consequences of Iran and Korea possibly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and all the tension and fighting, and the huge cost to the tax payers who are being billed for one bad decision after another, so we have the freedom to buy gas hogs that are a terrible waste of a finite resource but are also ego based status symbols that consume oil as fast as it is taken out of the ground, driving up oil prices around the world, and causing all kinds of trouble that fall on the poor and future generations, including intense hunger when turn corn into fuel. All this bull shit starts with ignoring the 1920 warning, "Given our known oil reserves and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster, and possibly war." Geeze, we have had since 1920 to work on this problem. I think the rumor that humans are intelligent is highly over rated. Moving along. Because democracy relies on the reasoning of the masses, education is vital to a democracy, but our education system is obviously failing us and making these discussions about cause and reason, seem futile. Good education is education for moral judgment, so the masses are highly moral and safely enjoy liberty. Understanding the laws of nature is essential to that, and we had education for good moral judgment until 1958. Democracy is a work in progress, and it needs science for that progress, but not just science. Morality is applied science, but we have amoral science because we stopped preparing everyone for independent thinking and have gone to "group think". This is a disaster! Agreed, we need a better definition of logos and I was working on that when I saw your post. I like the word "God" better than logos, but everyone uses Christian mythology to define God, instead of an understanding Thomas Jefferson's Laws of Nature and Nature's God, which comes to Jefferson through Cicero, who was a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. Anyway, I am working on a useful definition of logos. It would be nice if the bible said, in the beginning there was math, and proceeded to explain our reality from there. Logos, is the reason of all things. Is that helpful? We use the word God for the reason of all things, but even atheist have given Christians the right to define God. This was not the case when Jesus came onto the scene. Christianity comes out of Roman Law of Nature, which blended Hellenistic reason and Roman's attempts to include everyone one powerful empire, with Prussian and Egyptian religion all mixed up with Judaism and the off shoots of Judaism which included those who deified Jesus. We need to go back to when there was resistance to allowing Christians the right to define God. I guess that means picking up an understanding of logos? Or is there another way to think about God without it meaning the God of Abraham and all the superstition that goes with that? To me, it is foolish to prevent discussion of truth, and support Christian superstition by insisting there is no God. Can Christianity exist without the antiChrist? You may not get my sense of humor, but manifest reality is possible because of positive and negative changes. Anyway, what is truth, what are the laws of manifest reality and morality?

How do you think I implied that laws and morals did not exist before man developed the ideology of god? Isn't that like saying the big bang didn't happened before man developed the ideology of god? Man's knowledge does not come before creation. How do you think natural law is different from morals? I gave a few examples of stories explaining morals. Do any of them violate a law of nature? Am I not saying a moral is understanding the law of nature? I agree God will not save you. It would be so much nicer if we could have these discussions without awareness of Christian mythology. When I speak of God, it is not the God of Abraham, and I really feel frustrated when people base their arguments on that mythology, instead of on what I am saying. If you could rely on a God to save you, I suppose you wouldn't need to know morals, because there would be no bad consequences to what you do. As I understand God, if you set the house on fire, God, is not going to rush in and save you like a mommy or daddy. The consequence of what you do are what they are. I am very sure things are as Cicero said. Sacrificing animals, or saying prays and burning candles, to please a god, aren't going to the change the consequences of our thoughts and actions.

As moral and The Law are essential concepts, so is logos. Now I will really take issue with religion, because of how Christianity distorted our understanding of logos, with myth and superstition, and how this distortion then effects our understanding of democracy- rule by reason. This is from Wikipedia

