• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Faith and Material Truth Clash - An Hypothetical Moral Dilemma.

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
7,997
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is an hypothetical mind-experiment designed to foster debate and not division. So please approach it in that spirit. I will present two mini-scenarios which pose a dilemma to either people of faith and to secular agnostics/atheists. Details have been purposely left vague so that creative folks cannot wiggle about to avoid answering the questions, if they choose to participate.

Scenario #1:

In the streets of São Paulo, Brazil there emerge reports of a holy woman who it is said can perform miracles, although there is significant skepticism about the claims. However a news crew following the woman films a miracle which is very, very hard to discount as anything else. You are the editor in chief and owner of the media outlet which has recorded, has possession and legal ownership of the video. You claim to be an humanist and an atheist. The video is so astonishing and so defies conventional reason that it will very, very likely affect millions who see it and will very likely inspire and expand both organised religion and personal faith, plus it could perhaps trigger religious intolerance or conflict/war. Do you release the tape, do you suppress it or do you destroy it? Explain why you will do what you choose to do, please.

Scenario # 2:

An archeological discovery is made on a dig which you are in charge of in Western Jordan. You claim to be a person of faith and an adherent to a certain church. A relic which will seriously damage your faith and your church, by disqualifying the central tenet of your religion, is discovered by yourself and two assistants. This is a piece of evidence which could completely disqualify millions of followers' faith in your religion, imperilling their immortal souls from your church's POV . It could also strengthen competing religions which you feel are antithetical to the tenets of your faith. The artefact is very, very clear and persuasive evidence that everything you have believed to date can now be seriously called into question. Do you reveal the artefact to the academic community and to the public, do you suppress it or do you destroy it? Explain why you will do what you choose to do, please.

How would you deal with these two moral/ethical/spiritual dilemmas and why?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
I release tape. Let the truth be either discovered or exposed or quantified in whatever way it happens.

I also reveal the artifact. Same reasons as above.

All finds, claims, and evidence for anything should be revealed/released so that humanity can inspect, observe, investigate and educate.

If that means concrete proof a miracle has been performed so be it.

If it means something severely contradicts a worldwide belief, so be it.

Truth and fact are more important than personal feelings and/or beliefs.
 
#1 Ascertain if the supposed "miracle" can be repeated on request in a research setting.

#2 I would employ scientific due diligence and publish if the artifact was indeed genuine.
 
#1 Ascertain if the supposed "miracle" can be repeated on request in a research setting.

#2 I would employ scientific due diligence and publish if the artifact was indeed genuine.

Rogue Valley:

If the "miracle" in scenario #1 cannot or will not be repeated in a laboratory, then what choice do you make about the video?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
This is an hypothetical mind-experiment designed to foster debate and not division. So please approach it in that spirit. I will present two mini-scenarios which pose a dilemma to either people of faith and to secular agnostics/atheists. Details have been purposely left vague so that creative folks cannot wiggle about to avoid answering the questions, if they choose to participate.

Scenario #1:

In the streets of São Paulo, Brazil there emerge reports of a holy woman who it is said can perform miracles, although there is significant skepticism about the claims. However a news crew following the woman films a miracle which is very, very hard to discount as anything else. You are the editor in chief and owner of the media outlet which has recorded, has possession and legal ownership of the video. You claim to be an humanist and an atheist. The video is so astonishing and so defies conventional reason that it will very, very likely affect millions who see it and will very likely inspire and expand both organised religion and personal faith, plus it could perhaps trigger religious intolerance or conflict/war. Do you release the tape, do you suppress it or do you destroy it? Explain why you will do what you choose to do, please.

Scenario # 2:

An archeological discovery is made on a dig which you are in charge of in Western Jordan. You claim to be a person of faith and an adherent to a certain church. A relic which will seriously damage your faith and your church, by disqualifying the central tenet of your religion, is discovered by yourself and two assistants. This is a piece of evidence which could completely disqualify millions of followers' faith in your religion, imperilling their immortal souls from your church's POV . It could also strengthen competing religions which you feel are antithetical to the tenets of your faith. The artefact is very, very clear and persuasive evidence that everything you have believed to date can now be seriously called into question. Do you reveal the artefact to the academic community and to the public, do you suppress it or do you destroy it? Explain why you will do what you choose to do, please.

