When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

I'm not sure that's accurate, not least because "woke" in anything other than a very vague sense, is a particularly American phenomenon. And I am not American, nor particularly addressing an American context.

Australia is always a little behind the US in most things including 'Woke' at the moment so we should expect Wokeness to increase. But its certainly already infiltrated our society. Just like we can recognise religion in society we can recognise Woke by its language and ideological thinking with ideas like Identity politics, cancel culture, PC and equity, Inclusion and Diversity policies in our Insitutions and Industries. But if its being acknowledged by our leaders and social commentators and if our policies are based on Woke thinking then its arrived.

Where there is 'woke', there is fire
AUSTRALIANS HAVE inherited many wonderful things from our Yankee cousins. Thanks to globalisation we enjoy jewels of American civilisation like Big Macs, Budweiser and the Bold and the Beautiful. While the latter may not be to everyone’s taste, there is a cultural commodity we import which is far more divisive – "wokeism" – a contagion which has permeated our borders threatening our unique and precious way of life.

Where there is 'woke', there is fire

Having constructive debates, rather than resorting to name-calling, is the way forward for a healthy political and social climate, writes Patrick Lukins.

independentaustralia.net

‘Ruined Australia’: Furious Aussies unload about direction country is going
Disenchantment with Australia’s leaders and concern about “woke” culture were two of the most common reasons why almost 70 per cent of people were not happy with the direction the country is headed in.

https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/state-of-the-nation-survey-reveals-68-per-cent-of-aussies-unhappy-with-the-direction-country-is-heading-in/news-story/7500cf52287c9b8d869e92b78a3aabe4

 

[Bradskii]

Australia is always a little behind the US in most things including 'Woke' at the moment so we should expect Wokeness to increase. But its certainly already infiltrated our society. Just like we can recognise religion in society we can recognise Woke by its language and ideological thinking with ideas like Identity politics, cancel culture, PC and equity, Inclusion and Diversity policies in our Insitutions and Industries. But if its being acknowledged by our leaders and social commentators and if our policies are based on Woke thinking then its arrived.

Where there is 'woke', there is fire
AUSTRALIANS HAVE inherited many wonderful things from our Yankee cousins. Thanks to globalisation we enjoy jewels of American civilisation like Big Macs, Budweiser and the Bold and the Beautiful. While the latter may not be to everyone’s taste, there is a cultural commodity we import which is far more divisive – "wokeism" – a contagion which has permeated our borders threatening our unique and precious way of life.

Where there is 'woke', there is fire

Having constructive debates, rather than resorting to name-calling, is the way forward for a healthy political and social climate, writes Patrick Lukins.

independentaustralia.net

‘Ruined Australia’: Furious Aussies unload about direction country is going
Disenchantment with Australia’s leaders and concern about “woke” culture were two of the most common reasons why almost 70 per cent of people were not happy with the direction the country is headed in.

https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/state-of-the-nation-survey-reveals-68-per-cent-of-aussies-unhappy-with-the-direction-country-is-heading-in/news-story/7500cf52287c9b8d869e92b78a3aabe4

Good grief. The second link has two random people commenting on 'wokeism', one saying that 'we spend too much time on minorities'. Gee, thanks for that incisive and thought provoking comment.

And the other I can't imagine you have read because it is a broadside against those, just like yourself, who use terms like 'wokeism' as some self righteous critique of anyone who has something approaching a social conscience. It's a diatribe agains those, again like you, who use the term as a dog whistle to round up any and all conservatively minded people who can then bluster and froth about how the world is going to hell in handbasket.

Is it possible that you could pull something from what was said in that article and criticise it? I'll wait here while you contemplate it.

 

[rjs330]

You have, I think, completely missed my point. I have not been arguing for this or that protocol or standard of care. I have not been claiming any particular thing as the gold standard. I have been doing two things; arguing that this is a medical matter, best left to the medical experts; and along the way, providing counter-evidence to people making claims which they intend as grounds for an ideological approach.

So yes, as I have said all along, as evidence is gathered and treatment protocols are refined, that is the normal process for any medical condition. It's good. It's appropriate. When it's driven by the experts in the field, on the basis of the best possible data. Not when it's driven by internet randoms on the basis of ideological presuppositions.

