CAP Talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yu2G-rPhuY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yu2G-rPhuY)


Personally, not sure. Seems to me that the video strays from the point of what Chaplains should be doing, especially when we start talking about teaching cadets.


Honestly not sure how I feel about this. Obviously has a Christian perspective, which we shouldn't be pushing as an organization (or any specific faith for that matter).

Not appropriate for CAP.  The discussion of Science and Faith needs to be left outside of CAP Chaplain Corps and CAP.  Would the CAP Chaplain Corps have a problem if I were to discussion Atheism and Science in CAP?

Time to get a well-crafted letter going.

Also, just because one has a "master rating in AE" does not make one a scientist as he claims.  Sorry, any Joe Blow can get a master rating in AE.

Thats okay, the blurry look of a rip from a 1970s vintage top loader VHS machine, and the droll introduction ran me off before much was even said.

As soon as the Bible was quoted, they were off the reservation.

This is a Christian lecture disguised as a secular discussion.

Not appropriate for CAP.

In a CAP, non-secular context, there is no debate regarding "faith vs. science".  There is only science.

Quote from: LSThiker on November 18, 2014, 05:43:12 PM
Not appropriate for CAP.  The discussion of Science and Faith needs to be left outside of CAP Chaplain Corps and CAP.  Would the CAP Chaplain Corps have a problem if I were to discussion Atheism and Science in CAP?

Time to get a well-crafted letter going.

Also, just because one has a "master rating in AE" does not make one a scientist as he claims.  Sorry, any Joe Blow can get a master rating in AE.

First time I've heard the Scientific method described as "If - Then", and first time I've heard Faith compared to the Scientific Method. I've reported the link to a group admin where it was posted. Really wasn't sure if it's "just me", or seriously misses the mark of what CAP should be promoting. Listened to it twice however, and couldn't really agree on anything, even with "an open mind".

Plenty of scientists are religious. This ain't it.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on November 18, 2014, 07:51:17 PM
Plenty of scientists are religious. This ain't it.

That there are.  How they grapple that is beyond me and is between them and well them.  I do not want to discuss the topic of faith and science as I know I have strong opinions.  That and this is not really the place.  Regardless of what one believes on this topic, CAP is not the place to discuss it.  Teaching aerospace science does not require a topic on faith and science.

Hi. I am Joe Blow. Anyway, we should be teaching our core values! Religious teaching is not one of them.

How does this jive with our goal of promoting STEM education?

No STEM cell development .. ;)

Quote from: dwb on November 18, 2014, 08:45:04 PM
How does this jive with our goal of promoting STEM education?

Does not change anything.  This topic is not appropriate for any CAP discussion. 

And without religion, how can you "Reach up and touch the face of God"????

Which one?

Quote from: AirAux on November 18, 2014, 10:57:44 PM
And without religion, how can you "Reach up and touch the face of God"????

"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth"

High Flight by John Gillespie Magee, Jr

OK, for the benefit of the doubt I went back and watched the whole thing, the connections made are
tenuous at best and based completely on a single doctrinal view, making it again inappropriate for CAP,
especially in what appears to be an official media channel.

To address the argument on its merits alone...

Faith is generally defined as "a belief without proof", while science is the systematic organization of knowledge with
testable explanations and predictions.  Science generally has no "opinion" as to the "why" something "is" (beyond cause and effect),
it simply catalogs what "is".  Further "extrapolation" is not "faith", it's extension of testable knowledge beyond the
range that is feasible (or possible) for testing.  Extrapolating the existence of a planet based on Doppler Spectroscopy is not the same
as accepting a metaphysical religious doctrine.

I also don't understand why this was done as a recorded Google Hangout instead of a direct video - the low bit rate and
drop outs are very distracting, making it even harder to figure out the message.

(Also, why is this in "Cadet Programs"?)

Hi everyone,

I am Ch Tim Miner, the person responsible for the video you are discussing. Let's chat.

It is important to note that this video was created to speak to seniors and, most importantly, to the chaplains in CAP. Ch Hughes wants all of us to be active in all three CAP missions of the organization. I've got quite a few chaplains who are afraid of science. That isn't good since the AE mission is directed to the seniors and the cadets. Ch Hughes agreed that he should reassure his chaplains that they can participate in AE without compromising faith. That was the point of this video.

The cadet-directed video that you should pay attention to is the weather career videos we are producing on the same YouTube channel. That is the game-changer technology that NHQ should review. Perhaps you would like to help me with the future career videos?

So what questions can I answer for you? I am looking for a chaplain from the American Humanist Association to do a science-faith video from their perspective. All faiths will have their chance.

Thank you for the chance to serve together in the spirit of volunteer service!

Regards,
SkyChaplain Tim

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 03:08:54 AM
I am looking for a chaplain from the American Humanist Association to do a science-faith video from their perspective. All faiths will have their chance.

Why? Saying "all faiths will have their chance" presupposes all faith >need< their "chance".
You're literally putting people in the postion of defending their religious beliefs in a public forum
with a CAP logo on it.

If you have Chaplains "afraid of science", that is an issue they need to work out (or likely not work out) for themselves.
CAP should not be in the business of trying to "fix" Chaplains with a religious doctrine that is reluctant towards science,
any more then one religion should try to "fix" another through evangelism.

The flip side is why the Chaplain corps feels it is necessary to involve themselves in AE's lane with the weather videos.
At most they should bring those to AE, and if AE thinks they have value, let them post them.

Hi again,

Thanks for the questions...

First, remember that CAP Chaplains are the only functional area that has equal Title 10 status to the AF so this discussion is directed at all the military chaplains and the religious members of CAP.  Two years ago I began townhall meetings at the annual conferences of the American Meteorological Society to discuss 'Spirituality and the Atmospheric Sciences.' They are packed every year with scientists exploring their personal relationship of their science and their faith. Great discussions take place and growth occurs. We are just offering the same opportunities here in CAP. It is all voluntary.

That said, the reason for the weather career videos is that I carry the charter of Jeff Montgomery at NHQ and the Cadet Team at NHQ to do them. I will be rewriting the whole weather curriculum for CAP. Career exploration is only one aspect of the larger Multi-media effort. Besides being a chaplain I am the scientist and for professor of weather/climatology at USAFA and the senior weather officer in the USAF Reserves. Chaplains can be AE officers too. Getting folks to see how the worldviews of faith and science are related uniquely for every individual is part of my personal chaplaincy calling and a viable one that has the endorsement of the senior chaplains in CAP and AF. It is all voluntary.
I hope you see that these programs provide opportunity and not any evangelism from any perspective. What else can I answer for you?

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 04:14:36 AM
Hi again,

Thanks for the questions...

First, remember that CAP Chaplains are the only functional area that has equal Title 10 status to the AF so this discussion is directed at all the military chaplains and the religious members of CAP.

I don't know, frankly, how anyone could forget that, since it is mentioned in every sentence involving CAP Chaplains.

The problem there, and this is from personal experience multiple times, is that many CAP Chaplains believe that what is essentially a "nice to have" ability to fill
in when the military lacks personnel, is the primary role of the Chaplain Corps, and that CAP Chaplains are essentially "mini-military chaplains".  My personal
experience includes dealing with members whose F34s list many hours of military service and zero CAP activities - they need(ed) the mantle of
CAP as their ticket to military activities, but were not interested in serving CAP.

