How about you make your argument without a hypothetical? I don’t even want to think about how much time has been wasting trying to understand your hypotheticals and explain why they are so terrible. I’m asking you about revelation and intuition vs. facts and how we can know revelation and intuition are right or wrong.
I’m sure I can find a religious person who is in favor of both missile guidance systems and guidance systems for cars; should we take his opinion more seriously than that of an atheist who favors both? (Or one? Or neither?) Should we take into account the opinion of a religious person who favors both, and a religious person who favors neither, and a religious person who favors one but not the other? I don’t quite get your point, here.
Does the term “fragging” ring a bell?
“The Captain died for his country. I don’t know how those snipers got behind him.”
Even more: a religious person might make a decision based on the reward he will receive in the afterlife. Another person might find the exact same decision highly immoral, because he doesn’t believe in the afterlife…or because he believes in a different afterlife!
Worse, some of these decisions will affect other persons, involved in none of these religious views. An awful lot of people wanted to throw down against the USSR with a nuclear exchange…for religious reasons. No thanks for involving those of us who aren’t believers!
It wouldn’t be moral for you to do that, although deluded, he’s still your captain.
And this is an indictment of Science, how?
Sorry - if he is ‘clearly’ deluded or the order is otherwise unlawful - you have the ability to refuse to follow - in fact, you have the duty to do so - there are limits to what you can actively do on the field of battle in some scenarios, but this is why there is a chain of command, etc - otherwise you follow the order - attempt to take the hill and do everything yo can do to not die in the process.
If you are given a lawful order - you follow it - in wartime even more so - this is how these battles get won - invoking a 'diety" - in and of itself - means nothing to the success, failure or morality of the action at hand.
HOWEVER - your hypothetical is yet another sensless ‘trick’ question as there is no correct answer given your hypothetical, and it shows you know nothing about military procedures or have ever served.
Further - it does nothing to progress your argument over ‘intuiton’ -‘divine inspiration’ or anthing else you have brought up in this thread -
Bear with me, without doubt the chain of command is important. But an unspoken rule at West Point is that as an officer your first responsibility is to your men and that is far more important than your career. Assuming you are a lieutenant a West Point grad what would you do?
AFAIK, there are procedures for removing a superior officer from duty if he is incompetent. One should follow them in this case.
As a metaphor then it really fails as then one has to conclude that there should be a way to remove god. I don’t thinks so, as a deist I do not see a need to remove what is not intervening or ordering me around.
What the bloody hell does this have to do with your own OP? Could you please talk about this subject?
What evidence led you to believe that your god created the universe?
One might reasonably argue that religion is a tool. History would seem to support the syllogism one would draw from that.
As a metaphor it’s a pretty good one for this thread. He’s determined to die on this hill no matter how weak his position is, and there’s a good chance that the killshot will come from someone he’s assuming is on his side.
a) you’re wrong - if its an “unspoken rule” - it is not a rule at all.
b) there are many times, in battle, that potential ‘suicide’ missions are part of the job - every heard of Normandy?
c) according to all your other crap - “GOD” might “divinely inspire” that captain, should the LT follow or not?
Get back on the subject, what does this have to do with intuition, revelation, god, science or athiesm?
The intuitive response from the lieutenant would be to shout the captain down and try to talk some sense into him…and if he won’t listen use modest force to wrestle him to the ground.
There’s a chance that the lieutenant would be tried in military court, but that’s the price he had to pay to save his men.
Now if I had time to consult the Bible, speak to my Pastor, speak to members of my
parish and pray and came to this type of decision, it would be a personal revelation from God.
I apologize, I meant unwritten rule. Also, since the lieutenant went to West Point, it is an army troop ready to charge up the hill.
Bear with me…as far as I’m concerned this is a friendly debate.
Down the line, I’ll tie it in with intuition and revelation.
This isn’t your blog, dude. Would you mind just answering the question directly?
That’s not intuitive or empirical. It’s a way of resolving the dispute. The intuitive/revelatory/empirical part would concern how you decide to follow his order or not. Stop using analogies and just explain your opinion.
Okay, I have to admit that by going through this debate, scientists have earned more respect from me. But they are still missing out on developing their intuition. Many of the big questions in life we are unable to look at all the data and gather all the evidence. That Lieutenant did have the time to do that. What he had was the evidence at hand and he knew what the rules were.
He knew that it was likely that he would be court-martialed or other-wise reprimanded, but he did what his religious training and his West Point training told him was proper.
All people use intuition. Including scientists. Scientists just have a rigorous process to check their data and their conclusions. You were saying intuition and revelation are just as valid as that process.