No. I have not. If you thought that was what I was saying, you severely misunderstood my point. I have not been arguing that anything in particular was "best," except letting the medical experts work out the way forward, rather than Christian/traditionalist/conservative people wanting to impose a worldview.

No; but when I find high quality published material that's completely at odds with some random on YouTube (who may or may not be what they claim), I'm going to go with the former being more credible.

"My side"? This ought to be fascinating. How would you define "my side"? (I'm fairly sure there are going to be some inaccurate assumptions, here).

I believe there is little difference between the (average) male brain and the (average) female brain, in any way that is meaningful to, say, arguments for rigidly codified gender roles in society. I don't buy any argument about brain sex which would see women excluded from education, employment, social invovlement, leadership, and so on.

But I also believe that sex development affects the brain, and that at least some people have a strong sense (based in the brain) of their identity as male or female; and also that some people experience sexed development of the brain which is incongruent with their bodily development. I understand that to be supported by what I've seen in the scientific literature.

I see so you would be the one supporting lobotomies just cause the medical experts said it was good. Oh and then later when they stopped you be stating well they learned. Meanwhile a lot of folks were harmed by it. Same goes for giving shock treatment to gays.

Well at least they learned right? No harm done.

Except treatment protocols are not being refined. At least by WPATH. They are getting more radical. You know the experts in the field. The ones you trusted to be correct.

Here we go with the Christian/conservative worldview again. You really can't get away from that can you. It's like an obsession. Hmmm... It's turning out us conservative Christians actually had a brain in our heads and immediately recognized something was wrong with this. And actually spent time researching it and we discovered the experts were being dishonest about their so called research. The same experts you want to hand over your common sense to.

You'd actually have to look at the videos before your claim was any good. And since you haven't your claim in who is more credible is worthless.

Yes your side. The ones who blindly follow Wpath and the transactivist so called experts who are being proven to be wrong.

Affects the brain to be what? I thought there wasn't any noticable differences in male and female brains. Now suddenly there is and you can tell when a male brain is in a female body or vice versa.

Oh you mean the same scientific literature with experts like the transgender experts who got it wrong? You better take another look at the legitimacy of your trans brain research. Because it doesn't come to any strong conclusion and only says more research needs to be done. Not a valid conclusive argument. Once again you seem to be ignoring the contradictions and the fact the research isn't conclusive enough to make any claims.

Furthermore, the studies do not account for desistance or detransition. What happened to those brains. Did their brains just change? Now you are also talking binary here which is a big no no. There is no binary. Yet now we are claiming there is one? A female sexed brain in a male body? How dare you make such a binary claim. So male brains and female brains really are different now and we can tell the difference that the wrong brain is in the body? We are absolutely clear on that now?

 

[stevil]

Right because they don't offend your particular morality. But if it does offend your morality you do support making it illegal.

You didn't listen unfortunately.

Just because there is some cross over, it doesn't mean I am supporting morals.
e.g. just because you think killing people is immoral, doesn't mean that my wanting a society where people don't kill each other is based on morality. It is just coincidental that your morality and my rule are the same in this instance.
I have pointed out things that I might consider "immoral" but I don't want laws against. But for some reason you sweep that under the rug.

 

[stevil]

Australia is always a little behind the US in most things

I'd say, like most developed western nations Australia is ahead of USA.
USA is a very slow backward country probably due to its high amount of religious conservatives who are very traditional and seem to hate change and progress.

 

[Paidiske]

I see so you would be the one supporting lobotomies just cause the medical experts said it was good.

Did you miss where I pointed out up thread that psychosurgery is still practiced today for conditions which don't respond to other treatment?

Except treatment protocols are not being refined. At least by WPATH.

Demonstrably false; we're up to the 8th iteration of their standards of care, as repeatedly referenced in this thread.

They are getting more radical.

Well, that's a value statement, not a clinical assessment.

Here we go with the Christian/conservative worldview again.

Yes, because that is the topic of this thread, and the whole reason for this discussion.

Yes your side. The ones who blindly follow Wpath and the transactivist so called experts who are being proven to be wrong.