That is not, in my view, the role of CAP's Chaplain corps, nor would educating anyone outside CAP, especially military Chaplains,
who actually specifically trained as military Chaplains (including the necessity to serve all faiths as needed), unlike many (most?) CAP Chaplains who are simply members of clergy with the requisite
university training, ordination, and ecclesiastical endorsement (present company excepted, presumably) but no understanding of the military situation.

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 04:14:36 AM
Two years ago I began townhall meetings at the annual conferences of the American Meteorological Society to discuss 'Spirituality and the Atmospheric Sciences.' They are packed every year with scientists exploring their personal relationship of their science and their faith. Great discussions take place and growth occurs. We are just offering the same opportunities here in CAP. It is all voluntary.

That said, the reason for the weather career videos is that I carry the charter of Jeff Montgomery at NHQ and the Cadet Team at NHQ to do them. I will be rewriting the whole weather curriculum for CAP. Career exploration is only one aspect of the larger Multi-media effort. Besides being a chaplain I am the scientist and for professor of weather/climatology at USAFA and the senior weather officer in the USAF Reserves. Chaplains can be AE officers too. Getting folks to see how the worldviews of faith and science are related uniquely for every individual is part of my personal chaplaincy calling and a viable one that has the endorsement of the senior chaplains in CAP and AF. It is all voluntary.
I hope you see that these programs provide opportunity and not any evangelism from any perspective. What else can I answer for you?

Your work on CAP weather careers should be completely separate from any endorsement or involvement from the Chaplain side of the house
for two reasons, first, they are separate directorates (your personal unique abilities notwithstanding), and second, the connection to the
Chaplain Corps, unfortunately, will turn off many of the very cadets you are trying to reach.

Cadets definitely will be interested in hearing from a professor at the USAFA (who also happens to be a Chaplain), and less so from
a Chaplain (who also happens to be a professor at the USAFA).

And I'm sorry, but CAP is not a 24x7x365 holistic service which requires full attention and in turn provides full life services like the military.
If members want to "explore faith", that is their prerogative, but it should not be done on CAP time, or in CAP uniform, which is supposed to
be a secular organization with no religious affiliation.

I also do not think it is possible for someone who has accepted a religious doctrine with the enthusiasm and belief of ordained clergy to
"explore faith" beyond politely listening to opposing views and then trying to convince the other person(s) where they are missing the point.
Anything which must be accepted on faith, isn't going to change, and characterizing sceintific facts as being potentially guided by an omnipotent hand, >is< evangelizing.

In this regard I don't mean to say you are being disingenuous or not well-intentioned, but you have accepted a viewpoint and sets of beliefs
that intertwine within your entire life.  To "explore faith" with anyone not of the same inclination, would be similar to "exploring science"
with someone who category denies the facts or principles presented.

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 03:08:54 AM
Hi everyone,

I am Ch Tim Miner, the person responsible for the video you are discussing. Let's chat.

It is important to note that this video was created to speak to seniors and, most importantly, to the chaplains in CAP.

May I suggest, Chaplain, that it might be a good idea to add that to the introduction to the video?  Perhaps also a written note stating this fact, and advising CAP commanders & chaplains that this is not intended for use as a character development presentation to cadets?

QuoteIt is important to note that this video was created to speak to seniors and, most importantly, to the chaplains in CAP. Ch Hughes wants all of us to be active in all three CAP missions of the organization.

This is not addressed any where in the video or in the "About" section on Youtube.  As it stands now, it is a conversation about how "Christianity" (one particular sect of Christianity for that matter) addresses "faith and science".  This, unintentionally I hope, creates an impression that CAP is in the business of proselytizing religious doctrine, which we know CAP is not.  If this video is meant as you stated, then it is better behind a restricted access and not on a public video site.  If Ch Hughes feel inclined to still talk about "science and faith", then the CAP "stamp" should be removed to prevent false impressions.     

QuoteI've got quite a few chaplains who are afraid of science. That isn't good since the AE mission is directed to the seniors and the cadets. Ch Hughes agreed that he should reassure his chaplains that they can participate in AE without compromising faith. That was the point of this video.

If the chaplains are "afraid of science", then this is something they need to work out with their religious organization.  CAP is not in the business of "fixing others religious beliefs".  If the CAP Chaplain Corps needs to "reassure [their] chaplains that they can participate in AE without compromising their faith", then the appropriate manner would be a simple email that has limited distribution.  Why does the Chaplain Corps need to reassure other chaplains that they can participate in AE?  If the chaplain does not feel comfortable, then perhaps participating in another PD specialty such as logistics or administration or ES would be more appropriate.  Why AE specifically? 

QuoteThe cadet-directed video that you should pay attention to is the weather career videos we are producing on the same YouTube channel. That is the game-changer technology that NHQ should review. Perhaps you would like to help me with the future career videos?

How are future career videos relevant to the CAP Chaplain Corps?  It would be far more appropriate for this to be worked through Cadet Programs, AE, or other relevant PD specialties separate from the Chaplain Corps.  I would assume that the Chaplain Corps would not want the CAP Administration Directorate to be releasing videos on becoming a Chaplain?

I will leave it at what Eclipse has already said.

QuoteIt is all voluntary.

Unfortunately, it is not perceived in that manner.  LTC (ret, US Army) Jen Peeples has talked extensively on the very "it is all voluntary" subject for Soldiers in formation.   While not exactly the same, cadets do not have the great privilege of it always being "voluntary".  A Ch Col holds a huge amount of weight for a cadet and thus feels the pressure to not say anything.  I received a huge amount of flack when I was a cadet when I questioned our Moral Leadership Officer regarding matters of religion (a subject entirely different).  I was constantly disciplined until I transferred units by the DCC (which was also her husband).  Fortunately, for me, I was willing and ready to hold ground.  A cadet airman may not be inclined as much.  In fact, I had a few cadets thank me for standing my ground because they were afraid to say anything.

QuoteAll faiths will have their chance.

All faiths?  There are over 41,000 Christian denominations alone.  Will all 41,000 receive their own chance?  If not, then no, not all faiths will have their chance.

Let us examine the video.  Ch Hughes quotes Hebrews 11:1.  However, he uses the NIV Bible which is supported by Evangelicals and Protestants.  This version was created in 1978 and has been continuously updated with the last version in 2011, I believe.  However, a number of Christian denominations do not agree with the NIV.  They still abide by the King James Version, which Hebrews 11:1 states:  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"   So I would hardly argue that his definition is the accepted Christian definition that he read. 

Ch Huges then states that "Assurance" means "knowledge".  This is hardly the case.  Assurance does not necessarily mean knowledge.  Assurance means "a positive declaration intended to give confidence; promise or pledge; full confidence; freedom from doubt; belief in one's abilities; presumptuous boldness".  Nothing of which is inherit to having knowledge.  One can have all of these without having knowledge.  Or you can have all of these with false knowledge.  Therefore, his claim that assurance means knowledge is weak at best.  He then attests that faith is knowledge.  Again, a weak claim at best.  Knowledge by definition is "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles", while faith means confidence or trust in a person or thing; belief that is not based on proof".

