Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:53:03 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{lpieniazek@novera.com}Spamless{}
|
Viewed:
|
1564 times
|
| |
|
|
<37CEC4AB.11CB1C2F@voyager.net> <FHGBvC.2AF@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Eaton wrote:
<faith explanation>
Ah, OK.
> > Until we get over this hurdle of faith, I can't comment on ethics.
>
> Not necessary... The only reason I brought it up was because I tend to think of
> a code of ethics being associated with a religion. If your definition of a
> religion included an ethical code, I don't really think that science provides
> one, and therefore, it can't be a religion. However, if a religion doesn't
> require an ethic, there's still a possibility of considering it a religion. (it
> doesn't violate this prerequisite, at least)
OK again.
I'd turn it around. A religion may or may not have a code of ethics, but
it's not necessary to have a religion to derive proper ethics, which is
what we were getting at a few days ago. I feel I have one and I have no
religion.
Science, in a vacuum, doesn't imply ethics outside the realm of how you
conduct science. But it's an easy stretch from "it's important to tell
the truth about your experiments" to "don't violate the rights of
others" because I hold that both those axioms derive from what makes us
human, as I was alluding to back then.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