That isn't "my side." "My side" of this argument is about the (absence of a) role for Christian/traditional/conservative culture warriors in this discussion; and has nothing to do with WPATH and transactivists.

Affects the brain to be what? I thought there wasn't any noticable differences in male and female brains.

None that matter for gender roles, which is where the argument usually goes.

Now suddenly there is and you can tell when a male brain is in a female body or vice versa.

Eg: see here.

You better take another look at the legitimacy of your trans brain research. Because it doesn't come to any strong conclusion and only says more research needs to be done. Not a valid conclusive argument. Once again you seem to be ignoring the contradictions and the fact the research isn't conclusive enough to make any claims.

More research always needs to be done. But there are still clear indications of sexed brain development. That seems well enough establsiehd to me.

 

[stevevw]

I am arguing that our conscience does not function as a sort of repository of "God's law," but is an important, but imperfect, sense of right and wrong shaped by our development and personal experiences. Thus we do not always know when something is wrong.

I think this logic doesn't follow that because we can be wrong by our intuition that that there is no perfect moral law that we can feel guilty about. That is why I think God gave us a rational mind so we can sort through the unreal thinking to find His perfect Truth. The bible speaks of our conscience as being a perfect signifyer for right and wrong.

Romans 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

In some ways we are all guilty and have a guilty conscience when seperated from God. So maybe some who experience unfounded guilt are expressing that seperation from God.

The point is, if even our own culture hasn't been consistent about this for the last century, we can hardly argue for some sort of universal apprehension of basic moral good.

I think thats a bit of a logical fallacy in that just because we have been so bad at getting morals right there is no actual Moral Truths we can find and use. Its the very fact that we have been so inconsistent that makes an arguement for a universal moral Good. Otherweise its regressive, we just resign ourselves to the fact that we will never find a better way to live or the Truth of the matter because its too hard or hypocritical to do so.

To even be able to improve morality from the past is to acknowledge we are heading from something bad to something better morally. You can't have that unless there is a moral truth we are heading towards or perhaps have forgotten about or denied in the past.

That's fascinating, when several articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would seem to argue for providing treatment to children experiencing gender dysphoria. Do we really have universal agreement about that? We don't have it in this thread!

Us just as the West is moving away from our long held reality so Corporations and Organisations including World Organisations like the UN and WHO have fallen for Trans Ideology. The important thing to remember is that the Trans Model of Care is etermined unscientific and is now being replaced by Psychotherapy treatment by most Independent Professional Organisations and National health systems like the NHS.

But Childrens Rights to treatment is the fundemental Right that cannot be subject to ideological or political beliefs not a particular treatment model. Part of that fundemental Right is to recieve proper treatment, evidenced based treatment and not be treated as guinea pigs for adults or even organisations and States to mess with. So really the UN is breaching its own convention of Childrens Rights.

Headdesk.

what does Headdesk mean.

I've lived all sides of that argument - in both disciplines (science and theology) - and I'm not assuming a false stereotype, when I say that the Christian/conservative/traditional position in many divisive matters, rejects sources such as science, experience or reason.

Ok so now we are in real trouble because you can add the new religious belief or Woke to that. I am interested in examples of what divisive matters, Christians reject science, experience or reason.

No. Often they don't. And that's my point. You keep making claims for traditional views which actually don't stand up.

They do stand up though. They stande up for a number of reasons. They stand up because they are empiracle (science is a big part of Western tradition and culture). We can apply rationality and reason to these Truths to see if they stand up in reality ike Biological sex. Using Social sciences to determine healthy thinking and behaviour. These are well established facts in how we see and measure the world and human behaviour with decades if not centuries of empiracle date supporting them and are an integral part of the Western Canonical Truths.

We can use our lived experience which supports Western long held Truths about how we should order society and the world like Democracy, Liberty, and Free Will as seen in Western national Declarations. How we went through many horrible experiences and came out the other end with some Truths about how we should conduct ourselves and treat others such as Human Rights and many other Conventions ande Treaties throughout the4 Western World. Many of this have Christian roots..

 

[Paidiske]

I think this logic doesn't follow that because we can be wrong by our intuition that that there is no perfect moral law that we can feel guilty about.