He makes the jump that faith is similar to the scientific method in that it collects evidence to either prove or disprove.  First and foremost, science does not prove anything.  It only disproves or supports an observation.  There is no possibility of proving anything according to the philosophy of science.  Furthermore, faith does not collect evidence to prove or disprove.  Even if we go with the NIV Hebrews 11:1, faith is "the confidence in what we hope for and the assurance about it".  Therefore, by NIV definition, it is not there to disprove anything.  Rather, it means "this is what we want and here is the confidence it is true".  Even when the evidence goes against the faith, the evidence is generally thrown out and the faith is kept.  Case in point, the evidence of evolution is rejected in favor of Genesis (both stories). 

To further his weak claim, he states that faith is similar in that "we hope in god, .... and they are based on promises."  This very statement is the exact opposite of the scientific method.  We do not "hope in our hypothesis" and base our hypothesis in "promises".  Rather, in science we formulate a hypothesis based on evidence and try to disprove it (null hypothesis).   So his final analogy is wrong.  As Ch Hugh claims faith is trying to prove God, which is similar to science.  No, science tries to disprove a hypothesis.  The exact opposite of faith. 

Chaplain Miner, may I strongly second the suggestion that you modify your introductory statement on the Youtube post, as it clearly appears from your replies that COL Hughes' statements were intended as professional development for Chaplain Corps new members. 

It is amply clear to me that the program of record for the Chaplain Corps clearly encompasses professional development ministry from one Christian Chaplain to other Christian Chaplains on specific matters of common faith and conscience, which is what this appears to be now that we understand the context. This is clearly within the lines of CAPR 265-1 Section D Para 16 "Scope", which is worth a couple of moments of time for all of us to review before commenting, whatever our personal beliefs are.

Where there is a massive disconnect is where lay members at large (like me) are failing to understand the context in which the comments were given, particularly with the seal of the Corps on it.  So, since this is Chaplain-to-Chaplain ministry (within scope), and not official proselytization (out of scope), I'd like to suggest something along the lines of:

"These comments were made as part of a professional development seminar for new trainee Civil Air Patrol Chaplains in accordance with initial and continuing education requirements under Section C, CAP Chaplain Corps Training and Structure, CAPR 265-1, of 19 December 2012, and the CAP Pamphlet 221 series (CAP Chaplain Corps development). The comments enclosed were not intended for nor are recommended as topical lectures for CAP Character Development Instruction (CDI) use and do not represent a doctrinal statement nor endorsement by CAP nor the Department of Defense. For unit level Character Development Instruction classes, class materials are available in CAP Pamphlet 265 at the following link:  http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/pamphlets-1702/ (http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/pamphlets-1702/)"

Rationale:
As a cadet programs guy (among other things), I've seen and had to exercise command input to stop occasional (but not common) use of the bully pulpit of CAP officers to advance a specific faith viewpoint to the exclusion of all others, which is pointedly NOT in the program of record, and I've seen CDI volunteers not aware of your existing curriculum grasping at straws for character development material, with sometimes disastrous results. I mention all this - AS RARE EXCEPTIONS - because in almost all cases these were examples of well meaning individuals in need of professional development from your community, and because anyone coming across this video may scratch his chin and use it in ignorance, raising needless controversy.

So, your internal PD is certainly needed!  However, all such training needs to be very clearly labeled as such for the meanest intellect and for the newest member. Otherwise, our well meaning volunteer amateurs (unit CCs and CDIs) may assume that Jaybirds video is meant for consumption by cadets when it pointedly isn't. LST's comments on the appearance of a bully pulpit by Commanders (and CDIs) are on target - echoing a series of articles ten years ago in the Naval Institutes "Proceedings" on the need to avoid confusing ministry to individuals (within CAPR 265 Para 16 Scope) and an appearance of official DoD/CAP endorsement of a specific faith tradition (out of scope).  Absent a clear disclaimer, this ends up being divisive and inappropriate, rather than ministerial and appropriate.

With respect,
Spam

This video misrepresents CAP in epic proportions. It should really be only made available privately within the Chaplain Corps for whatever reason it is cited and removed from the public domain ASAP.

My two cents worth as a Christian and CAP member.

So much for transparency.....

To All:

Thank you for all the comments on this video.  I've edited the title and the video's information to include the limitations as suggested by Spam.  We have many people of the Christian faith in the CAP who would benefit from this video so we won't hide it under limited release.  However, I hope that the changes make it clear that this is intended for people of faith and not to be used for CDI lessons.  This will be an interfaith series with other perspectives added other than this Christian one which is consistent with the pluralistic and inclusive mission of the CAP Chaplain Corps.

My personal observation from working with fellow scientists at the AMS is that we have created a culture of fear around faith and science which leads to not living an "authentic" life for many.  Trying to stovepipe who we are is unhealthy.  Science tells us what is true.  Faith and ethics tell us what is moral.  Our humanity tells us what is beautiful.  We all should live each of these three pillars for ourselves and explore them as fully as we are able. 

Thank you for the chance to chat about this.  I have grown from this exercise.  Please let me invite you to the CAP Chaplain Corps Facebook page where all things originate:  www.facebook.com/CAPChaplains (http://www.facebook.com/CAPChaplains) .  Please feel free to comment on anything you see there. 

Respectfully and with blessings,
SkyChaplain Tim

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 01:45:31 PM
Science tells us what is true.  Faith and ethics tell us what is moral.  Our humanity tells us what is beautiful.  We all should live each of these three pillars for ourselves and explore them as fully as we are able. 

Faith does not tell us what is moral.  Morality and ethics tell us what is moral.  Faith tells us what to hope, believe, or trust in.  However, that does not mean it is moral.

Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

I believe Faith and ethics lead us to our moral base.  You can't use the term morality to define moral..  Kind of an endless loop...

Quote from: AirAux on November 19, 2014, 03:51:40 PM
I believe Faith and ethics lead us to our moral base.  You can't use the term morality to define moral..  Kind of an endless loop...

I did not use morality to define morals.  I said, morality gives us morals.  This is not a definition.  A definition of morals would be "a standard or base regarding behavior or belief on what is or is not acceptable" (not the best definition but then again I wrote that in 5 seconds so forgive me on my definition).

Again, faith does not give any moral base.  People had faith in Hitler, but that does not mean Hitler was moral or ethical (Godwin's Law :)  ).  People had faith in Bush's intelligence for Iraq WMDs.  And just to be politically fair, some people have faith in Obama's ACA.  I can have faith in an immoral leader, but that still does not make my faith moral. 

Faith is defined as what to believe or trust.  Even Hebrews 11:1-3 says this:  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  For by it the elders obtained a good report.  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear". 

For posterity's sake, science also does not disprove hypotheses.  I used the wrong word as pointed out by a fellow scientist at work.  Science rejects or fails to reject a hypothesis (null hypothesis).  I apologize for my error. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

Just trying to liven up the place :)

Now, how can I meld these two?  .........

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:52:17 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

Just trying to liven up the place :)

Now, how can I meld these two?  .........

God has mandated that CAP wear the G/W in perpetuity. No more AF uniforms allowed.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 19, 2014, 05:06:10 AM

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 03:08:54 AM
Hi everyone,

I am Ch Tim Miner, the person responsible for the video you are discussing. Let's chat.

