As an Atheist - Can I find morality through science?

[Russell_SA]

Some definitions of terms:
Philosophy is just the discussion of thought.
Science a philosophical process to justify the conclusion of thought about reality. To see if reality matched their conclusions, thus reinforcing their belief that they used a correct application of logic.
So science is the study of reality.
Reality = to know = to exist - anything that manifests in a detectable way in space and time.

• So I would argue that a meteor that is on a collision path to destroy the planet does not manifest in “our” reality because we can no tell the difference between it being there and not being there. We function as if it is not there until we are justified that it is there.
  I do not argue for “absolute” knowledge but rather justified knowledge because I can not tell the difference between something not being there and not being able to know that it is there.
  What does it mean to exist for negative 2 seconds? To be outside of time? I can not wrap my head around that concept.
  Time - for me - is just the passage of event a to event b.

Morality is a conclusion based on the observed result the subject responded with based on the actions that they were subjected to. Morality is the result of data on the human experience. This is how we know that actions that cause a human to respond in pain tend to be immoral and actions that cause a human to respond with a belly laugh tend to not be immoral.
With enough data on what it is to be human, we can apply that to the group of humanity and come up with conclusions about objective and subjective morality.
The reference point of objective or subjective is from the subjective reference point of human well-being. Just like nutrition is subjective to pick apples instead of pears. But it is objectively true to not consume poison. Once the reference point of “nutrition” is subjectively selected as a reference point.

Moral dilemma - The run away train and you get to pick path a or b for it to go down. Either path will result in the death of people. Can science solve this? The amount of information you know about the problem determines it’s level of moral issue. Same amount of people killed either way? Is one person the scientist working on the cure for cancer and the group just pedestrians? Is the group all death row inmates and the individual on the other track your mother? What makes this a moral dilemma its its affect on the person at the switch who has to make a choice. The more we can function after the action without it weighing on our psychological well-being appears to be a bar that we set for morality. Not sure if that is always the case, but it works for this example. People are going to die no matter what the switcher chooses to do. They have to make a choice that they can live with. Some may end up just walking away from the situation all together since the results are horrific regardless of what they do, so they’d just assume not be apart of the story. But walking away and not trying anything would not be something that someone else could live with. See it’s the results of the psyche of the person that’s at the switch that is making the choice a moral one or not because they have to be able to live with the consequences of their actions or inactions. Use psychology to determine the level of the person’s mental well-being after the event. That is science. The switcher’s manifestation of their well-being after that event is observable in reality and as such able to be studied in science. There is no absolute morally correct path to take here when you have limited knowledge of your actions and it’s affect on the results. Just being witness to the inevitable terrible result does not make your inactions immoral. Not doing anything about the events that caused that tragedy afterwards is where the immoral action takes place I believe. This is because we have evolved the ability to empathize with our fellow creatures and would want someone to make the world safer for us. So we understand those that have the power and the knowledge to fix bad situations are under a social obligation to protect their tribe members through our evolutionary social development.

 

[phil19034]

The first problem is see is thats not the historical definition of philosophy and science.

Philosophy is the study of the natural world. Science is a subcategory of Philosophy and the method of measuring hypothesis and theories.

Each science studies a specific subsection of the natural world. For example Science of Physics, Science of Astronomy, Medical Science, etc. However the sciences require messure, which is why the social sciences (like psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, etc) were invented. These are objective messures.

The problem though is that objective measures are not possible in most of social science. There are A LOT of subjective measures. The subjectivity is why the social sciences are not precise and why your idea doesn’t work.

This is why classical philosophy (not modern philosophy) was so great. You would study the entire natural world, including morality, taking in the everything at once… Not studying one section of the natural world.

So I would argued that you cannot find morality though science. But you can find morality through classical philosophy.

For example: in science if a = b and b = c then a = c. But that’s not always true in the social sciences. For example: you are essentially saying in your hypothetical situation that social science places different values on humans based on many different factors, factors which are subjective not objective.

Classic philosophy focuses on what we are objectively doing, which “measurable” or can be universally agreed upon because it is self-evident. Social science is subjective, meaning it depending on a person’s world view and is not universally agreed upon, nor is self evident.