That's not what I was saying, though. There may be a perfect moral law, but humans do not have perfect knowledge of it.

The bible speaks of our conscience as being a perfect signifyer for right and wrong.

Romans 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

Paul is speaking here of a particular group of gentiles, though, and making an argument against seeing Jews as somehow more righteous than gentiles; he is not describing the function of conscience in general.

I would not agree that Scripture says that conscience is a "perfect signifier" for right and wrong; after all, consider Paul's discussion of a "weak" conscience in 1 Corinthians, and the way two Christians might in good conscience hold different moral positions on the eating of meat offered to idols.

I think thats a bit of a logical fallacy in that just because we have been so bad at getting morals right there is no actual Moral Truths we can find and use.

Again, that's not my argument. I'm not saying that there is no moral truth. I'm arguing against the idea that "there are basic moral truths we all know." I am also arguing that our ethical understanding can develop over time.

Otherweise its regressive, we just resign ourselves to the fact that we will never find a better way to live or the Truth of the matter because its too hard or hypocritical to do so.

It's certainly hard to do the honest work of ethical reflection in new situations, rather than reaching for knee-jerk reactions. But I don't think it's a matter of being resigned to never finding a better way; I think it's a matter of being hopeful that we can find a better way. We can learn and grow.

Us just as the West is moving away from our long held reality so Corporations and Organisations including World Organisations like the UN and WHO have fallen for Trans Ideology.

And yet you just cited their convention as an example of a universally-agreed understanding of what child abuse is, stating, "and the people disagreement are mistaken in their moral thinking."

Now you are in disagreement; so are you mistaken in your moral thinking, or do we, in fact, not have a universal understanding of what child abuse is? Your argument is incredibly inconsistent here.

what does Headdesk mean.

It's an expression of frustration or exasperation (as in, banging one's head on the desk in frustration). In this case, because you argued that a particular pseudoscientitic line of argument is not pseudoscientific, essentially proving my point.

I am interested in examples of what divisive matters, Christians reject science, experience or reason.

This is an interesting piece, from the point of view of this thread, because it touches on both Christian attitudes and conservative attitudes more generally.

They do stand up though.

I disagree, but tell you what. Why don't you come up with a list of these Truths (rather than just making vague claims about them), and we'll look at each one, and whether or not they are Christian ideas, and whether or not they have been contested historically or are contested now, and whether or not they actually have any standing as "Truths we know that work." Because most of the conservative/traditional/Christian "truths," don't have anything like that kind of standing in our culture, actually.

Many of this have Christian roots..

And many contemporary western social pillars have been hard won against Christian opposition, or at least, fiercely contested among Christians. I'm not unaware that women, in particular, have often faced Christian opposition to having basic human rights on the same terms as men!

 

[Bradskii]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120755119

Fascinating...

 

[Kylie]

I don't think these splendid scientists compare with Jesus of Nazareth.

Muhammed's bloody career and lustful sexual appetite with even a young girl renders him not worthy to compare with Christ.
Though I realize my question was likely to envoke a "ANYBODY except Christ" response, your candidates are not that impressive.

Hold on there...

You asked for people who have had had as much of an impact. You don't get to cry foul because there are things about them you don't like. The fact remains that Muhammad has had a major impact on world religion, whether you like it or not.

Isaac Newton was brilliant. And his insight was based on his belief that the universe was designed by God.
Since Jesus claimed to be God as a man AND ACTED like it, as nice as Newton was, he is not in the class with Jesus imo.

His insight was based on the EVIDENCE. Newton's laws of motion are what is used for space probes and satellites. Without his work, we wouldn't have the modern space age, and the world would be a very different place.

Confucius, the great ethical teacher, interestingly said that if a man sins against heaven he is likely not to be forgiven.
But yes indeed, Confucius is very infliuencial. Unlike Jesus Confucius is not claimed to be alive. Jesus conquerored death itself in
His victprious resurrection. But a breaking system preventing Chinese society from completely rotting into immorality, certainly I would even say God used the philosophy of Confucius.

Again, you have no basis to claim that he doesn't count.

We are surely thankful for whoever invented paper.
Thankfully the Bible can be printed on it so we can read the words of Jesus.
Kudos to Cai Lun and Gutenberg.