"The Little Red Hen", "The Emperor's New Clothes" , "The Lion and Mouse" are all moral stories. They teach both moral thinking and virtues. We would read these to children, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story?" The answer is an explanation of cause and effect. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one would help her make it. "This story shows us that when you work together, you can have fun, too. You also get to enjoy the rewards of your work." "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about honesty. The little boy dared to say the king had no clothes, when everyone was tricked into in believing only ignorant people couldn't see the king's beautiful new clothes. "Sometimes being honest means telling people things they don't want to hear. It's not always easy, and somethings it's even scary to be honest. No matter how difficult it is, though, telling the truth is very important." "The Lion and the Mouse" "Sometimes, it is hard to be friends. At first the lion was angry with the mouse and did not want to be friends. The mouse was afraid because the lion was mean and had laughed at her. In the end the lion and the mouse learn that it's better to be nice than to be mean. They find out that even though they are very different, they can still be good friends". The quotes come from "Treasury of Virtues" Publications International, LTD. These stories have been told for hundred's of years. So you see, it is not just religion that teaches us morals. Greek plays taught morals. Folk songs teach morals. Our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment, because our understanding of morals laws comes from many sources, and they are tied to The Law, our best understanding of how the universe works. Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works. This is not religion, because it is not the word of the God. It is our own observations and what we infer about God and how things work, and that is philosophy. This understanding is vitally important to our democracy and liberty. Before 1958 everyone was taught this, and since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, we have announced a national youth crisis, a crisis in our jail and prison system, a welfare crisis, a banking crisis, political crisis. Sure we had crisis before 1958, but we understood they are the result of not correctly know The Laws that regulate our lives. Today the crisis is, denial of any laws except the ones we make. We are smart by not wise, and will not resolve our problems as long as we deny the ancient Greek understanding of moral- to know The Law and good manners. I am looking for reassurance that people understand, morals are not limited to religion, and talk of God can be philosophical and not just religion. Theology is believing we have the word of God. Philosophy is questioning what we think we know, and is the best way to deal with superstition. Just denying God reenforces the religious superstitions, so it is not a good thing to do. Isn't that what people in science forums want to do, end superstition so that we might better govern ourselves? We need to understand The Law and morals to do that, and our systems fail when we do not.

I don't think we invent the laws, but you can try, and may be you can get rich inventing the laws of the universe? When we make laws to regulate banking or traffic or things like avoiding crime, it may seem like we are inventing laws, and sometimes the reasoning for a law is not good and needs to be changed. Democracy is about all of us having a say in the laws we live by, and education for democracy, prepares us to do that. It begins with an understanding of The Law. I am concerned education for technology is not doing a good job of teaching this, leading us to believe our laws are just a matter of whim, and accepting this would mean the end of our liberty. I really enjoyed this explanation of how we come to identifying a law. Now can we look at what religion did to do with our understanding of the law, without a mod moving things to the religious forum? As we know, in the past, different groups of people starting tell everyone what God's laws are. They came up with some good ideas and some not so good ideas. Moses, whom some believe spoke for God, making theology different from philosophy, told everyone how to handle human waste, and taking this for God's law, they all did things the way Moses told them to do things. In Jerusalem this was a disaster! Only in a dry desert can you handle waste this way. In Jerusalem it meant contaminating the water used for washing their hands, and we get Jesus telling us it is not necessary to wash our hands. Someone noticed Moses' laws for sanitation were not working in Jerusalem, but were in fact leading to early death. They didn't correctly understand the law, so Jesus tells us it was a law made by humans and we don't have to follow it. As everyone knows, the problem with religion is the failure to check the laws, and the inability to change them, unless someone else speaking for God, tells us to do things differently. This is really problematic and I really hate it when well a meaning mod, moves my post to religion, and everyone denies that this was a mistake. I do not speak for God, but use philosophy and science for my reasoning, that is to know The Law. The benefit of democracy is the ease with which we make and change laws. Threw science, we have learned a lot and now have better sanitation laws, and laws for welding boilers that prevent boilers from blowing up and killing people. We have laws regulating just about everything in our lives, and this begins to become another a problem., especially when people deny there any law maker above them, and believe they can make any laws they want. When we went from "God's laws" to secular laws, then education for technology, the connection between our laws and the laws of the universe was lost. Before education for technology, education taught everyone that our wonderful laws that save so many lives, and regulate our society, are our improved understanding (science) of God's laws. People with 8th grade educations, saw violating the law, as ignorance. In a democracy our laws are supposed to be based on the reasoning of philosophy and science. That reasoning is not inventing universal laws but identifying them. For example, we do not lie, because if we lie, people will not trust us, and good relationships depend on trust. That is universal. This makes lying ignorance of the law. We can knowingly ignore the law, or perhaps fail to understand the law. The point is, when it comes to sanitation, making boilers or human relationships, The law regulates our lives, and when we fail to know the law and follow the law, things go badly. That is just the way it is. Since education for technology, a lot of people seem to be denying this. They say things like "we invent the laws", and then act like we can get away with inventing the laws. We seem to think we are above The Laws. This problem has hit the banks and our economies badly! Our justice system is out dated and expensive and ineffective, it is pathetic! Especially in the US. We are not applying science to our laws. We are acting like our laws can be anything we want them to be, and that is a failure to know The Law, and that is causing our systems to fail. It is a tyranny and everything we opposed. Democracy is among other things, a search for truth and laws made by a consensus on the best reasoning. Only when we know and understand this, can we defend our democracy and liberty. Our military weapons defend neither our democracy nor liberty.