So again, long answer… You cannot find morality though science, but can through classical philosophy

 

[Russell_SA]

The first problem is see is thats not the historical definition of philosophy and science.

Philosophy is the study of the natural world. Science is a subcategory of Philosophy and the method of measuring hypothesis and theories.

I understand that they use the word “natural world”. But this sneaks through the door the idea of some other type of world. This is why I disagree with the use of natural world as a description and why I use “reality” instead. The use of the label “supernatural” as a place outside of space and time is fine to use as a label for that place only if we can justify that place even exists at all. But since we can not detect it’s involvement in reality in any detectable way, then it is indistinguishable from just not there at all. I’m fine with the idea that place may exist but not until we can justify that it is there and once that happens, it just becomes a part of the description of reality. I see the use of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ in the same way we use the terms ‘medicine’ and ‘alternative-medicine’. Once alternative medicine has been proven to actually work, it just becomes medicine. So once the supernatural has shown that it actually exists it just becomes a part of reality.

Each science studies a specific subsection of the natural world. For example Science of Physics, Science of Astronomy, Medical Science, etc. However the sciences require messure, which is why the social sciences (like psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, etc) were invented. These are objective messures.

These measurements are subjective in their point of reference. I’ll point to the idea of ‘nutrition’. It is subjective to conclude that picking apples to eat instead of pears is subjective for nutrition, but it is objectively true that drinking battery acid is bad in this reference point of nutrition. Social ‘soft’ sciences are subjective in this case because the things that humans do socially are almost always subject for the betterment of our race. Like how to admonish children when they’re bad, ideal educational environments, etc. But the groups that were performing objectively bad practices of social engagement caused their groups to fail in that and as such they are no longer the social norm. You can find isolated small examples of people still doing this, but that is only because they have isolated themselves away from the rest of society. They do not flourish as a society and that result is a direct link to how social sciences can come to objective truths on social well-being.

For example: in science if a = b and b = c then a = c. But that’s not always true in the social sciences. For example: you are essentially saying in your hypothetical situation that social science places different values on humans based on many different factors, factors which are subjective not objective.

In my example it was objectively true that the person placed in a no-win situation as the deciding factor for the outcome. They will suffer for being forced into that situation. Their psychological well-being will be damaged after directly experiencing that. That is an objective truth about the human condition, that is based on observation of reality, which is studiable in science. Now how to minimize that in the future is where it become subjective. Do we fix the train controls? Do we put up fences to keep people off the tracts? Do we slow down the speed of the trains through populated areas and work on better breaking systems for the train, etc.

So again, long answer… You cannot find morality though science, but can through classical philosophy

Science is the application of thoughts of reality to see if the conclusions that were thought out actual align with reality. So once you use philosophy to come to a conclusion about reality, then you ground your position in actually referencing reality to see if it aligns. The results of looking at reality is the bar to see if the philosophical conclusion was correct or not. You can be logically correct that A=A, but if all you know about A is 9 out of 15 truths about it and then you run your study to find out that the first A has those 15 identities but the second A had only 12, then you used reality to discover that your logical conclusion that A=A was wrong. You can be logically correct and factually wrong because your logical identities of A is limited by your understanding of reality. You have to continue to educate yourself about reality to feel justified in your logical conclusions. So it’s reality that is setting the bar to see if the conclusion is subjective or objective. And the study of reality is science.

 

[Angela77]

Wait is this Russell from Catholic Answers Live who spoke with Trent Horn last week!?! That was a very interesting conversation!

 

[Stephen168]

The first problem is see is thats not the historical definition of philosophy and science.

Philosophy is the study of the natural world. Science is a subcategory of Philosophy and the method of measuring hypothesis and theories.

I understand Philosophy to be the study of all knowledge. I agree that Science (Natural Philosophy) is a subcategory of Philosophy dealing with the natural/physical world. Moral Philosophy deals with morality; right and wrong. So I also agree with your conclusion that we can not find morality through science. They are two different subjects.