So what? They still had a huge impact on the world.

Columbus the explorer we may admire. Of course his obsession with finding gold and the misery he brought to indigenus peoples of the new world, I think, put his personality far, far below that of the Son of God. I think Cristopher Columbus would probably have admitted that to you.

Irrelevant. You did not ask for people with nice personalities, you asked for people who have made an impact.

Albert Einstien I admire for his contribution. It is too bad he with all his intelligence could not remain faithful to his first wife.

Again, irrelevant. Einstein's impact on our world is undeniable.

Shakespeare's imagination was wonderful. And his plays are lastingly entertaining and meaningful.
I think if asked himself how he compared to Jesus Christ, I think he would admit that he could not.

So what? His impact on our world is undeniable.

But all the people you mentioned were influential.
Great folks all. I am more impressed though with Jesus of Nazareth.
As H.G. Wells said (who was not fundamentalist) - when Jesus opened His mouth His lips embraced the whole world.

I get your drift - like - "Anybody BUT Jesus, will do."

What are you going on about? You asked for people who have had an impact, I gave you several. Now you have claimed that they either don't count or somehow support your position.

 

[Kylie]

You do love your myths.

The (atheist ) Hutu cut the Tutsi to bits with machetes In an act of hate,
It was indeed prophesied.

Sadly our world loves revisionism , and loves anti catholic hate even more.
Theres always a book on the “ Catholics did it” just as too many books years ago blamed the Jews for everything.

You are so full of revisionist belief you wont let facts in.
I could point at survivors books that show how Protestant pastors joined with Catholics to save people. prejudice won’t let you read them of course, so I won’t even bother with titles.

I well remember the discussion on the shroud: notice the contrast!
Proper scientists analyzed the body dimensions of the man of the shroud , analyzed the population statistics of the middles east, made endless measurements of the shroud. Lots written in the 70s and since.
So that now if you go to Arizona (or look on the web ) you can find a life size mannikin and a dimensional replica of the shroud and the two fit PERFECTLY . measuring were some of the first tests done.
You didn’t even look it up! Scientists “ do their homework” first,

Kylie on the other hand, decided the shroud was fake a priori, , so searched for and read some nonsense on anti shroud wacko sites. Bought a doll ( which are never life size proportion) and “ proved “ the shroud head “didn’t fit” to much clapping of atheists on science forum, who were equally badly read, and cared for science just as little..
Not one of them read the sturp reports, that proved them wrong.

Kylie decides the answer , then looks at only that which supports her.
Then pretends it is a view of science. Ignoring the real science.

The truth is - atheists in Rwanda massacred each other because of no moral code and hate.
they even slaughtered the people hiding in churches. Nasty people these atheist Hutu.
It wasn’t a despot. Or organised army. It was your neighbour who chopped your arms and legs off,
because of hate.


Hundreds of millions killed in atheist genocides
the atheist killing continues in America, half a million babies killed in abortion Each year.

The problem is No moral code. Atheism doesn’t have one. Life has no value.

Will you blame Catholics for those abortions too?
Or are they just a “ right” of people living in a moral vacuum?

Where?

See how vague this is? What part of your post am I responding to? You'll notice in the past that I have posted my replies to specific parts of your posts immediately after the part in question. Are you incapable of giving me the same courtesy?

 

[Kylie]

This is like (and I leave this one for @Kylie even if you don't get it) ruling Captain Picard to be inferior as he never defeated a Gorn in hand to hand combat.

But he did do quite well against three Naussicans. True, he got stabbed through the heart, but until then he was doing quite good.

 

[Paidiske]

Ah, but did his shirt rip as much?

 

[Occams Barber]

Ah, but did his shirt rip as much?

You're obviously a Mills & Boon fan.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Good grief. The second link has two random people commenting on 'wokeism', one saying that 'we spend too much time on minorities'. Gee, thanks for that incisive and thought provoking comment.

And the other I can't imagine you have read because it is a broadside against those, just like yourself, who use terms like 'wokeism' as some self righteous critique of anyone who has something approaching a social conscience. It's a diatribe agains those, again like you, who use the term as a dog whistle to round up any and all conservatively minded people who can then bluster and froth about how the world is going to hell in handbasket.

