Comments on: The Star Trek universe vs. reality

By: Paroxysm

Paroxysm — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:04:04 +0000

Oh and Paul I think you are agreeing with me here. Yes that is one way of looking at it, (unless I have completely misread your comment). Myself and Andrew will discuss at length at the next available opportunity and report our findings.

By: Paroxysm

Paroxysm — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:59:45 +0000

No fight necessary. Leandro please see the word ‘a’ as in singular before ‘value’. This essentially means ‘one’. I’ve really no need to refer to the post when my comment is read properly.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:08:00 +0000

To be fair, and to stop this getting into a fight, I think he meant that sometimes the Church promotes tolerance and ‘respect’ in the same way humanists do. I agree that the religious version often comes with a huge amount of baggage and exclusions attached, though.

By: Leandro Lima

Leandro Lima — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:17:27 +0000

Paroxysm, I disagree that Humanists and the Church share common values, as seen in this article below:

Faith groups protest against gay rights laws.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-09T193247Z_01_L08875115_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-GAYS.xml&WTmodLoc=Top News-C1-Headline-5

What can you say about this? Humanists do not value intolerance, inequality and the very things most faithful publicly announce in their name of their god.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:07:26 +0000

I wasn’t ‘reprimanding him’, nor ‘taking a shot’. It was a little joke that wasn’t intended to be serious social commentary, and was more to do with my confusion at the odd juxtaposition of ST and his own worldview. I wasn’t insulting him, just saying that what seems to be a logical extrapolation is rather bizarre. It’s not the way I’d phrase things in a proper debate, but equally it’s a valid shorthand for what I thought was an interesting point, and I don’t think I was rude or impolite.

By: Paul Burgin

Paul Burgin — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:37 +0000

It’s to do with wanting the world to be a better place when you know that the downside of human nature precludes it

By: Paroxysm

Paroxysm — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:52:32 +0000

In fairness you are disagreeing with a point of your own making here. While it may be lighthearted the quote is a classic scarecrow. The vicar would perhaps invite you in for a cup of tea and tell you that it’s so wonderful to see such moral fibre in the world today. Or he could offer you a plate of lime jelly and have you watch countdown while sat of a copy of the Bandini Quartet. Alternatively, he may hit you over the head with a leather bound copy of the King James.

You seem to be irritated here by a value commonly shared by both Humanists and the Church. Keeping the value intact but ligating faith from the equation. On questions of morals I think it’s more important how one acts in everyday life and how they apply those morals to circumstance. The vicar believes in these values autonomously and from the sounds of the interview…doesn’t even mention religion! (hence your surprise at him being a vicar).

Surely the most important thing is that the value is being upheld – whether by rationalism or the cross. I really don’t care as long as people are amenable in the street. For me, that is tolerance. Reprimanding someone for being what you see as morally reprehensible is one thing, but taking a shot at someone for expressing agreement with a moral value you hold also, within a scnenario of your own construction no less, is a nicely stuffed, sweet smelling, golden yellow…straw…man.

I guess the question is… why question him further? Like you say he seems like a nice guy. If it’s a purely theoretical preoccupation then it doesn’t really count one jot in the world of applied ethics – but then again to muse over these questions online seems strangely meta-ethical by proxy so what the hell, go mad.