 

[Wesrock]

Morality cannot be determined by science. I like to use abortion as an example. You can use science to determine when it starts dividing, when it has a heartbeat, when it has brain activity, when it feels pain, when it is aware, but science cannot tell you these things are of any value or meaning. “It is a person when it has brain activity.” Science can answer when it has brain activity, but science can’t tell you that your definition of person is correct. Science can’t determine that type of value.

“X is good.” Science can test for X, but it can’t verify the statement “X is good.” Same with “Y is ______.” Science can test for Y, but it alone can’t verify the actual statement in at least some situations.

 

[Angela77]

Some definitions of terms:
Philosophy is just the discussion of thought.
Science a philosophical process to justify the conclusion of thought about reality. To see if reality matched their conclusions, thus reinforcing their belief that they used a correct application of logic.
So science is the study of reality.
Reality = to know = to exist - anything that manifests in a detectable way in space and time.

• So I would argue that a meteor that is on a collision path to destroy the planet does not manifest in “our” reality because we can no tell the difference between it being there and not being there. We function as if it is not there until we are justified that it is there.
  I do not argue for “absolute” knowledge but rather justified knowledge because I can not tell the difference between something not being there and not being able to know that it is there.

I do not understand why you choose to define reality subjectively. This is kind of like that old question, “If a tree falls in the woods but no one is there to witness it, did the fall make a sound?” I don’t believe that we must observe something in order for it to be part of reality. I believe that the tree that falls in the woods did indeed make a sound, even though it’s not part of my reality, as you define it. I think that what you define as reality is more like the philosophical definition of knowledge. As my Philosophy 1 prof would write on the board, and as Trent alluded to on the radio:
K = JTB
Or:
Knowledge = Justified True Belief
i.e.,

• Belief: you think that the tree that fell in the woods made a sound. Belief may be actually true or false in reality
• True: the belief must be true for it to qualify as knowledge
• Justified: you must have a reason for believing what you believe. It’s not considered knowledge if you hold a true belief but have no reason for believing it.
  So I think that your definition of “reality” is really more akin to a definition of “knowledge.”
  But I’ll consider your words below with your definitions.

I think that the point Trent was trying to make (although I could be wrong–it was a few days ago that I listened to that show) when he asked you about whether science can prove morality was to show you that not all true facts about the world can be proved through science. In other words, science is not the only means of proving truths about the world we live in. (That is a fallacy called scientism: wordonfire.org/resources/article/bill-nye-is-not-the-philosophy-guy/5124/)
Your argument here seems to be that you can empirically prove that hurting another human being is wrong because you see that it causes pain.
I would assert that, yes, you can empirically prove that hurting another human being causes pain (or maybe that’s more of a definition, not a thing to prove). But you cannot prove that it is wrong to inflict pain. That is a normative claim: You should not inflict pain on someone else. Normative claims cannot be proved by empirical experiments. This is not a question of whether hurting another inflicts pain; it is a question of whether one should or should not do so.

You seem to be suggesting that moral law can be determined based on the empirical evidence of what people decide the “right thing to do” is in certain situations. In this way, you could carry out empirical, scientific experiments to determine what is considered moral in a given situation.
I would argue that, no, via this experimentation you can only determine what humans do do, not what they should do (although those could overlap in many cases, but not necessarily). Again, we can prove a descriptive truth, but not a normative one.

 

[Russell_SA]

Wait is this Russell from Catholic Answers Live who spoke with Trent Horn last week!?! That was a very interesting conversation!

Yes that was me on last friday’s show. I think it went well, but i caught a bit of exhasperation from Trent i think. I really dont like their format of conversation with noncatholics. Where its about attempting to conclude why catholosism is better than the other world view points instead of having segments about other noncatholics to find the compatability and common ground for empathy and mutual respect. So if they want a show to continue to promote the “Us vs Them” dialog, I’ll try to be their first caller so it will set the standard and tone to go by for logical arguments and why his position fails. I would take a different tone if that wasnt the point of their show. Need an antagonist, well I’m your huckleberry. But i’d prefer not to be.

 

[Russell_SA]

I understand Philosophy to be the study of all knowledge. I agree that Science (Natural Philosophy) is a subcategory of Philosophy dealing with the natural/physical world. Moral Philosophy deals with morality; right and wrong. So I also agree with your conclusion that we can not find morality through science. They are two different subjects.