Really, a mod can arbitrarily decide to move a post and a person can undo this? Then why move the post in the first place? If the mod is meaning to be helpful, wouldn't it be respectful to ask first? And most importantly, exactly how does anyone justify putting that post in religion? It has nothing to do with religion. What is going badly in both science forums is the education problem. I didn't realize how bad it is. I sure didn't expect moderators who do not know the difference between religion and philosophy, and than deny an error was made? What kind of standard is this? It is unthinkable to apply this kind of standard to science.

Morality - Philosophy www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htmWithout these principles in place, societies cannot survive for long. In today's world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of ... The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/Mar 14, 2011 – A society whose morality contains all three of these features may be criticized by philosophers that accept a normative account of morality if in ... 1. Descriptive Definitions of ... - 2. Normative Definitions of ... - Bibliography Philosophy, Morality and Society www.open.edu.au › Home › Courses & units › Arts & humanitiesPhilosophy, Morality and Society is a Arts & humanities undergraduate level 1 unit offered by Macquarie University through Open Universities Australia. Philosophy, et cetera: Society and Morality www.philosophyetc.net/2005/07/society-and-morality.htmlJul 9, 2005 – Many people claim that morality is defined in terms of the beliefs that are widely accepted in a society. Thus Melbourne Philosopher, for ... Philosophy, Morality and Society - PHL132 - 2012 Course ... www.handbook.mq.edu.au › Handbook HomeApr 20, 2011 – Philosophy, Morality and Society - PHL132. This unit provides an introduction to major topics in ethics, moral theory and contemporary political ... Now how do you justify moving my philosophical comment about morality to religion?

Philosophy, for those who think it is crap, is the love of knowledge. Philosophy is the foundation of science. Philosophy is also the framework for moral thinking, and this discussion does not belong in the forum for religion, because it is about philosophy and an understanding of morals that makes democracy and liberty possible. The law, what is it? How do we know it? There is an organizing force to the universe, because obviously manifest reality is not disorganized chaos. We speak of this organizing force as the laws of physics and human nature and mathematics, etc.. I invite you to say what you know of the law and how you know it.

Perhaps seeing the title as disrespectful and inviting trouble is, wrong? I also find moving my argument defending the importance of philosophy to the religion forum, wrong. I think we have so many wrongs, because we went from education for good moral judgment, without religion, to education for technology, and at this point, we left moral training to the church, as Germany did. Now people seem to think morality is about religion instead of philosophy. Only highly moral people can have liberty, because of the destructive nature of immorality, so now how do we maintain our liberty without self destructing? Capitalism without morality is self destructing. Science without morals causes major problems, such as consuming our incomes for extremely expensive weapons and warfare, a technology we can not control, and threatens all of life on earth. I think the rumor that we are intelligent is highly over rated.

I was talking philosophy, not religion, and my comment was a counter argument to the statement that philosophy is crap. Without religion how do we make moral decisions? How many other choices are there besides philosophy? I was speaking of the importance of philosophy. And I can't find the button to call your attention to the offense, but I guess I don't need it, for this disagreement. What need is an explanation of how anyone thinks I was talking religion, instead of saying there is a problem with religion? This is what I thought. A person needs zero understanding of philosophy to judge what is written in the philosophy thread, and this explains why my argument about the importance of philosophy was moved to the religion thread. An argument against the argument that philosophy is crap. It appears everyone is over sensitive to anything said about religion. Okay, I point to the "religion and morality" thread that was created by iodine. My argument opposing the argument that philosophy is crap, was removed from that thread and put in a separate thread in the religion forum. Personally I think the arbitrary judgment of splitting threads are good intentioned, but rude and disrespectful. Good intentions should begin with the respect of asking. A tyrant is not necessarily a mean and bad person. My years as mother taught me, a tyrant can have very good intentions, but the problem is having no balance of power. We are effectively like children to the moderators, as they do what they want with our post, without asking, and without necessary information. In this case, I was arguing why philosophy is important, and my argument was separated from the thread that philosophy is crap, and was put in a religion forum! To do such a thing without asking, is disrespectful, and this time, such a clear error. However, I know her intentions were good. Sincerely, I believe her intentions are good. So were mine when as a mother, I acted as a tyrant, but didn't know as much as I needed to know, like a better way of getting the results I wanted to get. So I inadvertently hurt my children. So were the king of England's intentions good, but the colonist insisted on having a say in government. There is just something that feels really awful about having no control over what we are doing, because things are done arbitrarily. This maybe a good thing if someone is a criminal, or acting in a way that harm others, but it is not so good a when person's intentions are good, and there is a chance something good can out of what the person is doing. By the way, I am preaching. I am on the internet to raise awareness of what our democracy is all about, and some days that seems futile. How you all do things is your business, but I like people to know the reasoning of democracy. PS swansort, what are you communicating with that gun? In the religion and morality thread someone argued dislike of being controlled by fear. He was speaking of the fear of god, but isn't a gun kind of like a godlike tool? King James argued he was like God, because of his powers over the people. This mentality doesn't seem improved when many have it. We are now afraid of each other, and being prepared to point and shoot does not help, because it is not pleasant feeling like your target.