It is important to note that this video was created to speak to seniors and, most importantly, to the chaplains in CAP.

May I suggest, Chaplain, that it might be a good idea to add that to the introduction to the video?  Perhaps also a written note stating this fact, and advising CAP commanders & chaplains that this is not intended for use as a character development presentation to cadets?

QuoteStreamed live on Nov 10, 2014
Chaplain, Colonel James "Jay" Hughes, CAP, Chief of the Chaplain Corps for the Civil Air Patrol talks about how there is no conflict for Christians between science and the Bible.  This is the first in a series of interfaith discussions which will serve as a launching pad for people of all faiths to reconcile science in their lives. Chaplain Hughes speaks from his perspective as a Christian chaplain. This series will hopefully empower other chaplains to embrace the Aerospace Education mission, and in turn, educate their communities. There will be many future talks added regularly from other perspectives in keeping with the pluralistic and inclusive mission of the CAP Chaplain Corps consistent with the intended uses noted below.

"These comments were made as part of a professional development seminar for all Civil Air Patrol Chaplains in accordance with initial and continuing education requirements under Section C, CAP Chaplain Corps Training and Structure, CAPR 265-1, of 19 December 2012, and the CAP Pamphlet 221 series (CAP Chaplain Corps development). The comments enclosed were not intended for nor are recommended as topical lectures for CAP Character Development Instruction (CDI) use and do not represent a doctrinal statement nor endorsement by CAP nor the Department of Defense. For unit level Character Development Instruction classes, class materials are available in CAP Pamphlet 265 at the following link: http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publi... (http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/pamphlets-1702/%22)

Ch Hughes bases his comments on Hebrews 11:1-3.

King James Version (KJV):  11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

This has been changed, which is great. But I still don't see the issue with "Aerospace" and "Faith". Why can't we just let people have faith that the airplane will (or will not) fly? If someone is going to use their faith to deny gravity, lift, thrust, FAA or cash, that's on them. Of course the old version had just the religious quote, but it talked about teaching cadets AE...

Quote from: vento on November 19, 2014, 07:38:31 AMThis video misrepresents CAP in epic proportions. It should really be only made available privately within the Chaplain Corps for whatever reason it is cited and removed from the public domain ASAP. My two cents worth as a Christian and CAP member.

Completely agree.

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 03:08:54 AMIt is important to note that this video was created to speak to seniors and, most importantly, to the chaplains in CAP.

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 03:08:54 AMI've got quite a few chaplains who are afraid of science.

Quote from: SkyChaplain on November 19, 2014, 01:45:31 PM
We have many people of the Christian faith in the CAP who would benefit from this video so we won't hide it under limited release.  However, I hope that the changes make it clear that this is intended for people of faith and not to be used for CDI lessons.  This will be an interfaith series with other perspectives added other than this Christian one which is consistent with the pluralistic and inclusive mission of the CAP Chaplain Corps.

So when I see this posted to a Squadron page by a Chaplain, I suppose it's ok?

This is either for chaplains, or meant to be wide spread. One is ok, the other is not. This comes off completely wrong. We're not teaching cadets biology. We're not teaching them geology. We're not teaching them astrophysics. We're literally teaching them stuff they can observe themselves (and anyone of doubt). Either the plane flies because there's an engine making wind under wings pushing it forward and through the fluid of the molecules and atoms in the "air", or planes fly because your chosen deity makes it so. I don't care. Believe what you will, but don't try to tie in science with faith as being equal. There are already thousands of creationist websites doing that - CAP need not do so.

How would the Chaplain Corps feel if I started mixing in my Atheist beliefs into my Aerospace lessons? Can I demand to do a Humanist opening "prayer"? I've got to listen to a "God of All Nations" prayer during every opening formation. I've got to recite "Under God" in a Pledge to a country that supposedly gives me the freedom to choose whether I want to believe in a God, many gods, or no gods. Should I start objecting to the Chaplain doing his thing with the prayer? Bring in some science into his faith message? After all, we need some faith in our science, right?

It's a slippery slope. Most people in CAP don't know my (lack of) faith, and I don't know theirs. Because it doesn't matter. I'm in CAP to work with cadets and do ES. I'm not there to get an extra Hail Mary or a discussion on how faith is ok with me understanding the dynamics of flight.

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 19, 2014, 05:04:35 PM
God has mandated that CAP wear the G/W in perpetuity. No more AF uniforms allowed.

Except by chaplains that participate in the military support program.  They are only allowed to wear the USAF style uniform and must meet USAF-style standards.  :)

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:47:35 PM

Quote from: AirAux on November 19, 2014, 03:51:40 PM
I believe Faith and ethics lead us to our moral base.  You can't use the term morality to define moral..  Kind of an endless loop...

I can have faith in an immoral leader, but that still does not make my faith moral. 

Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

Chaplain,

Let me take a guess that what this all boils down to is as follows:
A literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is not compatible with the current mainstream scientific understanding of the history of the of the universe. 

Certain chaplains are conflicted because they think aerospace education may include the study of outer space which may include information that may contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. 

Am I correct? 

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 05:42:01 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:47:35 PM

Quote from: AirAux on November 19, 2014, 03:51:40 PM
I believe Faith and ethics lead us to our moral base.  You can't use the term morality to define moral..  Kind of an endless loop...

I can have faith in an immoral leader, but that still does not make my faith moral. 

Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

Agreed. But I would much rather everyone follow the universal "morals". I call them laws.


I'm expected to do what you do, or not to do what you don't do.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on November 19, 2014, 05:49:19 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 05:42:01 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:47:35 PM

Quote from: AirAux on November 19, 2014, 03:51:40 PM
I believe Faith and ethics lead us to our moral base.  You can't use the term morality to define moral..  Kind of an endless loop...

I can have faith in an immoral leader, but that still does not make my faith moral. 

Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

Agreed. But I would much rather everyone follow the universal "morals". I call them laws.


I'm expected to do what you do, or not to do what you don't do.

But are all laws moral? There are some places that have laws against corporal punishment. Does that make me immoral because I think that it's okay to spank an unruly child? Your "universal" morals are nothing of the sort. They may have some common threads, in this country, but are by no means universal.

And remember there are no absolutes in morality.

What is moral in one situation may be morally required in another.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 06:01:14 PM
And remember there are no absolutes in morality.

What is moral in one situation may be morally required in another.

Bingo. Wait, gambling is immoral...    :)

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 06:01:14 PM
And remember there are no absolutes in morality.

What is moral in one situation may be morally required in another.

Bingo. Wait, gambling is immoral...    :)

If we live in the same place, lets follow the same rules.


I don't care what they do in Iran. But I'll certainly not try to enter a female only function in "protest" of said rules. Not unless I like Iranian jails.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on November 19, 2014, 06:07:15 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 06:01:14 PM
And remember there are no absolutes in morality.

What is moral in one situation may be morally required in another.

Bingo. Wait, gambling is immoral...    :)

If we live in the same place, lets follow the same rules.


I don't care what they do in Iran. But I'll certainly not try to enter a female only function in "protest" of said rules. Not unless I like Iranian jails.

So you're saying that people who come here from cultures who believe that they are morally obligated to arrange a suitable spouse for their children should not do that?