I agree with this delineation of the different philosophical subjects of thought. However, I would argue that you have to start with first observing reality before you can begin to make logical links about morality. We have to first observe human nature to understand this biological creature. The moral truths for humans are observed as it educates us on what it considers to be fair, outrageous, funny, kind, horrible, etc. Some of these truths about the human condition are soo intuitive that they come across as obvious. Such as preferring life over death, pain over nonpain, happiness over sadness, etc. How to implement a situation that promotes these values of well-being also comes from communication and feedback from humans. This is all grounded in reality and as such a study of reality which is science. The softer sciences come in as psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc for studying the feedback from humans about their conditions and what they are telling us about what they are wanting for a betterment of their lives. So here is where I’ll point back to my example of nutrition. It is objectively true that good nutrition promotes a good life for humans. So arguing over eating apples instead of pears is a subjective argument but drinking battery acid is objectively true. This is how I understand the process works for science to come to objective truths.

 

[Russell_SA]

Morality cannot be determined by science. I like to use abortion as an example. You can use science to determine when it starts dividing, when it has a heartbeat, when it has brain activity, when it feels pain, when it is aware, but science cannot tell you these things are of any value or meaning. “It is a person when it has brain activity.” Science can answer when it has brain activity, but science can’t tell you that your definition of person is correct. Science can’t determine that type of value.

“X is good.” Science can test for X, but it can’t verify the statement “X is good.” Same with “Y is ______.” Science can test for Y, but it alone can’t verify the actual statement in at least some situations.

How is observing the emotional response of a woman going through an abortion not observable by science? If her response is detrimental to her psyche then that experience is detrimental to her well-being and as such falls in to the idea of a moral dilemma. Observing human behavior in situations is always observable in science. This is how we ground our ideas of what is moral or not by understanding how certain choices and actions improve or remove from the well-being of the human experience. I link the idea of human well-being with morality. That is how we know that actions that cause a belly laugh are typically not immoral and actions that cause anguish are typically immoral. This feed back is given to us from the humans that are affected by the actions. Their feedback is what informs us of promoting their well-being and as such is moral or immoral from their reference point. The soft sciences of sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. are were sciences begin to study the subjectivity of actions that promote human well-being. I’ll reference my example of nutrition again. It is objectively true that good nutrition promotes human well-being but it is subjective to pick apples over pears for nutrition. But objectively bad to drink battery acid. This analogy is the same with social practices that the softer-sciences discuss for human well-being. What social practices are subjectively better for human well-being? But they do know that it is objectively bad to rape another human being, to kill their family members, etc.

 

[Stephen168]

I agree with this delineation of the different philosophical subjects of thought. However, I would argue that you have to start with first observing reality before you can begin to make logical links about morality. We have to first observe human nature to understand this biological creature. The moral truths for humans are observed as it educates us on what it considers to be fair, outrageous, funny, kind, horrible, etc. Some of these truths about the human condition are soo intuitive that they come across as obvious. Such as preferring life over death, pain over nonpain, happiness over sadness, etc. How to implement a situation that promotes these values of well-being also comes from communication and feedback from humans. This is all grounded in reality and as such a study of reality which is science. The softer sciences come in as psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc for studying the feedback from humans about their conditions and what they are telling us about what they are wanting for a betterment of their lives. So here is where I’ll point back to my example of nutrition. It is objectively true that good nutrition promotes a good life for humans. So arguing over eating apples instead of pears is a subjective argument but drinking battery acid is objectively true. This is how I understand the process works for science to come to objective truths.

Is it moral for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old?
What is the scientific objective proof of the one correct answer?

