Religious Typology Quiz

[Dutch Uncle]

And certain kinds of knowledge cannot be derived by use of experimentation and the scientific inductive method.

People can't actually agree on what freedom and equality means, or if it's even a good thing. Karl Marx, Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus, and Thomas Hobbes would all have very different conceptions of the nature of freedom and equality.

Agreed, which is the point some people may become confused; Freedom and equality are within the sphere of human knowledge, but not within the realm of science except in the most limited of natures.

Science is tool. Saying "Science doesn't care" is both true and a misunderstanding of science. People care due to their emotional side. To paraphrase "A League of Their Own", "There's no crying in science". Emotion is the complete opposite of science, unless it's the subject of study.

Nonetheless, human beings are emotional beings with a unique ability to both think and put into action things that have never existed before. Let's see a dolphin do that! LOL

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Agreed, which is the point some people may become confused; Freedom and equality are within the sphere of human knowledge, but not within the realm of science

Not sure I see why science would be barred from understanding either of those concepts. They are measurable and objective. What specifically is beyond science for these concepts?

 

[Cypress]

Not sure I see why science would be barred from understanding either of those concepts. They are measurable and objective. What specifically is beyond science for these concepts?

Freedom is an innate idea in the human mind. It doesn't exist out there in the world with properties that can be measured, like a quark. And even as an idea, there's no universal and certain agreement on what freedom means. Ask Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, Jesus, and Ghandi what freedom means and you'll get four different answers.

Of the hundreds of scientists I've met in my life, I've never heard one say they are running experiments on freedom

 

[Cypress]

Agreed, which is the point some people may become confused; Freedom and equality are within the sphere of human knowledge, but not within the realm of science except in the most limited of natures.

Science is tool. Saying "Science doesn't care" is both true and a misunderstanding of science. People care due to their emotional side. To paraphrase "A League of Their Own", "There's no crying in science". Emotion is the complete opposite of science, unless it's the subject of study.

Nonetheless, human beings are emotional beings with a unique ability to both think and put into action things that have never existed before. Let's see a dolphin do that! LOL

Humans seem to have the ability to formulate ideas that transcend sensory perception, like freedom, equality, and justice. And there seems to be an innate Platonic sense of freedom floating around out there, but at the level of particulars there are a lot of different interpretations of the nature and meaning of freedom.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Humans seem to have the ability to formulate ideas that transcend sensory perception, like freedom, equality, and justice. And there seems to be an innate Platonic sense of freedom floating around out there, but at the level of particulars there are a lot of different interpretations of the nature and meaning of freedom.

Agreed. Despite humor from Douglas Adams, that trait is only seen in humans and no other animals. It may have existed in other animals in the past but have become extinct....probably due to a human spear point. LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not sure I see why science would be barred from understanding either of those concepts. They are measurable and objective. What specifically is beyond science for these concepts?

Psychology and sociology can measure levels of freedom and/or equality is various societies but not the nature of freedom and equality. Example: should everyone be equal? Of course not. By what measure should their equality be measured and implemented?

What is the science on freedom and equality for all from your perspective?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Freedom is an innate idea in the human mind. It doesn't exist out there in the world with properties that can be measured, like a quark. And even as an idea, there's no universal and certain agreement on what freedom means. Ask Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, Jesus, and Ghandi what freedom means and you'll get four different answers.

Of the hundreds of scientists I've met in my life, I've never heard one say they are running experiments on freedom

Actually "freedom" is an easy enough concept to apply even in the sciences. Ever heard the phrase "degrees of freedom"? It's little more than an assessment of how constrained a system is. It isn't some deeper concept that isn't amenable to characterization.

What does it mean for a person to be free? Similarly, it is a measure of lack of constraint on them. There are even groups that generate "freedom indices" to compare countries.

I guess I am lacking the understanding of what you think "freedom" entails that takes it somehow out of the realm of the physical, measurable, characterizable. I get that it is also a "concept" but a concept that has roots in the physical world.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually "freedom" is an easy enough concept to apply even in the sciences. Ever heard the phrase "degrees of freedom"? It's little more than an assessment of how constrained a system is. It isn't some deeper concept that isn't amenable to characterization.