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:52:17 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

Just trying to liven up the place :)

Now, how can I meld these two?  .........

(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1422455_798205756872519_2147020251_n.jpg?oh=a10a8412f306fcb933ada1bb1a930455&oe=55200ED1)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20)

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 06:09:44 PM

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on November 19, 2014, 06:07:15 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 06:01:14 PM
And remember there are no absolutes in morality.

What is moral in one situation may be morally required in another.

Bingo. Wait, gambling is immoral...    :)

If we live in the same place, lets follow the same rules.


I don't care what they do in Iran. But I'll certainly not try to enter a female only function in "protest" of said rules. Not unless I like Iranian jails.

So you're saying that people who come here from cultures who believe that they are morally obligated to arrange a suitable spouse for their children should not do that?

Yes.

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

I didn't know God wore a uniform.

Jack

Maybe God does not have a uniform, but angels do.

They have wings and fly, right?

>:D

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 19, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
Maybe God does not have a uniform, but angels do.

They have wings and fly, right?

>:D

But, do they have a process for award of said wings, and documentation of the right to wear them?

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 07:09:17 PM

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 19, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
Maybe God does not have a uniform, but angels do.

They have wings and fly, right?

>:D

But, do they have a process for award of said wings, and documentation of the right to wear them?

Death certificate? ;-)

Quote from: ColonelJack on November 19, 2014, 06:43:49 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

I didn't know God wore a uniform.

Jack

Reminds me of a joke about how God just THINKS he is a Navy Chief....

What's the difference between God and Putin?

God doesn't think he is Putin.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 06:15:37 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:52:17 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

Just trying to liven up the place :)

Now, how can I meld these two?  .........

(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1422455_798205756872519_2147020251_n.jpg?oh=a10a8412f306fcb933ada1bb1a930455&oe=55200ED1)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20)

For the record...this was handled within the Chaplain Corps at the time.  CAP Chaplains are not authorized to wear ABUs.  End of story.    Unfortunately, things on the internet remain long after.

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

How did that turn out for Anakin?

No it does not. I do not agree with moral relativism.  It assumes there are not moral truths.  Since you think it is all about perspective, then you would agree that there is a specific instance in which it is morally acceptable to rape a child?  Or infanticide?

Of course, this is not to say I believe in moral absolutism either.  I subscribe more to objective morality.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 19, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
Maybe God does not have a uniform, but angels do.

You mean Angels in the Outfield right?  :)

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 19, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
Maybe God does not have a uniform, but angels do.

They have wings and fly, right?

>:D

(http://www.grandstandsports.com/images/12002.jpg)

Quote from: Chappie on November 19, 2014, 07:55:09 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 06:15:37 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:52:17 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

Just trying to liven up the place :)

Now, how can I meld these two?  .........

(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1422455_798205756872519_2147020251_n.jpg?oh=a10a8412f306fcb933ada1bb1a930455&oe=55200ED1)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20)

For the record...this was handled within the Chaplain Corps at the time.  CAP Chaplains are not authorized to wear ABUs.  End of story.    Unfortunately, things on the internet remain long after.

I just posted it because someone asked if there was a way to meld the two... >:D

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

How did that turn out for Anakin?

No it does not. I do not agree with moral relativism.  It assumes there are not moral truths.  Since you think it is all about perspective, then you would agree that there is a specific instance in which it is morally acceptable to rape a child?  Or infanticide?

Of course, this is not to say I believe in moral absolutism either.  I subscribe more to objective morality.

In this society? No, those actions would not be acceptable. In other societies, the possibility exists. Like faith, morality is subjective. Subscribe all you like to objective morality, but it does not accurately reflect reality.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 08:25:35 PM

Quote from: Chappie on November 19, 2014, 07:55:09 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 06:15:37 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 04:52:17 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 19, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Nothing gets a discussion going like God or uniforms

Just trying to liven up the place :)

Now, how can I meld these two?  .........

(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1422455_798205756872519_2147020251_n.jpg?oh=a10a8412f306fcb933ada1bb1a930455&oe=55200ED1)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18201.20)

For the record...this was handled within the Chaplain Corps at the time.  CAP Chaplains are not authorized to wear ABUs.  End of story.    Unfortunately, things on the internet remain long after.

I just posted it because someone asked if there was a way to meld the two... >:D

Got it now - well played  :clap:  Say a big duh (discussion on God and Uniform) .... I need more coffee :)

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

How did that turn out for Anakin?

No it does not. I do not agree with moral relativism.  It assumes there are not moral truths.  Since you think it is all about perspective, then you would agree that there is a specific instance in which it is morally acceptable to rape a child?  Or infanticide?

Of course, this is not to say I believe in moral absolutism either.  I subscribe more to objective morality.

yes I do because I assume there are no moral truths. If I could save a whole village by killing a baby then maybe that is the moral thing to do.

Objective morality assumes an outside standard.   Who sets the standard.

I start at morality by defining what it is.  My definition of morality is the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society.   

Relativism comes into play as the society changes. Or the survival situation changes.

Quote from: Chappie on November 19, 2014, 08:39:05 PM
Got it now - well played  :clap:  Say a big duh (discussion on God and Uniform) .... I need more coffee :)

Don't we all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTVE5iPMKLg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTVE5iPMKLg)

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 08:42:40 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on November 19, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
Sure it does. Your morality is based on your environment and perspective. Is a North Korean politician less moral than one from New York? Ask Anakin, it's all about perspective....

How did that turn out for Anakin?

No it does not. I do not agree with moral relativism.  It assumes there are not moral truths.  Since you think it is all about perspective, then you would agree that there is a specific instance in which it is morally acceptable to rape a child?  Or infanticide?

Of course, this is not to say I believe in moral absolutism either.  I subscribe more to objective morality.

yes I do because I assume there are no moral truths. If I could save a whole village by killing a baby then maybe that is the moral thing to do.

Objective morality assumes an outside standard.   Who sets the standard.
I start at morality by defining what it is.  My definition of morality is the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society.   

Relativism comes into play as the society changes. Or the survival situation changes.

Exactly. What's the quote? Theories are gray but the real world is green...something along those lines. The concept of morality is great. The reality of it is quite another thing.

The dictionary defines morality as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior"

You decide to define it as what "improves the changes of survival of society" in some type of Moral Darwinism.  How do you know survival of society is "right"?   Perhaps only your personal survival matters, or maybe total extinction is really "best"? 

Call it social norms, custom, whim, whatever you please but not "morality."   

This is why CAP needs to stay out of these discussions.

Organized religions, philosophers, street corner preachers and those nice fellows from the future that have
started popping up at the coffee shop on open mic night have spent hundreds of years not coming to a
conclusion on the subjects, and for most of the above that is their stated mission and purpose in life.

The only thing that happens when these matters are brought to the front in CAP, is someone is frustrated,
alienated, infuriated, or put to sleep, none of which serves the charter.

Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:37:13 PM
Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

Spock Logic The Needs of the Many (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA#)

Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:37:13 PM
Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

I would disagree.  I can think of plenty of situations where I would consider it to be a greater moral "right" to promote the survival of another at the expense of my own.  I would lay down my life for my daughter in a heartbeat for example, and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 09:48:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:37:13 PM
Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

I would disagree.  I can think of plenty of situations where I would consider it to be a greater moral "right" to promote the survival of another at the expense of my own.  I would lay down my life for my daughter in a heartbeat for example, and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

Another point......you make for me....there are no false dichotomies.  This is where point of view comes.
We honor those who give their lives up for other.....but it is not "wrong" for an individual to say "no...not gonna do it".   