 

[Russell_SA]

I do not understand why you choose to define reality subjectively. This is kind of like that old question, “If a tree falls in the woods but no one is there to witness it, did the fall make a sound?” I don’t believe that we must observe something in order for it to be part of reality. I believe that the tree that falls in the woods did indeed make a sound, even though it’s not part of my reality, as you define it. I think that what you define as reality is more like the philosophical definition of knowledge. As my Philosophy 1 prof would write on the board, and as Trent alluded to on the radio:
K = JTB
Or:
Knowledge = Justified True Belief
i.e.,

• Belief: you think that the tree that fell in the woods made a sound. Belief may be actually true or false in reality
• True: the belief must be true for it to qualify as knowledge
• Justified: you must have a reason for believing what you believe. It’s not considered knowledge if you hold a true belief but have no reason for believing it.
  So I think that your definition of “reality” is really more akin to a definition of “knowledge.”
  But I’ll consider your words below with your definitions.

I do not go into absolute knowledge about reality to define reality. Yes if a tree falls and no one observed it, we know what happened even if we didn’t witness it first hand. This is because we have experienced trees, gravity, and have found fallen trees before and even have fell trees ourselves. However, if that tree was never found to exist by us and we have no way of detecting it’s interaction with reality, then how can it be part of reality for us. It’s indistinguishable from not even being there at all. We do not live our lives as if every conceivable idea manifests in reality. Imaginary or real - like my example of never-never-land and a meteor coming to take out our planet. We do know that meteors do exist, but we do not know if one is on a collision course with us. So it is indistinguishable from not being there at all because we have no way of detecting its existence in reality. Never-never-land only exists in someone’s imagination and as such we do not live our lives as if it exists in reality either.

 

[Russell_SA]

I think that the point Trent was trying to make (although I could be wrong–it was a few days ago that I listened to that show) when he asked you about whether science can prove morality was to show you that not all true facts about the world can be proved through science. In other words, science is not the only means of proving truths about the world we live in. (That is a fallacy called scientism: wordonfire.org/resources/article/bill-nye-is-not-the-philosophy-guy/5124/)
Your argument here seems to be that you can empirically prove that hurting another human being is wrong because you see that it causes pain.
I would assert that, yes, you can empirically prove that hurting another human being causes pain (or maybe that’s more of a definition, not a thing to prove). But you cannot prove that it is wrong to inflict pain. That is a normative claim: You should not inflict pain on someone else. Normative claims cannot be proved by empirical experiments. This is not a question of whether hurting another inflicts pain; it is a question of whether one should or should not do so.

I am arguing that most of the time, hurting someone is an example of an immoral action, but not always. Such as forcing someone to experience withdrawals of drug addiction. We can monitor their vital signs and know that we are not placing them in any physical life threatening danger. Also we have data about reality for the human condition when we have placed a human through this before and tested that they have come out of the experience not addicted to the drugs and are able to have more resources to apply for their own betterment of life. All that is studiable in science, biology and chemistry for the actual affects of the individual on drugs and psychology and sociology for the proper treatment of that person’s experience of the treatment and their improved psyche afterwards. So I argue the subjective reference point for morality is the betterment of human well-being. From this point you can make objective and subjective claims about how to implement social behavior and rules. It is subjectively bad to spank a child, give them a time out, or other means. But it is objectively true that raping a child or killing their parents is bad for them.

You seem to be suggesting that moral law can be determined based on the empirical evidence of what people decide the “right thing to do” is in certain situations. In this way, you could carry out empirical, scientific experiments to determine what is considered moral in a given situation.
I would argue that, no, via this experimentation you can only determine what humans do do, not what they should do (although those could overlap in many cases, but not necessarily). Again, we can prove a descriptive truth, but not a normative one.

You should not do objectively bad things to humans that affects their well-being. It is directly observable in reality that the affects of killing someone’s parents is always bad for their children. In an act of violence and maliciousness, not an act of doctor assisted suicide of a parent in a coma or anything like that.

 

[Russell_SA]

Is it moral for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old?
What is the scientific objective proof of the one correct answer?