What does it mean for a person to be free? Similarly, it is a measure of lack of constraint on them. There are even groups that generate "freedom indices" to compare countries.

I guess I am lacking the understanding of what you think "freedom" entails that takes it somehow out of the realm of the physical, measurable, characterizable. I get that it is also a "concept" but a concept that has roots in the physical world.

Again it can be measured. Now determine why one person deserves more freedom than another given both are same gender, same age and innocent of crimes.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Despite humor from Douglas Adams, that trait is only seen in humans and no other animals. It may have existed in other animals in the past but have become extinct....probably due to a human spear point. LOL

The higher animals have emotions and social structures we are still just beginning to understand, but obviously human cognition is in a whole other ball park.

I always wanted to ask the empiricist John Locke what sensory experience led to the ideas of freedom and equality. Descartes thought our minds have innate ideas and intuitions independent of sense experience, which allows the process of deduction.

 

[Cypress]

Actually "freedom" is an easy enough concept to apply even in the sciences. Ever heard the phrase "degrees of freedom"? It's little more than an assessment of how constrained a system is. It isn't some deeper concept that isn't amenable to characterization.

What does it mean for a person to be free? Similarly, it is a measure of lack of constraint on them. There are even groups that generate "freedom indices" to compare countries.

I guess I am lacking the understanding of what you think "freedom" entails that takes it somehow out of the realm of the physical, measurable, characterizable. I get that it is also a "concept" but a concept that has roots in the physical world.

Degrees of freedom is a concept from chemistry which has nothing to do with human ideas of political freedom, moral freedom, spiritual freedom.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Again it can be measured. Now determine why one person deserves more freedom than another given both are same gender, same age and innocent of crimes.

I have no reason to assume one person does deserve freedom more than another. But I can definitely tell you that if you live in a social group in which some members are arbitrarily given fewer constraints than other members of the group then it is possible to see a threat to the stability of that social group.

But let's talk "dog packs" for a change. Obviously the younger dogs in the dog pack are more constrained in their activities than the "alphas" (realizing that the alpha dog is largely a myth but rather the breeding couple or "parents" in the pack but this will serve as an example anyway).

The dogs that are NOT the leaders of the pack are constrained (given less "freedom" than the alphas). If "freedom" has a universal value that transcends the physical context then surely those dog packs are "wrong" for lacking freedom. But they aren't. Because what counts as freedom and even fairness is rather different for dogs. There is no universal "good" for the dog to see the world as an ideal equal playing field for all.

Their social groups developed such that freedom was not universally allowed, and that a certain degree of lack of freedom for SOME enhances the structure of their social network. Keeps the group safe.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Degrees of freedom is a concept from chemistry which has nothing to do with human ideas of political freedom, moral freedom, spiritual freedom.

But it does. Freedom is nothing more than lack of constraint. It is literally the exact same thing.

It sounds weird, yes, but then what does "moral freedom" mean? It SOUNDS very philosophical but it's meaning is still the same. Lack of constraint. Only applied in a different area.

What does "spiritual freedom" mean? Presumably lack of constraint on what one wishes to imagine about the supernatural.

My point being that concepts like "Freedom" are not necessarily an indicator of some deeper feature to the physical world.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Degrees of freedom is a concept from chemistry which has nothing to do with human ideas of political freedom, moral freedom, spiritual freedom.

Perhaps you can tell me what is unique about the concept of "freedom" that you think makes it separable from the physical reality of the world, somehow beyond just mere empirical characterization. That might help re-center the discussion.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The higher animals have emotions and social structures we are still just beginning to understand, but obviously human cognition is in a whole other ball park.

I always wanted to ask the empiricist John Locke what sensory experience led to the ideas of freedom and equality. Descartes thought our minds have innate ideas and intuitions independent of sense experience, which allows the process of deduction.

Emotions are our animal nature since we react with them without thinking.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Perhaps you can tell me what is unique about the concept of "freedom" that you think makes it separable from the physical reality of the world, somehow beyond just mere empirical characterization. That might help re-center the discussion.

Is slavery wrong? It's existed for all of human history so why are people claiming it's wrong now?