Is it possible that you could pull something from what was said in that article and criticise it? I'll wait here while you contemplate it.

I suspect our Steve watches Sky News more often than he should. He has adopted the mindset.

OB

 

[stevevw]

That's not what I was saying, though. There may be a perfect moral law, but humans do not have perfect knowledge of it.

I think we do have perfect knowledge of Gods laws. In fact research shows we are born with that knowledge. We don't need to be educateed in knowledge to know these moral truths as they are as Psychologist Bloom says "bred to the bone" in us.

These core morals of how to treat others like Justice, Fairness, Do no Harm which relate to the Golden Rule and Christs teaching 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you" are the basis for all morals and found in 3 month olds before they are shown or taught this by family or culture. In fact it comes natural and rather than these moral Truth being indoctrinated into humans they are actively indoctrinated out of humans as they are encultured by secular beliefs aned ideologies.
The Moral Life of Babies

Paul is speaking here of a particular group of gentiles, though, and making an argument against seeing Jews as somehow more righteous than gentiles; he is not describing the function of conscience in general.

I would not agree that Scripture says that conscience is a "perfect signifier" for right and wrong; after all, consider Paul's discussion of a "weak" conscience in 1 Corinthians, and the way two Christians might in good conscience hold different moral positions on the eating of meat offered to idols.

Yes paul is saying this is not a moral issue to go arguing about, its a ritualistic one because he says that we should actually go along with the person of weaker faith to help them. If it was about sin and immorality Paul would hardly be saying "Go ahead sin if it helps others feel more comfortable in their belief".

But when Paul talks about Gods Law written in our Hearts because even the Gentiles who never had the Law knew the Law through their conscience either condemining them or excusing them he was talking about everyone, sinners in general and how Gods law is in us and we know we have sinned through our conscience.

We are also rational beings so we can lay there at night and reason whether we are guilty or not. But deny the Truth long enough and you begin to lose that guilt and your heart becomes hardened to sin.

Again, that's not my argument. I'm not saying that there is no moral truth. I'm arguing against the idea that "there are basic moral truths we all know." I am also arguing that our ethical understanding can develop over time.

Like I said research shows we are born with the basics of morality which all morality stems from. But its not rocket science. basically its about doing to others what you want done to you. I think that is why it was the 2nd Greatest Commandment because all morality is about how we treat others and that knowledge even basic seems to be bred in us as a universal thing. So we already know the Truth. Its just applying that to the ever changing circumstances we grow and live in.

For example the basic moral Truth of Do unto others may be that when you neighbours kid steals your sons phone or when someone cheats on their partner. None of us want that to happen to ourselves or anyone. This is just in us and we don't need special understanding. Its when we start to rationalise and justify contrary behaviour. Like whe you claim that the affair was ok because the couples were unhappy and finding love made them finally be happy ande fulfilled. The self truth as opposed to the Truth of the matter.

Ironically even those who say its ok for individual happiness and fulfillment over breaching traditional conventions still acknowledge that harm was done and would not like that to be done to them. In some ways people reap what they sow and the same happens to them and then they really understand why what they did was perhaps not the best. In that sense people learn from experience. But the Truth was always there and known. A bit like the Prodigal Son Parable I think.

It's certainly hard to do the honest work of ethical reflection in new situations, rather than reaching for knee-jerk reactions. But I don't think it's a matter of being resigned to never finding a better way; I think it's a matter of being hopeful that we can find a better way. We can learn and grow.

I think in the past when the Church became dogmatic and enforced Gods Law over secular society they never allowed people to learn for themselves. But over time we have learned for ourselves like in going through Wars and seeing the horror. So we made some laws called Human Rights. They aren't knee jerk reactions but carefully reasoned Truths from learning the hard way.

From that we have not only learned about our experience but also our nature to be evil. So its important that we not only hope but actively question our own thinking and motives to find the Truth. Is what we currently think is Good qactually Good but perhaps not so Good or have we fooled ourselves again. God gave us a mind to reason Truths. They are already there we just have to find them, recognise them better or perhaps admit them I believe the more we seperate ourselevs from God the more they are hard to recognise and admit.