How would you deal with these two moral/ethical/spiritual dilemmas and why?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Is the "miracle" repeatable or only a fluke? Can said miracle be done in a controlled environment? If not, I write it off as either a spoon bending trick or the natural occurrence of a highly improbable event. My money would be in trick.
 
Is the "miracle" repeatable or only a fluke? Can said miracle be done in a controlled environment? If not, I write it off as either a spoon bending trick or the natural occurrence of a highly improbable event. My money would be in trick.

Calamity, you did not answer the questions of making public the video/artefact or not making it public and why you would do what you would do.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Rogue Valley:

If the "miracle" in scenario #1 cannot or will not be repeated in a laboratory, then what choice do you make about the video?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Then I consider it to be some sort of chicanery, and report it as unsubstantiated.
 
I believe both @calamity and @Rogue Valley are not within the spirit of the OP’s question.

You saw the video. You were convinced it’s real.

The question is not about the video or its legitimacy. You determined it’s legitimate. Period.

The question is what you then do with the video. Even if it possibly means the video creates outbreaks of violence and death.
 
I believe both @calamity and @Rogue Valley are not within the spirit of the OP’s question.

You saw the video. You were convinced it’s real.


That statement would be impossible because I - and I maintain this stance here at DP - never ever accept a video at face value.
 
That statement would be impossible because I - and I maintain this stance here at DP - never ever accept a video at face value.

Which confirms what I said. You are not participating within the requested spirit of the OP.
 
This is an hypothetical mind-experiment designed to foster debate and not division. So please approach it in that spirit. I will present two mini-scenarios which pose a dilemma to either people of faith and to secular agnostics/atheists. Details have been purposely left vague so that creative folks cannot wiggle about to avoid answering the questions, if they choose to participate.

Scenario #1:

In the streets of São Paulo, Brazil there emerge reports of a holy woman who it is said can perform miracles, although there is significant skepticism about the claims. However a news crew following the woman films a miracle which is very, very hard to discount as anything else. You are the editor in chief and owner of the media outlet which has recorded, has possession and legal ownership of the video. You claim to be an humanist and an atheist. The video is so astonishing and so defies conventional reason that it will very, very likely affect millions who see it and will very likely inspire and expand both organised religion and personal faith, plus it could perhaps trigger religious intolerance or conflict/war. Do you release the tape, do you suppress it or do you destroy it? Explain why you will do what you choose to do, please.

Scenario # 2:

An archeological discovery is made on a dig which you are in charge of in Western Jordan. You claim to be a person of faith and an adherent to a certain church. A relic which will seriously damage your faith and your church, by disqualifying the central tenet of your religion, is discovered by yourself and two assistants. This is a piece of evidence which could completely disqualify millions of followers' faith in your religion, imperilling their immortal souls from your church's POV . It could also strengthen competing religions which you feel are antithetical to the tenets of your faith. The artefact is very, very clear and persuasive evidence that everything you have believed to date can now be seriously called into question. Do you reveal the artefact to the academic community and to the public, do you suppress it or do you destroy it? Explain why you will do what you choose to do, please.

How would you deal with these two moral/ethical/spiritual dilemmas and why?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Hey Evil, how’s about you answer your own questions since most others appear to not want to play. :)
 
Hey Evil, how’s about you answer your own questions since most others appear to not want to play. :)

Dragonfly:

Publish the video without commentary and release the archeological evidence after peer review of the methodology and analysis. Let each person or community make up their own or collective minds and hearts about truth and their own truths. I am no wise Sphinx guarding secrets not meant to be known by humanity. I am like a donkey braying into the night of ignorance. I know just enough to know that I know very little at all about history and the miraculous. I would not be a fit gatekeeper of truth in any form.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Dragonfly:

Publish the video without commentary and release the archeological evidence after peer review of the methodology and analysis. Let each person or community make up their own or collective minds and hearts about truth and their own truths. I am no wise Sphinx guarding secrets not meant to be known by humanity. I am like a donkey braying into the night of ignorance. I know just enough to know that I know very little at all about history and the miraculous. I would not be a fit gatekeeper of truth in any form.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Why would you publish a video without commentary? Do you think that videos cannot be manipulated? Shouldn't we be made aware of the source of the video and if it was in any way edited or if the video was possibly of an illusion being performed? If you take a video of a magician does it reveal what the magician is actually doing to create the illusion that magic is actually happening? Video evidence is never enough. It should be examined and have to go through the same analysis as archeological evidence. Reporting news should go through as strict an analysis as scientific discovery. Why should the video get off the hook but the archeological evidence have to go through a more thorough analysis?
 
