How is atheist morality not Social Darwinism?

Post Reply New Topic

It is not that I think you cannot grasp thingsor that you don't have an education; it is just that on this particular aspect of the scientific realm you aren't even really trying that hard to understand it. I am afraid that this type of conjecture just doesn't work in the modern physics world no matter how much "evidence" you mine from a much more in depth concept or how many times you cite videos from one fringe PhD.



As I have said before, Newtonian physics is valid after a certain point. QM applies at a micro level, and its effects on the macro world can be calculated and in some instances observed. For instance, the screen you are reading these words on does not come into existence only after it is measured.

QM affects the macro world, but it does not apply directly. Perhaps I am not making that point well. The wave function collapse does not apply to the macro world. If you try to calculate wave function on anything at that level you will quickly see that it is impossible.



Physics is entirely built on mathematical principle. If math is untrue, then absolutely nothing within the realm of physics can hold true. Using physics to somehow disprove math just doesn't work, no matter how you want to dress it up.

atheist morality (so-called) is predicated on respecting the rights of people. We don't need no God to recognize that people have rights. In point of fact religions totally debase non-believers. God may have made the world, but the Devil made religions to divide mankind and lead to death and destruction.

ruveyn

Not necessarily. There are plenty of atheists who are as*holes to others and don't see any reason why they should concern themselves with the concerns of others. We're all gonna die anyways, with no eternal consequence, so why not crush other people if it increases the pleasure in your own live? Then again, you see the same behavior from some religious folks, though they explain their behavior from a very different worldview. God(s) or no gods, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist....there's always gonna be as*holes.

Well I think it is safe to make the assumptions based on prior evidence that I do not think we get morals from any kind of supernatural being. But if there was a God, who had dominion over this earth, and this god gave us commandments, the breaking of which would earn the guilty party, punishment.Then these commandments are Laws not moral guidance. Which asks the question if people obey laws for fear of punishment are they behaving in a moral manner?



Social Darwinism is inextricably linked to Evolutionary Biology. This is not to say that it has any foundation in reality, it is simply that Social Darwinist are guilty of misrepresenting scientific theories, something you are very comfortable doing.


Yet another strawman regarding causation




Quite simply you have asked a question that is fundamentally flawed, and have floundered around waving bits of wikipedia, often taken wildly out of context. For you to determine that Morals are objective and handed down by God, then you need to prove God, until you do, a belief in God is 100% subjective, therefore a belief that his morals are what guide us is also 100% subjective. There is no such thing as Atheist Morals, an Atheist is someone who does not believe in God, that some atheists may share similar traits or ethics is totally coincidental, just as many are polar opposites. There are atheists on WP who are as right wing and judgmental as the worst bible thumping rednecks and there are others who are dyed in the wool Marxists, some are centrist, some small r Republicans, some are libertarians etc etc their ethics mirror their differing socio/political stance. The only similarity is that none of them believe in god.

I never said "it worked" at the macro-level. I repeated what the Yale physics professor stated, and scientific America, that macro-QM happens in the macro-world.

As the Yale physics professor explains, QM happens in the macro-world, yet we don't see it happening , because matter at the macro-level is constantly bumping into other matter (e.g., a human hits air molecules walking around, thus, the wave function is instantly collapsed at that point). However, there is a lot of research into seeing how big a macro-object can be made and still get QM effects by closing off the object from measurement, i.e., from the wavefunction collapsing.

So, I see Newtonian mechanics secondary to QM as the truer nature of matter.



What if the closed off the system ? See above, when the system is closed off from "measurement" then theoretically, it can be any size?Assuming, "close off" is possible at the macro-level.



The discussion was never about whether math is true or not. The discussion is with regards to whether mathematics is objective or not (i.e., does it exist in reality, or in the mind). In the real world, 1 + 1 = 2 does not have any meaning. It is in the human mind where a subjective "grouping" is done to give 1+1 meaning.

You think math is really out there. It is existential.

I say it is dependent on the human mind. So, we probably won't reach an agreement.

