bookshelves: to-read
]]>
Laura
added a quote:
"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not to argue about it or to spend time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" — D.L. Moody
"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not to argue about it or to spend time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" — D.L. Moody
Laura
added a quote:
"If I take care of my character, my reputation will take care of itself." — D.L. Moody
"If I take care of my character, my reputation will take care of itself." — D.L. Moody
Laura added 1 book to this list. Add your votes » add a comment
]]>
]]>
]]>
=) old one. but the reading lists linked in the comments are interesting to browse.
]]>
Ok. I'm having a heck of a time getting into this book. I'm finding it to be too much like a textbook to be reading on a gorgeous spring evening. Ill give it another shot but don't know that I will be very active in discussions so don't wait for me...
]]>
by Steven D. Paulson
From north dakota. But have family in Billings. ]]>
To the group: I am very curious about how the proposed moral-constuct governing human behaior coupled with science-only worldview works. I've been pondering the idea since it was raised this weekend. The only model I've been able to imagine is power based: Those in power determine right from wrong and enforce it...until such time that a groundswell arises to consolidate power and overthrow the government....so that a new group is in power - determining and enforcing right from wrong....until such time that a groundswell arises...etc, etc.
But that model would seem to generate endless power-battles not congruent with the proposed theory that a science-only based model works better, leads to world wide peace and prosperity and an environment in which we can all just get along. But I am no expert in the science-only based worldview - doubt anyone will argue with that... =).
So I'm hoping someone will shed more light on how it works.
Here's a hypothetical example to ponder. Yes, I know it's hypothetical, and that the statitics are a bit sketchy since it's a tough to collect data on the topic. Scenario is human trafficking. (Facts available through unesco, humantraffickingproject, etc.).
Consensus seems to be that:
1) human trafficking is on the rise
2) the tendency in human trafficking is for those more powerful to prey on those more vulnerable
3) the tendency in human trafficking is for those more educated / knowledgeable to prey on those less educated / knowledgeable
4) the rise is trafficking seems in part due to the ability of the traffickers to capitalize on their knowledge of the products of scientific advancement: (computing technology, global transporation, weaponry, along with sheer brute force).
Let's imagine that all the pesky religious people are gone - wiped out in the blink of an eye and no longer a factor trying to impose an externally generated moral standard.
In this scenario: how would a science-only based worldview governed by a moral construct handle the issue of human trafficking? If the powerful have determined it's to their advantage to prey on the more vulnerable...how would a science-only based world view respond? How would it determine whether trafficking is acceptable or not and enforce some sort of adherence to standard....resulting in the advancement of peace and prosperity?
I know the example isn't perfect - but you likely understand what I'm driving at. I really am wondering how a moral construct governing a science only based worldview is developed and enforced ...with an expectation of increased sustainable peace and prosperity.
And now I've got to run to work and miss out on the great discussion all day long. ]]>