Why would you publish a video without commentary? Do you think that videos cannot be manipulated? Shouldn't we be made aware of the source of the video and if it was in any way edited or if the video was possibly of an illusion being performed? If you take a video of a magician does it reveal what the magician is actually doing to create the illusion that magic is actually happening? Video evidence is never enough. It should be examined and have to go through the same analysis as archeological evidence. Reporting news should go through as strict an analysis as scientific discovery. Why should the video get off the hook but the archeological evidence have to go through a more thorough analysis?

devildavid:

Read the OP.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
devildavid:

Read the OP.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I did. But I was responding to a particular post you made. It seems you wanted only certain answers. An editor in chief does analyze things before presenting them to the public. If I put myself in their place, that is what I would do.
 
Devildavid:

The thread is about the choices, not about the details which are assumed to be covered. So assume that the editor and owner of the news crew tape has done extraordinary due diligence to assure that the tape is real, not meddled with, not a fake and is corroborated by the news crew and producer who were there on the scene, when the recorded events happened. The decision to not comment on the video, does not mean a reluctance about giving background information about how the video came to be, it means not commenting on the significance of the events recorded. Perhaps I did not make this clear in my earlier post. Thus like the artefact there would be no comment on its significance, only its background, its veracity as a record of a phenomenon which happened, and the methodology and analysis of its collection.

The idea is to stay out of the weeds of detail and to ask posters here to make two juxtaposed choices, while explaining why the made the choices they did. With that clarified, what do you do, in both cases and why do you make the choices you make?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Devildavid:

The thread is about the choices, not about the details which are assumed to be covered. So assume that the editor and owner of the news crew tape has done extraordinary due diligence to assure that the tape is real, not meddled with, not a fake and is corroborated by the news crew and producer who were there on the scene, when the recorded events happened. The decision to not comment on the video, does not mean a reluctance about giving background information about how the video came to be, it means not commenting on the significance of the events recorded. Perhaps I did not make this clear in my earlier post. Thus like the artefact there would be no comment on its significance, only its background, its veracity as a record of a phenomenon which happened, and the methodology and analysis of its collection.

The idea is to stay out of the weeds of detail and to ask posters here to make two juxtaposed choices, while explaining why the made the choices they did. With that clarified, what do you do, in both cases and why do you make the choices you make?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I’m always amazed at the effort some people put into NOT following the spirit in which a purely hypothetical question is asked.

Like their answer to the actual question could determine some rather harsh response if they get it “wrong”.
 
Devildavid:

The thread is about the choices, not about the details which are assumed to be covered. So assume that the editor and owner of the news crew tape has done extraordinary due diligence to assure that the tape is real, not meddled with, not a fake and is corroborated by the news crew and producer who were there on the scene, when the recorded events happened. The decision to not comment on the video, does not mean a reluctance about giving background information about how the video came to be, it means not commenting on the significance of the events recorded. Perhaps I did not make this clear in my earlier post. Thus like the artefact there would be no comment on its significance, only its background, its veracity as a record of a phenomenon which happened, and the methodology and analysis of its collection.

The idea is to stay out of the weeds of detail and to ask posters here to make two juxtaposed choices, while explaining why the made the choices they did. With that clarified, what do you do, in both cases and why do you make the choices you make?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

In both cases the character that I am playing would not present the evidence at all because it would undermine their views. So they would either destroy it or ignore and hope no one else found out about it.
 
Calamity, you did not answer the questions of making public the video/artefact or not making it public and why you would do what you would do.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Oh, I would make everything available.
 
What? What???

I was asked a hypothetical and given two very different parts to play. So I have to determine how each character role I was given would react. I can't base it on what I would do because neither person represents me, but represents a hypothetical person. So I have to put myself in the role of the character with their attitudes and beliefs and decide what that character would do.
 
Back
Top Bottom