It all depend on how you answer the "life boat dilemma".   

You also point out another value laden subject.....you specifically say "child" as if they intrinsically have more "value" then an adult.  Not judging you....just point out that this is all part of moral relativism.   

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:44:51 PM
Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

The decision is made all the easier when you can park your Katra in someone else's head with some
assurance it'll rattle out somewhere else down the road.

In all seriousness, though, the problem is that the whole situation is opinion, informed or otherwise, and not
something really open to "argument".

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 09:48:58 PMand I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:57:03 PM
You also point out another value laden subject.....you specifically say "child" as if they intrinsically have more "value" then an adult.  Not judging you....just point out that this is all part of moral relativism.

Yep.

Who lives?  Baby Adolf or Adult Mother Teresa?

Makes for a great coffee-house argument, does not belong at a unit meeting after the Safety brief and before PT.
It might not be the best way, but it's definitely in the top 5 of getting people to quit CAP, especially cadets when
their parents get wind of it.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2014, 09:59:40 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:44:51 PM
Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

The decision is made all the easier when you can park your Katra in someone else's head with some
assurance it'll rattle out somewhere else down the road.

In all seriousness, though, the problem is that the whole situation is opinion, informed or otherwise, and not
something really open to "argument".

Until you personally have made a questionable moral choice and then are subject to punishment by your society.  Which is the Other side of morality that is often not discussed in character development classes. 

See how it all gets very confusing if you deny the possibility of an authority?  Of course you're free to do so, but I'm not sure I'd be very comfortable on a life raft with some of you folks. 

By the way, don't confuse the fact that moral decisions vary depending on the exact circumstances for the idea that there is no right answer for a particular situation. 

Ferinstance, the "kill a baby to save a village" example:

Kill a baby to satisfy the demands of a terrorist who threatens to nuke a city: Immoral

Drop a bomb on a terrorist who is threatening to nuke a city, knowing that a baby will also be killed: Permitted under "double effect" 

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 10:01:57 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2014, 09:59:40 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:44:51 PM
Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

The decision is made all the easier when you can park your Katra in someone else's head with some
assurance it'll rattle out somewhere else down the road.

In all seriousness, though, the problem is that the whole situation is opinion, informed or otherwise, and not
something really open to "argument".

Until you personally have made a questionable moral choice and then are subject to punishment by your society.  Which is the Other side of morality that is often not discussed in character development classes.

Agreed.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 19, 2014, 09:48:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 09:37:13 PM
Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

I would disagree.  I can think of plenty of situations where I would consider it to be a greater moral "right" to promote the survival of another at the expense of my own.  I would lay down my life for my daughter in a heartbeat for example, and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

But we see it in nature all the time. Rabbits kill their young and destroy nests when they fear a predator is nearby. They then escape and live to breed again. So are we just trying to prove that we are better than the animals we are? That we don't have instincts? What about the "right to die" debate? If your child was to die horribly at the hands of aggressors, starvation, or disease, would it be immoral to ease their suffering earlier? A rabbit would.  >:D >:D >:D

Why is this topic still being discussed in the 'Cadet Programs Management & Activities' forum? Can a moderator please move this thread to the 'Lobby' or another appropriate forum?

I put it here because the video talked about teaching AE to cadets...

Quote from: ReCAP on November 19, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
See how it all gets very confusing if you deny the possibility of an authority?  Of course you're free to do so, but I'm not sure I'd be very comfortable on a life raft with some of you folks. 

By the way, don't confuse the fact that moral decisions vary depending on the exact circumstances for the idea that there is no right answer for a particular situation. 

Ferinstance, the "kill a baby to save a village" example:

Kill a baby to satisfy the demands of a terrorist who threatens to nuke a city: Immoral

Drop a bomb on a terrorist who is threatening to nuke a city, knowing that a baby will also be killed: Permitted under "double effect"

I don't think anyone has denied the possibility of an authority....."society" is an an authority.   With out the context of society morality is a null term.  We have been denying that some super-natural authority is required to have morality.

Second....kill a baby to save a city is not immoral.  Neither is nuking a city and killing all those babies immoral....it depends on the context.  which is what I have been saying all along.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 08:42:40 PM
yes I do because I assume there are no moral truths. If I could save a whole village by killing a baby then maybe that is the moral thing to do.

Objective morality assumes an outside standard.   Who sets the standard.

I start at morality by defining what it is.  My definition of morality is the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society.   

Relativism comes into play as the society changes. Or the survival situation changes.

Morality is distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.  This is what (not who) sets the standard.  I think we agree on this.

In your case, what you describe is moral objectivism, not moral relativism.  You are objectively looking at the scenario independent of what the society or an individual thinks and deciding that it is more moral to kill the child because it benefits the society as a whole.  However, murder in general does not benefit society.  The decision is independent of human opinion.

Moral relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks.  This is divided into two groups:  subjectivism and conventionalism.  Subjectivism is what is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, while conventionalism is what is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks.

Moral objectivism does not depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong, but rather 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. 

There is always an "authority", whether by consent of the people, by coercion, or simply internal compass.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on November 19, 2014, 10:40:28 PM
I put it here because the video talked about teaching AE to cadets...

Yes, but the discussion stopped being relevant to Cadet Programs after Reply #32.

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 10:46:54 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 08:42:40 PM
yes I do because I assume there are no moral truths. If I could save a whole village by killing a baby then maybe that is the moral thing to do.

Objective morality assumes an outside standard.   Who sets the standard.

I start at morality by defining what it is.  My definition of morality is the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society.   

Relativism comes into play as the society changes. Or the survival situation changes.

Morality is distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.  This is what (not who) sets the standard.  I think we agree on this.

Almost there...."positively...negatively" affects conscious beings.  You are trading "right and wrong" for "positive and negative" with out really defining anything.  Also why go out of your way to say "conscious beings".  It is the members of the society.  "others" don't fall into the society.   Having said that....we can and do expand our definition of society all the time.

QuoteIn your case, what you describe is moral objectivism, not moral relativism.  You are objectively looking at the scenario independent of what the society or an individual thinks and deciding that it is more moral to kill the child because it benefits the society as a whole.  However, murder in general does not benefit society.  The decision is independent of human opinion.

Maybe...I'm not all up on the "proper" terminology used in philosophical discussions.   I say relative.....because the moral value on an action is relative to the situation, society, and circumstances.

An objective standard...is moral or immoral in all circumstances and all societies.

QuoteMoral relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks.  This is divided into two groups:  subjectivity and conventionalism.  Subjectivity is what is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, while conventionalism is what is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks.

Moral objectivism does not depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong, but rather 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

Then objectivism is a complete waste of time and has null value.   A man alone on an island is neither moral nor immoral.  With out society moral questions are null.  I guess then I am a Conventional Relativist.   By my definition of what morals are....they are the codes set up by society that improve their changes to survive.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 11:04:51 PM
Almost there...."positively...negatively" affects conscious beings.  You are trading "right and wrong" for "positive and negative" with out really defining anything.  Also why go out of your way to say "conscious beings".  It is the members of the society.  "others" don't fall into the society.   Having said that....we can and do expand our definition of society all the time.