It is scientifically observable in reality that around the age of 15 humans begin to become sexually active or at least begin to explore their sexuality. Masturbation, petting, etc. It is observable the intense level of psychological connection we apply to the action of sex with our partners as a bonding mechanism for the relationship over other displays of affection. It is observable that relationships tend to not be healthy when a relationship did engage in sex and then removes the sex from the relationship. See these are just some examples of how we can observe sex in the human condition of relationships and group behavior for bonding and such. We also understand the different drives and motivations for male and female. Females are observed to be just as randy as guys are, just that they choose different ways of bring about sex into their lives than males do. Lets face it, guys are not as sophisticated when going to look for a sexual partner. We’re on a one-tract mind set, uug me need some, ug ug ug. haha anyhoo… We also understand that relationships that are not of equal emotional and intellectual levels tend to be emotionally abusive towards the partner not on the higher level of power in the relationship. This tends to be why we do not allow for adults to go after adolescence for sexual partners. It’s more about emotional control and domination over another person than it is about the sex. We empathize with the child because we fear that if we were in that situation a that we would need someone to come rescue us from that scenario. We have reams and reams of historical social data that justifies why we should not allow this relationship to take place. There is never going to be an absolute truth for this issue, so we go by the mathematical likelihood that the guy is going to be emotionally abusive to the young girl in order to keep her under his control. Can you find relationships where the age range is even further apart but still meaningful and full of health fulfillment? Yes you can. But we know that is not statistically ever the outcome.

 

[Stephen168]

Is it moral for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old?
What is the scientific objective proof of the one correct answer?

It is scientifically observable in reality that around the age of 15 humans begin to become sexually active or at least begin to explore their sexuality. Masturbation, petting, etc. It is observable the intense level of psychological connection we apply to the action of sex with our partners as a bonding mechanism for the relationship over other displays of affection. It is observable that relationships tend to not be healthy when a relationship did engage in sex and then removes the sex from the relationship. See these are just some examples of how we can observe sex in the human condition of relationships and group behavior for bonding and such. We also understand the different drives and motivations for male and female. Females are observed to be just as randy as guys are, just that they choose different ways of bring about sex into their lives than males do. Lets face it, guys are not as sophisticated when going to look for a sexual partner. We’re on a one-tract mind set, uug me need some, ug ug ug. haha anyhoo… We also understand that relationships that are not of equal emotional and intellectual levels tend to be emotionally abusive towards the partner not on the higher level of power in the relationship. This tends to be why we do not allow for adults to go after adolescence for sexual partners. It’s more about emotional control and domination over another person than it is about the sex. We empathize with the child because we fear that if we were in that situation a that we would need someone to come rescue us from that scenario. We have reams and reams of historical social data that justifies why we should not allow this relationship to take place. There is never going to be an absolute truth for this issue, so we go by the mathematical likelihood that the guy is going to be emotionally abusive to the young girl in order to keep her under his control. ** Can you find relationships where the age range is even further apart but still meaningful and full of health fulfillment? Yes you can.** But we know that is not statistically ever the outcome.

Your first sentence would make we think you answer was “Yes.” The rest of your paragraph would make we think you answer was “No,” except for the sentence I bolded which makes me think you answer is “Maybe.”

There is Science, Reason, and Faith. Science and Reason can share information to make conclusions, and Reason and Faith can share information to make conclusions, but science and faith have nothing to say to each other. Any one of the three cannot conflict with the others.

I think you are not using science, but using reason to flush out an answer. While your reasoned answer(s) does not conflict with science, it is not pure science.

I think that many people who reject faith, try to hijack reason to claim people of faith cannot reason.

 

[Russell_SA]

I think that many people who reject faith, try to hijack reason to claim people of faith cannot reason.

I have yet to be that incendiary in these conversations to claim that people of faith cannot reason. Please call me out if there appears to be any Ad Hoc attacks like that. I find that people will not converse with you honestly if you dismiss their position. I am here just explaining how my logic works and where I have logical disconnects with other people’s approach to solving these issues. I’m perfectly fine with where ever people fall in their reasoning. I’m here to tell you about how I reason. If you like my approach, you may choose to adopt it for yourself. No one likes to continue to use a harder tool to solve a problem when they have access to another one. Coming across as not needing to have you converted to my side completely undercuts anyone’s assumption that this is a conversion conversation. It’s an understanding conversation, that is all. If all you take from this is that you understand how I think and are fine with how I think and don’t need to convert me to your side, then that’s a win for me. Enough of the ‘Us vs Them’ dialog, everyone needs an enemy, etc. That is ridiculous. I hear enough of that from “main stream news” media and demagogues.