How about rape? There's the legal bullshit against it, but I'm curious about your science for or against it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have no reason to assume one person does deserve freedom more than another. But I can definitely tell you that if you live in a social group in which some members are arbitrarily given fewer constraints than other members of the group then it is possible to see a threat to the stability of that social group.

But let's talk "dog packs" for a change. Obviously the younger dogs in the dog pack are more constrained in their activities than the "alphas" (realizing that the alpha dog is largely a myth but rather the breeding couple or "parents" in the pack but this will serve as an example anyway).
The dogs that are NOT the leaders of the pack are constrained (given less "freedom" than the alphas). If "freedom" has a universal value that transcends the physical context then surely those dog packs are "wrong" for lacking freedom. But they aren't. Because what counts as freedom and even fairness is rather different for dogs. There is no universal "good" for the dog to see the world as an ideal equal playing field for all.

Their social groups developed such that freedom was not universally allowed, and that a certain degree of lack of freedom for SOME enhances the structure of their social network. Keeps the group safe.

What does the science on it say?

Researching dog psychology is one thing. Still waiting to read about your scientific conclusions with people.

Do you know this intuitively or scientifically?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Is slavery wrong? It's existed for all of human history so why are people claiming it's wrong now?

I am born and raised in the modern world so obviously to me, as a modern human, slavery is wrong. But clearly that wasn't believed by previous humans. EVEN SOME OF THE GREAT THINKERS CITED ON THIS VERY THREAD! Like Thomas Jefferson.

I would love to think that in an absolute sense "slavery is wrong" because it fails to achieve maximum safety for all members of our social group.

How about rape? There's the legal bullshit against it, but I'm curious about your science for or against it.

The same reasoning applies. Why is rape wrong? Because it endangers some members of our social group and destabilizes the social HUMAN network. "Animal Coercive Sex" is the name for "rape" in the animal kingdom and some animals like geese and ducks and some dolphins and some chimps do it. Is it "wrong" for them?

I should think that if this question was as big as it sounds: "Is rape wrong?" it would have to be somewhat more universal and not selectively applied in different ways based on which animal you are talking about.

Rape is VERY bad among humans. Our social group does not allow that. Rape appears to be just one of those things for some unfortunate ducks, but I'm guessing no one would say we need to enforce rational anti-rape laws on ducks.

 

[Cypress]

Perhaps you can tell me what is unique about the concept of "freedom" that you think makes it separable from the physical reality of the world, somehow beyond just mere empirical characterization. That might help re-center the discussion.

Jesus thought freedom meant freedom from ignorance and sin.

John Locke thought freedom essentially meant the protection of private property.

Martin Luther King thought freedom meant full, universal, and unobstructed access to institutions of power.

The Buddha thought freedom meant liberation from Samsara.

Marx thought freedom meant the ability to have control over one's creative capacity to create economic products.

Hegel conflated freedom with service to the nation.


I would love to know what are the test tubes and microscopes that would be amenable to studying that and giving us mathmatical laws of casuality to explain it.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Researching dog psychology is one thing. Still waiting to read about your scientific conclusions with people.

The reason I raise dogs as an example is that it shows a lack of universality to these concepts. They are appreciated by the human mind and elevated to some high level of importance as if they are some universal truth. Clearly the dog, another social animal like us (and from whom early humans may have learned how to hunt in groups etc.), the dog doesn't conform to the same ideas as we do. Hence the lack of universality to all these high-minded concepts.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Jesus thought freedom meant freedom from ignorance and sin.

John Locke thought freedom essentially meant the protection of private property.

Martin Luther King thought freedom meant full, universal, and unobstructed access to institutions of power.

The Buddha thought freedom meant liberation from Samsara.

Marx thought freedom meant the ability to have control over one's creative capacity to create economic products.

Hegel conflated freedom with service to the nation.


I would love to know what are the test tubes and microscopes that would be amenable to studying that and giving us mathmatical laws of casuality to explain it.

Why do you think it would require testtubes and microscopes? That isn't all of science.

But again, these "definitions" don't imply any sort of deeper feature to nature. They are all just restating the concept of "lack of constraint"