Facial Technology suggest biological determinism

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Truth, and Ethics' started by BibleHoarder, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
  2. Tuxedo America

    Tuxedo America Member

    Posts:
    97
    Likes Received:
    78
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Latin Rite Catholic
    Assuming this is true, my genes can (emphasis on can) also determine whether I will suffer from any number of diseases, what temperament I will have, and roughly how long I will live- but the environment also plays a role. This gets into the nature versus nurture debate. How I'm raised can have an impact on many things in my life. My environment can effect whether or not the genes within me that can cause cancer will activate or not. Maybe I will be killed by injury before any of this matters. Maybe how I (and others, and the environment) treat my body will result in a different natural death than what my genotype initially suggested. None of this means anything in relation to the existence of a rational soul.

    The articles seem to want to pin everything on nature, and considering the controversial content of them, it seems to be for the purposes of their agenda.
     
  3. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    True. It may be legit to say that some people with certain political, religious, or sexual orientations have particular grooming habits that were used to form the basis of this data but may not be entirely true about all, and may even differ in other cultures entirely. Some could even say that people's self-image will influence their identity later in life, if it reimburses the pressure to act according to their culture's expectations and demands.

    They seem to be saying that if it looks like a duck, or quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, and some stereotypes are valid, but again, like I said, there may be much more nuanced reasons for that which are not all encompassing on the individuals in question.
     
  4. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    940
    Likes Received:
    689
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    What I keep in mind when reading articles like this is the extent to which science has become politicized

    After all, the prestige of science has become so high, that if you can make a claim that science has “just” discovered something, it instantly enters the realm of infallibility

    However those who know the history of science know that rarely does science “just” discover anything... discoveries take 20-30 years to be found and then confirmed by independent peer reviews and un-politicized second, third,and even fourth generations of scientists... Many a famous “discovery” was flatly overturned later, when a less biased scientist followed the same line of research but didn’t find the expected “discovery”!
     
  5. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    This is why I have given up trusting the media or secular sources and only listening to sources which are Christian in some way or another. If I feel you have the fruits of the spirit, I will more likely trust you on something I have no first-hand experience with than some mean-spirited creep atheist who will blabber to you about evolution in esoteric, academic jargon. The Christian doesn't even need to agree on every point of doctrine or theology, but if they have genuine evidence of the holy spirit and orthodox doctrine on essential matters, then I will be more willing to believe them and just ignore the atheists or heretics outright even if they may sound clever or smart on the surface.
     

Share This Page