What I said is not about religion. It is an argument opposing the argument that philosophy is crap, and it should have never been separated from the thread arguing philosophy is crap. Philosophy is a love of knowledge, and we increase our knowledge by observing and by arguing about what we observed and why it is so. Philosophy is the foundation of science, and science explains "the law". With knowledge of "the law", we make the laws that regulate our lives, and that is democracy. So philosophy is quite essential to democracy, and it is really insane to believe we are defending our democracy with guns and bombs on the other side of world, when at home we have zero understanding of it. You may not like that fact if we do wrong, things go wrong, but that is just the way it is. You quite drinking and smoking because it damages your body. Please explain the logic of saying you dislike morality based on know what is going to harm you and what is going to benefit you? Philosophy is the reasoning of which you speak, and my statement is in favor of philosophy. It is essential to democracy, and I stand for democracy. The Greek gods are the language of our civilization. Each one is a concept, and the genius of the Greeks was arguing these concepts against each other, resulting in a rapid increase in our knowledge that is not possible with one God. Every time the Greeks realized a new concept, they named a god for it, just as quantum physicist name new particles when they discover something new. This new god was added to the mix of gods, as physicist add their newly discovered knowledge to the rest of it. Philosophy is the foundation of science. I hate this thread being in religion, because I am not talking about religion. I hate the education that has resulted is such wide spread ignorance of what I am saying. I hate that my argument is not in the thread arguing philosophy is crap, because that is where it belongs.

I would rather handle this through private messages, but for some reason I am being prevented from sending private messages. What qualifies a moderator to make judgments in the religious and philosophy forums? It has become obvious intentions are good, but a lack of education in these fields is resulting in bad judgement. The interference in threads is ruining the very meaning and purpose of our freedom of speech which is to discover truth. This is wholly different from preventing harm caused by bad intentioned people. It is causing harm to discussions created by good intentioned people with terrible social ramifications, just as the church's of old efforts to control what talk about. In both cases the problem is good intentions mixed with ignorance. So now how is such interference justified? You who would insist only qualified people do a job, answer me, what qualifies a person to judge what is said in a religious or philosophy forum? It is not education for technology. That is the problem.

You use the word "concept", and I am beginning to think this is one of the most important words in our vocabulary. It is our ability to conceptualize that makes us like the gods, and capable of judging right from wrong. Because we can conceptualize, we can conceive the laws of nature, and be self governing. However, not all education leads to conceptual thinking. Philosophy is obviously conceptual thinking, but people of faith tend to be concrete thinkers who interpret the bible literally, instead of abstractly, and this is where religion has a problem with science, the literal, instead of abstract interpretation of the bible. It appears those who are educated for a technological society and becoming less capable of being civil. I believe we have reactionary and polarizing politics right now, and a huge problem with religion, because we have gone from education that used the "Conceptual Method", teaching children increasingly complex concepts, to the "Behaviorist Method" which can also be used for training dogs. The Behaviorist Method develops lower level thinking but not higher level thinking. It is good for technology, and sure isn't good for democracy. It appears the science community has become insistent on being literal and incapable of thinking conceptually, thus the opinion that philosophy is crap. Without basic concepts the recommended books are wasted on these people, because they can no possibly understand the more complex concepts. This is good for Hitler's Germany where education made people reliant on authority, as opposed to the education we had for good moral judgment, without religion. I am saying this, because I am very concerned about where we are going. The title of this thread makes me think of someone with the mentality of a thug, someone who disrespects others and will push and shove his way threw a crowd. When the majority share this mentality, how civil are we? How different from the animals are we without intentionally developed higher level thinking skills?

I don't know. In a different science forum I have asked how we might come to moral decisions without religion, and that thread is not going so well. Actually the answers to such questions are frightening to me. It appears without at least some philosophy there are people interested in how things work who never question the morality of anything. Amoral science might not be a good thing, and it is what Zeus was afraid of.