I suppose this disagreement leaves us at an impasse. I most definitely do believe that there is a mathematical reality that does not require human perception to exist. And I really can't even fathom how it could be otherwise.

It is used commonly used on WP to label policies of reducing welfare (government benefits) to people (i.e., reducing welfare is "Social Darwinism"). I never used it in an evolutionary sense.



People answered earlier. Most answered "The Golden Rule".

I wonder if this is simply a disagreement on definitions. I would agree that the numerical system we use is arbitrary, that any system which represents the real world would work, but that is a moot point. The numerical system we have devised does represent what appear to be universal laws eg The speed at which light travels, spacetime etc It is plausible, likely highly probable, that other lifeforms represent and determine out comes of the universal laws using systems that look nothing like our Base Ten, however they must work together as they represent the same thing. As to the micro and macro worlds and a fully unified theory, as I understand it many physicists, mathematicians etc doubt that it exists, which is where ideas such as M theory come in.

Note: When we started discussing my first statement was: "This is debated in math". So, I am not claiming to be right, or say anyone is wrong.

For 1 +1 ...

One grouping:
1 log stacked onto a pile + 1 log stacked onto a pile, so based on proximity, you have two logs.
1 rod + 1 rod, connected together, thus, based on connectedness you have two rods connected.
1 log burned + 1 log burned, thus, two logs burned

Another grouping:
1 log stacked onto a pile + 1 log stacked onto a pile, based on another person's sense of proximity, you have only one on the pile because the other is slightly outside the proximity
1 rod + 1 rod, connected together, thus, based on connectedness you have now just one rod
1 log burned + 1 log burned, another person thinks burning means completely burned, thus, thinks no logs are burned.

1 + 1 tells us nothing of the inherent subjective physical qualities of proximity, connectedness, degree of burning that let us know how a particular person means to group 1+ 1 , thus, the mere statement of 1 + 1 can mean 2 for some, and that same statement of 1 + 1 may mean not 2 for others.

Math does not explain the inherent physical qualities of these abstract objects.

In F=ma , we have
F = m ((vfinal - vinitial) / (tfinal - tinitial) )
= m ((dfinal/tfinal) - (dinitial/tinitial) / (tfinal - tinitial))

mass , distance and time are the subjective variables, and are relative to who/what ? Again it is subjective to a human mind.

"Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by special relativity, but it is still useful as an approximation when the speeds involved are much slower than the speed of light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

This is what the fictionalists/anti-realists argue, as shown in the video, they argue that math is just math, and does not have a story to give it objective meaning. Physics however, does tell a story, and can be objective. Math just doesn't give us enough information to claim objectivity (which has been my point through this discussion).

Another example:
The mathematical postulate for the associative law of addition holds for a, b, c
(a + b) + c = a + (b + c).

However, we know in the real world that part assembly (i.e., adding parts together) is not always associative (i.e., part a must be connected to part b , before part b is connected to part c). So, this associative postulate can fail in the real world.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 13 Aug 2014, 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The fourth dimension of SPACETIME which is invariant no matter by whom or from where it is observed, you already alluded to it.

As for "1 log stacked onto a pile + 1 log stacked onto a pile, based on another person's sense of proximity, you have only one on the pile because the other is slightly outside the proximity" This is why we have experiment and evidence, to determine if there are really 1, 2 or 1,000,000 logs.

From what I am reading you seem to be dismissing mathematics ability to be objective because we do not have a unified theory. Yet if we do nut out a Unified Theory it will almost certainly be mathematics which defines and proves it.

Math has no experimentation. Math has no evidence. Math is not science.

"Maths is not a science" as is "maths is not objective" are very debatable statments. My point about evidence and experiment has to do with physics and finding invariant properties. Maths can be used to determine these invariant properties.

Being aware of your religious stance I am curious as to your agenda in declaring that maths cannot be objective. I have warning bells going off that you believe this state of affairs to mean maths cannot be used to provide objective evidence for a theory?