 

[Mountainmike]

Darwinian evolution (a somewhat out of date term, but let's skip past that) is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. No "worldview" is needed, nor imposed in teaching established science.

The problem is of course separating what is either :
“ pattern in observation “ from “ mechanism ” from “ underlying cause” from “guiding influence” all philosophically different entities. Which of those do you mean by “explanation“?

In evolution it’s hard to separate them , not least because the further back you go , the foggier kowledge is.
When I look at most of the plants out of my window, they are product of man noticing patterns in breeding , then using them as a “ guiding influence” on diversity. It’s why I have a splendid collection of interbred lilies! My very own piece of diversity!
Their existence is “ explained” by me as “ guiding influence” using a “ mechanism” determined from observation of patterns. They are “ fittest” so survived , only because I got rid of the ones I didn’t like which were unfittest because I decided them so.

Livestock and domestic animals have been steered the same. Man has been doing so for recorded history.

It is only a world view if you extrapolate back to assume all life and diversity including the origin is “unguided”

A simple earlier comment of yours on newton is easier to prove the point,
He discovered a pattern, ( actually several) not a “cause” or “ explanation” of it , a pattern which is indeed useful. We in science do indeed “stand on the shoulders “ of such giants.

But nobody can say what gravity is, why it is, the cause of it.
So it is an “ explanation” only of normal behaviour not of cause.
Where gravity came from and whether it is inviolable is a “ world view”. You are welcome to yours.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't agree that potential suicide is the only valid reason for offering treatment, though.

Really? Because we are talking about in many cases, treatment that is not only lacking any sort of long term research but also seems highly risky. We're talking about a model that was with run so poorly or became so ideologically corrupted to serve its purpose....and was therefore removed from some places that implemented it earlier than Australia.

How long is long enough? Is twenty years long enough? Because I can find that.

Absolutely. As long as we're discussing a sufficiently large enough group.

I'm not sure that's accurate, not least because "woke" in anything other than a very vague sense, is a particularly American phenomenon.

? You're unaware of this spreading to other locations?

And I am not American, nor particularly addressing an American context.

And that's the tricky part.

I'd be willing to unpack your definition of woke, though, and see how much I'd be willing to claim.

Oh I haven't bothered with anything too specific here. What's the point? I think I said something similar to "the new beliefs adopted by the political left in recent years despite their contradiction to past beliefs".

I haven't seen one yet. But I've seen plenty of dodgy arguments intended to limit women, and I'm not buying them.

Watched a debate between this guy and some feminist. Guy made one point....she couldn't think of any way around it for the whole debate.

And yet it's one of the fundamental reasons for me taking the position I have in this thread. I'm not a trans activist, or particularly interested in what they have to say.

Well they don't really care if you support them...they don't want it to be a biologically defined condition. They want to be able to identify as any of infinite genders at any time. Either they'll continue to get your support or you'll have to put your foot down at some point and refuse to play along.

 

[Paidiske]

I think we do have perfect knowledge of Gods laws. In fact research shows we are born with that knowledge. We don't need to be educateed in knowledge to know these moral truths as they are as Psychologist Bloom says "bred to the bone" in us.

Mmhmm. Okay. God's laws; let's take the two great commandments; love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbour as yourself. I'd like to see your research evidence that we are all born knowing that, and not needing to be taught it.

These core morals of how to treat others like Justice, Fairness, Do no Harm which relate to the Golden Rule and Christs teaching 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you" are the basis for all morals and found in 3 month olds before they are shown or taught this by family or culture.

Really? What 3 month old totally unaffected by family or culture has been available for study?

The Moral Life of Babies

So this interview report discusses some foundations for later moral development which are seen in infants. I'm not disputing that there are some basics most (nb: not all) humans share which feed into our moral reasoning. But that's a far cry from "perfect knowledge of God's laws"!

Yes paul is saying this is not a moral issue to go arguing about, its a ritualistic one because he says that we should actually go along with the person of weaker faith to help them.

But my point in citing it is that two Christians can have different convictions of conscience on the same matter. If our consciences were an infallible guide to moral truth, this wouldn't happen.