Yes, without truly defining right/wrong/positive/negative.  However, I said conscious beings as some people have tried to argue that it also applies to dead people and/or pets.  So I have learned over time.

QuoteAn objective standard...is moral or immoral in all circumstances and all societies.

No that is moral absolutism.

QuoteThen objectivism is a complete waste of time and has null value.   A man alone on an island is neither moral nor immoral.  With out society moral questions are null.  I guess then I am a Conventional Relativist.   By my definition of what morals are....they are the codes set up by society that improve their changes to survive.

Well how can a man alone on an island act in any moral or immoral manners?  Your example is rather an exception than anything else. 

Again, by your definition, that is moral objectivism.  Moral relativism would mean that the codes are what society thinks but does not necessarily improve chances of survival.  A society can say "murder is moral" but that would not improve chances of survival.  According to moral relativism, then murder is moral because society says it is.  Another society says, murder is okay only if X applies.  Another society says murder is immoral in all circumstances.  As a result, no one society is any more moral or immoral as the society thinks it is a moral decision.

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 11:21:09 PMA society can say "murder is moral" but that would not improve chances of survival.

Unless you're turning people into Soylent Green.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2014, 10:01:36 PM
Yep.

Who lives?  Baby Adolf or Adult Mother Teresa?

Makes for a great coffee-house argument, does not belong at a unit meeting after the Safety brief and before PT.
It might not be the best way, but it's definitely in the top 5 of getting people to quit CAP, especially cadets when
their parents get wind of it.

Very true.  I would never allow this conversation as a formal discussion at a CAP meeting.  Coffee-house (CAPTalk) sure.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
Unless you're turning people into Soylent Green.

Mental note, buy stock in Soylent Green :)

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 11:21:09 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2014, 11:04:51 PM
Almost there...."positively...negatively" affects conscious beings.  You are trading "right and wrong" for "positive and negative" with out really defining anything.  Also why go out of your way to say "conscious beings".  It is the members of the society.  "others" don't fall into the society.   Having said that....we can and do expand our definition of society all the time.

Yes, without truly defining right/wrong/positive/negative.  However, I said conscious beings as some people have tried to argue that it also applies to dead people and/or pets.  So I have learned over time.

Well that's why I brought it up...conscious beings does include pets...

Quote

QuoteAn objective standard...is moral or immoral in all circumstances and all societies.

No that is moral absolutism.

QuoteThen objectivism is a complete waste of time and has null value.   A man alone on an island is neither moral nor immoral.  With out society moral questions are null.  I guess then I am a Conventional Relativist.   By my definition of what morals are....they are the codes set up by society that improve their changes to survive.

Well how can a man alone on an island act in any moral or immoral manners?  Your example is rather an exception than anything else.

It frames the context in which morals play.   With out society there are no morals.

QuoteAgain, by your definition, that is moral objectivism.  Moral relativism would mean that the codes are what society thinks but does not necessarily improve chances of survival.  A society can say "murder is moral" but that would not improve chances of survival.

If by murder you mean killing another human being....sure it can...does it all the time.  In time of war we murder the enemy before they murder us.  We murder dangerous member of our society to protect the rest of society.  In the life boat dilemma...sometimes the weak and sick are sacrificed for the good of society.

QuoteAccording to moral relativism, then murder is moral because society says it is.  Another society says, murder is okay only if X applies.  Another society says murder is immoral in all circumstances.  As a result, no one society is any more moral or immoral as the society thinks it is a moral decision.

Exactly. 

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2014, 12:49:37 AM
Well that's why I brought it up...conscious beings does include pets...

That depends on what your definition of consciousness is and how you measure it for animals.  Needless to say, the opinions and beliefs are not settled. 

Quote
It frames the context in which morals play.   With out society there are no morals.

Not necessarily.  A person alone on an island would have little to no chance of performing an act that would be considered immoral or moral.  If he is not able to perform an act, that does not mean that morals do not exist.  For example, it would be extremely difficult to commit rape if he is alone.  But to say that because he is alone rape cannot be considered moral or immoral is a false conclusion. 

QuoteIf by murder you mean killing another human being....sure it can...does it all the time.  In time of war we murder the enemy before they murder us.  We murder dangerous member of our society to protect the rest of society.  In the life boat dilemma...sometimes the weak and sick are sacrificed for the good of society.

No by murder I mean the premeditation of killing another human in an act of violence, malice, or rage.  This would not include self protection or the act of survival.

Quote

QuoteAccording to moral relativism, then murder is moral because society says it is.  Another society says, murder is okay only if X applies.  Another society says murder is immoral in all circumstances.  As a result, no one society is any more moral or immoral as the society thinks it is a moral decision.

Exactly.

Yes but that means moral relativism does not necessarily result in the betterment of society.  If your definition of morality is "the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society. ", then moral relativism is not correct because those standards set by society does not necessarily improve your chances of survival of that society.

Then you change them. 

Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 19, 2014, 10:56:01 PM

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on November 19, 2014, 10:40:28 PM
I put it here because the video talked about teaching AE to cadets...

Yes, but the discussion stopped being relevant to Cadet Programs after Reply #32.

Not really, but we could always discuss what kind of uniform to wear when having a philosophical discussion about uniforms...

Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2014, 11:25:29 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on November 19, 2014, 11:21:09 PMA society can say "murder is moral" but that would not improve chances of survival.

Unless you're turning people into Soylent Green.

Wait, Soylent Green is people?!!? This whole discussion has been covered by the Simpsons in quite a few episodes. Remember Fat Tony and his question of "Say your family don't like bread...say they like...cigarettes...."? There is no right and wrong in this topic. Only adherence to societal norms and acceptable behavior.

When did it become non-Cadet Programmy to discuss morality in leadership?

So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?  Also, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?  Is it all relative?  Perhaps that is why we search for a permanence to hold onto.  In this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?  Are we a better society since we have drifted away from God?  Have we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.  Is this a good thing?  Would you rahter have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?  Who is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.  Even the atheists make demands on others.  Are our morals stronger and better because we are Christians?  Who is the most tolerant group in the World?  Oh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.  So, if one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?  Is that faith any better than Christian faith?  Does Christian faith do more for the world than any other faith?  Wait, what, did I just become a  Chaplain?? 

Quote from: AirAux on November 20, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?

If it is for the betterment of the society and has a positive impact on the human race, then perhaps it is.  However, it is hard to judge that "scenario" against an objective stance as well it is lacking any real information.  To answer your bait question, I do not know in this context.

QuoteAlso, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?

No.  Rather it was Greek philosophers that said the world was flat, initially.  The concept of a round Earth dates back to 6 century BC and was proposed by Greek philosophers. I think also around this time, scholars in Mesopotamia were also coming to the conclusion the Earth was round.  The round Earth idea did not become popular until the Hellenistic period when mathematics demonstrated a round Earth.  I would suggest you read up on the "Myth of the Flat Earth" because the truth is not what is taught in schools.  Even during the Middle Ages, no one though the Earth was flat.

