Is 'the order of nature' a valid argument? - I say yes.

[nnmartin]

HH:

Perhaps we are, but we would be evolving in accordance with the Order.

We must still abide by the order.

Now let's have a look at some of the things that go against the order and the problems they cause:

Bestiality - Disease
Necrophilia- Disease
Cannibalism - Disease
Nuclear Power - Mutations
Artificial Drugs - Psychosis
Incest - Gene distortion
GM foods - Mutations
Cloning - Gene distortion


there are others which I may get into at a later time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

claims and counter-claims of the most vague

Sounds like what you've posted in this thread so far.

The Order of nature has different levels - with humans being at the top.

The Principle of Unfalsifiability and How to Use it

1) Come up with a vaguely defined concept, such as "order of nature"
2) Ensure this concept enables you to refer to scientific concepts
3) Also ensure that your vague definition allows you to refute any arguments simply by saying they don't apply
4) Nevery let your concept actually depend on any logical, consistent, scientific, and/or empirical evidence. For example, introduce the concept "order of nature," but define yourself based on personal views what nature, order, and all things related to your concept are. All dissent from others can be dismissed because your concept is completely defined by you, rather than any relation to reality, logic, or coherent empirical methodology.

 

[nnmartin]

Then it´s not about nature. Its a bout a supernatural force that guides it.

This is so surprising and unexpected seeing the prior content of the posts here...

I must assume this is sarcasm?

Now, never mind about that.

Religious, supernatural or not - the Order could still be seen as an atheist version of Natural Law.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

your opinion no doubt would explain the general biological process of evolution but it falls short at the final hurdle.

You should know this during our debates about the Force in the Science section.

But let's not get into all that again - the fact is that there is no way you can prove that Evolution does not have guidance from sources currently unknown to man.

However since we would need to examine such an idea under scientific constraints, the lack of any such evidence for a conscious guiding force is not on the table, until evidence '/for/ it is presented. It's not. So, no, my statement completely suffices and, as far as all evidence suggests, is completely accurate.

Unless your so-called final hurdle is 'how can I shoehorn my concept of a deity into a system where he does not exist?' In which case, you're right; my pristine ability to come to rational conclusions does not reach that 'final hurdle' :eyeroll:

 

[Me Myself]

Sounds like what you've posted in this thread so far.


The Principle of Unfalsifiability and How to Use it

1) Come up with a vaguely defined concept, such as "order of nature"
2) Ensure this concept enables you to refer to scientific concepts
3) Also ensure that your vague definition allows you to refute any arguments simply by saying they don't apply
4) Nevery let your concept actually depend on any logical, consistent, scientific, and/or empirical evidence. For example, introduce the concept "order of nature," but define yourself based on personal views what nature, order, and all things related to your concept are. All dissent from others can be dismissed because your concept is completely defined by you, rather than any relation to reality, logic, or coherent empirical methodology.

Accurate

 

[Heathen Hammer]

HH:

Perhaps we are, but we would be evolving in accordance with the Order.

We must still abide by the order.

Now let's have a look at some of the things that go against the order and the problems they cause:

Bestiality - Disease
Necrophilia- Disease
Cannibalism - Disease
Nuclear Power - Mutations
Artificial Drugs - Psychosis
Incest - Gene distortion
GM foods - Mutations
Cloning - Gene distortion


there are others which I may get into at a later time.

Im sorry but merely being a living creature results in all these things, so Nature itself, even in your rather "young" shall we say, model, is 'unnatural'. Gene changes, psychosis, and disease occur regardless.

Your list is blatantly arbitrary and totally flawed.

 

[nnmartin]

Legion:

Well, that is one way of thinking about the Order but only if you choose not to understand.

Now what do you make of the list I just posted?

 

[Me Myself]

This argument is religious and I think it should be moved to the appropiate section.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Besides cannibalism does not cause disease. No actual disease resulting from cannibalism was ever presented.

 

[nnmartin]

How about AIDS.

that came supposedly from man messing with the Order.

Either by bestiality, gene manipulation, vaccination testing or the like.

 

[nnmartin]

This argument is religious and I think it should be moved to the appropiate section.

Which section would that be then?

 

[Me Myself]

Which section would that be then?

Either religious debates or pseudo science. Your call.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So you're against vaccinations?

If HIV jumped to humans from some ape species as is supposed, it would have already existed as a simian disease. It was already there. We didn't cause it to spontaneously arise from nothing.

 

[nnmartin]

Jainsite:

Greetings

What does a Jain make of the Order of Nature proposal?

 

[nnmartin]

MM:

I am not aware of a pseudo-science section but Religious Debates would be fair enough I guess

 

[nnmartin]

So you're against vaccinations?

If HIV jumped to humans from some ape species as is supposed, it would have already existed as a simian disease. It was already there. We didn't cause it to spontaneously arise from nothing.

No, but with our messing we did cause a species jump and countless deaths as a result.

As for vaccinations, that is a tricky area.

One in which we would have to compare the risk of interfering with the Order against that of the perceived health benefits to mankind.

Survival of the race instinct here would probably supersede the Order.

 

[Koldo]

Just because something occurs in nature it does not mean it is meant to be.

What do you mean by 'meant to be'?

Humans were not made to drink gasoline yet some do and no doubt die - the body does not have the necessary components to turn this kind of fuel into energy so attempting to do so is clearly against the Order.

This is proved by consequences.

Accidental deaths are still part of nature.
So they can't be against the order.

 

[cablescavenger]

Your OP sounds like a simplified version of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs:

In order of importance ,1 being the base of the pyramid as it is typically drawn:

1. Psychological - Breathing, food, water, sex, homeostasis, excretion
2. Safety - Security of self, family, morality, family etc
3. Love/Belonging - Friendship, family, sexual intimacy
4. Self esteem - Self esteem, confidence, acheivement, respect of others
5. Self Actualization - Morality, creativity, sponteneity, problem solving

If by "order of nature" you are referring to human nature, I think the heirarchy of needs as above is not far off as a framework. As social animals we place importance on interaction and affirmation once basic needs are taken care of.

Funny, I thought the same when I saw it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest:
Survival of the species comes into play here.
The natural order allows for contraception so that people can control the population.

Homosexuality appears to be more 'natural' than contraception.
The former is observed throughout nature, & therefore part of the natural order.
The latter is a recent invention man to circumvent the natural order, & therefore an abomination.

 

[Viker]

Quite often the term 'it's against the order of nature' is used in a debate - and usually dismissed by many almost straight away.

I would say though, that if you think about it , it's actually one of the best moral guides we have.

Who has an issue with this?

Generally speaking I think we can break down the 'order' argument into 4 main sections.

1. Reproduction
2. Food
3. Shelter
4. Health

The most commonly argued over one is surely number 1 as this deals with a lot of key issues.

To me some things are clearly against the order - bestiality, pedophilia , incest and necrophilia for instance.

There are many negative issues surrounding these activities but when we think about 'order of nature' concerns the clear factor is 'lack of normal reproductive ability'.

In a phrase I would say that an activity related to reproduction is against the order of nature if:

The action does not, under normal circumstances, lead to healthy reproduction in a linear fashion.

This can be discussed in more detail as there are quite a few issues involved here.

I will deal with the other 3 categories in due course.

any views or questions?

Let me sum those "four" up for you.


1. Survive this, all the little details are bullocks. Thus, the order of nature.