If it was about sin and immorality Paul would hardly be saying "Go ahead sin if it helps others feel more comfortable in their belief".

Idolatry's not sin now? Being clear on what is and is not idolatry is not morally important?

(So yes, the person with the weaker conscience - the person who thinks something is sinful when it is not - is indulged by the person with the more robust conscience, precisely because idolatry is an important moral issue).

But when Paul talks about Gods Law written in our Hearts because even the Gentiles who never had the Law knew the Law through their conscience either condemining them or excusing them he was talking about everyone,

No, he wasn't. Go back to verse 14; this bit of his argument begins, "When gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires..." He is talking specifically about gentiles who have some apprehension of God's goodness. But he is not talking about everyone; go back to verse 6 and see the flow of his thought:

"For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality."

His point is not that we all know the law; his point is that those who do what the law requires, whether they know the law in an academic sense or not, will be rewarded for it. But there are those - both those who have never been taught the law, and those who have - who do not do what the law requires, and they do not have the law written on their hearts (or in their consciences).

The point is to remove any claim to Jewish superiority; not to make some sort of claim for a universal moral consciousness.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think we do have perfect knowledge of Gods laws. In fact research shows we are born with that knowledge. We don't need to be educateed in knowledge to know these moral truths as they are as Psychologist Bloom says "bred to the bone" in us.

These core morals of how to treat others like Justice, Fairness, Do no Harm which relate to the Golden Rule and Christs teaching 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you" are the basis for all morals and found in 3 month olds before they are shown or taught this by family or culture. In fact it comes natural and rather than these moral Truth being indoctrinated into humans they are actively indoctrinated out of humans as they are encultured by secular beliefs aned ideologies.
The Moral Life of Babies


Yes paul is saying this is not a moral issue to go arguing about, its a ritualistic one because he says that we should actually go along with the person of weaker faith to help them. If it was about sin and immorality Paul would hardly be saying "Go ahead sin if it helps others feel more comfortable in their belief".

But when Paul talks about Gods Law written in our Hearts because even the Gentiles who never had the Law knew the Law through their conscience either condemining them or excusing them he was talking about everyone, sinners in general and how Gods law is in us and we know we have sinned through our conscience.

We are also rational beings so we can lay there at night and reason whether we are guilty or not. But deny the Truth long enough and you begin to lose that guilt and your heart becomes hardened to sin.

Like I said research shows we are born with the basics of morality which all morality stems from. But its not rocket science. basically its about doing to others what you want done to you. I think that is why it was the 2nd Greatest Commandment because all morality is about how we treat others and that knowledge even basic seems to be bred in us as a universal thing. So we already know the Truth. Its just applying that to the ever changing circumstances we grow and live in.

For example the basic moral Truth of Do unto others may be that when you neighbours kid steals your sons phone or when someone cheats on their partner. None of us want that to happen to ourselves or anyone. This is just in us and we don't need special understanding. Its when we start to rationalise and justify contrary behaviour. Like whe you claim that the affair was ok because the couples were unhappy and finding love made them finally be happy ande fulfilled. The self truth as opposed to the Truth of the matter.

Ironically even those who say its ok for individual happiness and fulfillment over breaching traditional conventions still acknowledge that harm was done and would not like that to be done to them. In some ways people reap what they sow and the same happens to them and then they really understand why what they did was perhaps not the best. In that sense people learn from experience. But the Truth was always there and known. A bit like the Prodigal Son Parable I think.

I think in the past when the Church became dogmatic and enforced Gods Law over secular society they never allowed people to learn for themselves. But over time we have learned for ourselves like in going through Wars and seeing the horror. So we made some laws called Human Rights. They aren't knee jerk reactions but carefully reasoned Truths from learning the hard way.

From that we have not only learned about our experience but also our nature to be evil. So its important that we not only hope but actively question our own thinking and motives to find the Truth. Is what we currently think is Good qactually Good but perhaps not so Good or have we fooled ourselves again. God gave us a mind to reason Truths. They are already there we just have to find them, recognise them better or perhaps admit them I believe the more we seperate ourselevs from God the more they are hard to recognise and admit.

I don't think he's arguing for a moral truth there....just an innately emotion-based sense of morality that changes over time as our brains develop.