QuoteIn this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?

Let us ask the ancient Greeks how permanent Zeus was?  Or the Vikings on Thor?  Or any number of other gods and goddesses. 

QuoteAre we a better society since we have drifted away from God?

Not going to answer that question on this forum.  Regardless, I think you and I can find examples to support our opinions so it is rather pointless to even try.

QuoteHave we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.

Since I reject the concept of a god, I also reject the concept of a satan.  Therefore, no it is not possible.  However, to address this you would first need to define god and satan and demonstrate they exist.

QuoteWould you rahter have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?

I would rather have a good neighbor regardless of religion.  I would not want a radical Christian neighbor any more than a radical Muslim neighbor any more than a radical Jewish neighbor any more than a radical Communist neighbor any more than a radical Republican any more than a radical, well I think you get the point.

QuoteWho is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.  Even the atheists make demands on others.

Everyone makes demands on others.  That is how society, and quite frankly humanity, works.  As far as tolerance, well that is a subjective point of view and an opinion.  I am sure the Muslims would disagree as would Jews as well just about any one else.

QuoteOh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.

See my point about science and "proving".  However, using evidence we have a strong rationale, which has culminated into a strong theory, of the Big Bang event.

Quoteif one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?

No because faith by definition is belief without proof or evidence.  The acceptance of the Big Bang Theory is based on evidence, which would be the exact opposite of faith.  This would like saying that the Germ Theory is accepted based on faith.  This just is not true. 

Quote from: AirAux on November 20, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?  Also, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?  Is it all relative?  Perhaps that is why we search for a permanence to hold onto.  In this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?  Are we a better society since we have drifted away from God?  Have we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.  Is this a good thing?  Would you rahter have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?  Who is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.  Even the atheists make demands on others.  Are our morals stronger and better because we are Christians?  Who is the most tolerant group in the World?  Oh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.  So, if one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?  Is that faith any better than Christian faith?  Does Christian faith do more for the world than any other faith?  Wait, what, did I just become a  Chaplain??

I was about to have a huge response...then I realized I can't take that seriously.

Quote from: AirAux on November 20, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?  Also, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?  Is it all relative?  Perhaps that is why we search for a permanence to hold onto.  In this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?  Are we a better society since we have drifted away from God?  Have we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.  Is this a good thing?  Would you rahter have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?  Who is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.  Even the atheists make demands on others.  Are our morals stronger and better because we are Christians?  Who is the most tolerant group in the World?  Oh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.  So, if one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?  Is that faith any better than Christian faith?  Does Christian faith do more for the world than any other faith?  Wait, what, did I just become a  Chaplain??

This paragraph is why CAP needs to get out of the conversation ALTOGETHER, on ANY LEVEL. 

Period.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2014, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: AirAux on November 20, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?  Also, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?  Is it all relative?  Perhaps that is why we search for a permanence to hold onto.  In this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?  Are we a better society since we have drifted away from God?  Have we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.  Is this a good thing?  Would you rahter have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?  Who is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.  Even the atheists make demands on others.  Are our morals stronger and better because we are Christians?  Who is the most tolerant group in the World?  Oh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.  So, if one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?  Is that faith any better than Christian faith?  Does Christian faith do more for the world than any other faith?  Wait, what, did I just become a  Chaplain??

This paragraph is why CAP needs to get out of the conversation ALTOGETHER, on ANY LEVEL. 

Period.

It seems to me to be a tongue in cheek type of response. I'm keeping faith, in the absense of evidence that I'm right.

Quote from: AirAux on November 20, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?  Also, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?  Is it all relative?  Perhaps that is why we search for a permanence to hold onto.  In this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?  Are we a better society since we have drifted away from God?  Have we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.  Is this a good thing?  Would you rahter have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?  Who is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.  Even the atheists make demands on others.  Are our morals stronger and better because we are Christians?  Who is the most tolerant group in the World?  Oh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.  So, if one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?  Is that faith any better than Christian faith?  Does Christian faith do more for the world than any other faith?  Wait, what, did I just become a  Chaplain??

As a Pastafarian, I disagree with the above message.

Quote from: AirAux on November 20, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
So, is it moral to kill unborn infants?

Depends

QuoteAlso, regarding science, didn't scientist once teach us that the world was flat?

Yes.  But when scientists test they're hypothisis and it no longer fits the facts...they change it.

QuoteIs it all relative?

yes.  Your frame of reference determines your place in the space-time continuem.

QuotePerhaps that is why we search for a permanence to hold onto.

Humans are a curious animal.  We seek answers.

QuoteIn this day and age, is anything more permanent than GOD?

Which one?  History is littered with the debris of forgotten gods.

QuoteAre we a better society since we have drifted away from God?

I would suggest we are a better society BECAUSE we have drifted away from god.

QuoteHave we drifted or is it possible that there is a Satan and his influence is stronger the weaker the influence of God is.

If there is a God and a Satan....then Satan is working with God's consent.

QuoteIs this a good thing?

Null statment

QuoteWould you rather have a good Christian neighbor than a radical Muslim neighbor?

False dicotomy.  I would rather have a good neighbor.

QuoteWho is the most tolerant in the world?  Is it the Christians?  Of course.

I would have to throw the BS flag on this one.

QuoteEven the atheists make demands on others.

Demands like "please stop making us pray in school" and "please stop telling us fairy tails in science class".

QuoteAre our morals stronger and better because we are Christians?

In my experience no.

QuoteWho is the most tolerant group in the World?

In my experience....I would say the Buddhists.

QuoteOh, and by the way, using the Scientific Method, no one has ever proven the Big Bang Theory.

Absolutely false!

QuoteSo, if one believes in the Big Bang Theory, are they not basing that belief on faith?

No we are basing our belief on science.

QuoteIs that faith any better than Christian faith?

Null Statement

QuoteDoes Christian faith do more for the world than any other faith?

I don't know.  Compared to what?

QuoteWait, what, did I just become a  Chaplain??

No....you need a degree first.

The earth is flat:  lim(x,z→0); dy/dx, dz/dx=0   >:D

Quote from: Al Sayre on November 20, 2014, 05:46:37 PM
The earth is flat:  lim(x,z→0); dy/dx, dz/dx=0   >:D

Except for very large values of "0"

I just now read an article about a little girl who died of treatable diabetes, literally code blue in
front of the family, because her parents believed if they went for medical care it would be a sign of weakness of their faith.

Good luck reconciling that.

Look, the world WAS flat...as far their comprehension went. Then, someone challenged the preconceived notions anand was branded a heretic for challenging the status quo.

The people who believe their kid will be healed without modern medicine will simply say that it was God's will the child died.

People want to seek the easiest solution, to absolve themselves from thinking or doing.

I have a hard time with herd mentality. I have an even harder time with ignorance, stupidity, and blaming or holding others responsible for their follies or hard times instead of accepting responsibility. And that is what religion does. It absolves you from having to take responsibility for your actions. "Oh, it's not my fault. Gods Will."

These anti-religion posts seem to be painting with a rather broad brush. 

Some small minority rejects modern medicine for religious reasons, so this proves  ALL religions are irrational and want little girls to die? 

I thought the complaint against religion was that it holds us responsible for our actions and restricts our freedom, not that it absolves us of responsibility?