 

[Russell_SA]

I think you are not using science, but using reason to flush out an answer. While your reasoned answer(s) does not conflict with science, it is not pure science.

I find that reason only works when it aligns with reality and as such, you have to start with observing reality for data on the application of your thoughts. You can not have conclusions without first having data. That data comes from reality. So I’m arguing that reasoned ethics and morals first begin by grounding their conclusions of ethics and morality through first observing the human condition in reality. That is from hard science data, then using soft sciences to have the discussion of ethics and morality. The Nutrition example again. Hard sciences show us that apples and oranges sustain life and battery acid does not. That is where you can have objective truths of Nutrition. Soft sciences will help us understand when to eat an apple or a pear or both or some other substitute that promotes Nutrition. The subjectiveness of a nutritious diet. The don’t bother discussing the battery acid as an options because it has already been ruled out as a possibility for nutrition.

 

[Stephen168]

I have yet to be that incendiary in these conversations to claim that people of faith cannot reason. Please call me out if there appears to be any Ad Hoc attacks like that. I find that people will not converse with you honestly if you dismiss their position. I am here just explaining how my logic works and where I have logical disconnects with other people’s approach to solving these issues. I’m perfectly fine with where ever people fall in their reasoning. I’m here to tell you about how I reason. If you like my approach, you may choose to adopt it for yourself. No one likes to continue to use a harder tool to solve a problem when they have access to another one. Coming across as not needing to have you converted to my side completely undercuts anyone’s assumption that this is a conversion conversation. It’s an understanding conversation, that is all. If all you take from this is that you understand how I think and are fine with how I think and don’t need to convert me to your side, then that’s a win for me. Enough of the ‘Us vs Them’ dialog, everyone needs an enemy, etc. That is ridiculous. I hear enough of that from “main stream news” media and demagogues.

Good deal. Clearly, I have been reading too much from the secular humanist/skeptic crowd.

 

[Russell_SA]

Your first sentence would make we think you answer was “Yes.” The rest of your paragraph would make we think you answer was “No,” except for the sentence I bolded which makes me think you answer is “Maybe.”

The age range of a relationship is not objectively true to not engage in that relationship, but the emotional well-being of both partners is objectively true for a healthy relationship. Since it is the norm that an adolescent does not have the emotional development of self worth or independent resources to walk away from that type of relationship, we do not allow it to take place. That is why we are ok for a 17 year old to have that type of relationship with the 15 year old, but not an adult that has resources to isolate that adolescent and emotionally manipulate her further development of self worth to where she can not believe that she has the ability to leave the relationship. This conclusion is back up by real data of countless relationships that do this. It even takes place in adult / adult relationships. So we draw a line in an attempt to keep the predators at bay from children until we believe that they have developed enough self worth to be able to end an abusive relationship and walk away from it.

 

[Stephen168]

The age range of a relationship is not objectively true to not engage in that relationship, but the emotional well-being of both partners is objectively true for a healthy relationship. Since it is the norm that an adolescent does not have the emotional development of self worth or independent resources to walk away from that type of relationship, we do not allow it to take place. That is why we are ok for a 17 year old to have that type of relationship with the 15 year old, but not an adult that has resources to isolate that adolescent and emotionally manipulate her further development of self worth to where she can not believe that she has the ability to leave the relationship. This conclusion is back up by real data of countless relationships that do this. It even takes place in adult / adult relationships. So we draw a line in an attempt to keep the predators at bay from children until we believe that they have developed enough self worth to be able to end an abusive relationship and walk away from it.

The opposite conclusion could be made from science as well. A 15 year old has a functioning reproductive system, sex is a reproductive act; therefore sex with a 15 year old is moral.

There is Science, Reason, and Faith. Science and Reason can share information to make conclusions, and Reason and Faith can share information to make conclusions, but science and faith have nothing to say to each other. Any one of the three cannot conflict with the others.

My conclusions is consistent with natural (hard) science. Soft sciences can be so soft they can only support a preconceived belief, which makes them pure reason.

A foot note: I never said the 15 year old was a female.