As an Atheist - Can I find morality through science?

[Russell_SA]

I stated that you can test for emotional responses, chemical responses and all kinds of things. These are subject to science.

But you’re taking it as given that harm to a person is bad and that the well being of a person is good. You cannot test for that. That is prior to any scientific investigation. It’s a claim that can’t be subjected to empirical testing. It is a truth determined by reason, not empiricism.

To me, it seems you are suggesting that we can not observe someone crying in anguish over the actions that someone or something took place in their world. That is what I was describing. That is my reference point for how we can tell if something was a moral action or not. Where is my logic wrong there? Or did I miss read that? That’s how I understood your comment here.

Other claims, such as personhood, are similar. You can’t use empirical science to tell you what personhood is. You arrive at a definition through reason, and then can make use of empirical science to test for the parts of that definition.

Are you describing personhood as personality here? If so, personality is an emergent property of a mind, just like wettness is an emergent property of water. Its a descriptive term of conditions that are displayed by a being. The personality is what describes those displays the individual is illustrating about itself. The resultant description and conclusion based on observed data. Or did I go down the wrong path here? If not, where is my logical conclusion and process wrong here?

My point is that the foundation of ethics is not empirical. There are claims about what is good and what is bad. There are claims about definitions. Once you have that foundation, empirical science can be employed to test for the criteria you’ve determined are necessary, but you can’t employ empirical science prior to that point.

I don’t understand how my approach to ethics has been wrong. The path you described may well work for you but why would my approach not work either? To first see that “fire - hot - bad” and then work out an ethical way not to burn myself or others again. You reason first then apply the practices to the world. I look at the world first and then reason from that. I like my way because I wait to see what the condition of the human experience is before making decisions about it. It helps to remove my inherent bias and ignorance. I know that I may reason to my own benefit at the detriment of others. So I’m looking for a way to remove that as a possible (name removed by moderator)ut to the solution.

I mean, we could go deeper. You can’t use science to prove that there’s any real causal relationship between the outside world and your experience or if a demon is implanting these experiences in your head. Any empirical science you conduct, all that data, all those observations, could be planted by the demon, so are useless in verifying themselves. But that’s really a whole separate issue. Even assuming the real world is intelligible, you can’t use empirical science to test all claims to it, including claims on good and bad or any such value judgments.

I completely agree that if I was in a situation where I can’t tell the difference between the two, then how could I pick between them. That is why I started out this process by stating that I do not go into absolute knowledge. I can only reason with what I can tell the difference between the two ideas. If I can not tell the difference between A and B, then I am not justified in treating A and B any differently. That is why for me existence is inherent on our ability to detect it in reality in some way, otherwise it’s just an idea in someone’s mind. There could be an asteroid coming to destroy the planet, but its not part of our reality until we can justify that it is even there in the first place. It is not useless to verify, to our understanding, that something happened or not. That is the grounding foundation of how we make justifiable conclusions. The people that did not believe that their observation of traffic and walking in front of cars only got to try that experiment the one time and were taken out of the gene pool. We’re the product of people that trust their senses regardless if the (name removed by moderator)uts are actually true or not.

 

[Stephen168]

I see the difference between Hope and Believe as:
Hope = the desire for, of all the possible outcomes that could occur, the result would be the one that you would want it to be.

Believe = to predict that the most plausible outcome to occur would be the actual outcome to occur regardless of what you feel about it.

Faith: NOUN 1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something

 

[Russell_SA]

I defined faith and hope for you, but you would rather show me how smart you are instead of understand what I said.

I’ll go back and look for that. I don’t remember that being called out. Sorry if I missed that.

Went back and looked, fair-minded readers help me here, but I don’t see where you ever spelled out the definitions of Hope and Faith before until that last post of defining Faith.

 

[Russell_SA]

Faith: NOUN 1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something

Ok so you use Faith as I would use a strongly justified belief. Like my experience with sitting in my chair is strongly justified that I will not fall out of it in the next 10 seconds vs. believing that I would not get hit by a car if I walk across the street at 2am without looking. Its the level of certainty. Correct me if I am using it wrong here.

 

[Russell_SA]

I defined faith and hope for you, but you would rather show me how smart you are instead of understand what I said.

Ok if I am not addressing your points or not coming across as understanding your point than let me know so I can ask follow ups to address what you said. If you’re getting upset because I am communicating my points but my logical process is not changing because I dont see that it needs to be, then I’m sorry but thats not why I’m here. I’ll change my position when I see a need to because I don’t like using bad tools or tools the wrong way. I’ll make that change for myself. I’m here just to talk and communicate for understanding and the hope of empathy from the other side.

 

[Stephen168]

I’ll go back and look for that. I don’t remember that being called out. Sorry if I missed that.

Went back and looked, fair-minded readers help me here, but I don’t see where you ever spelled out the definitions of Hope and Faith before until that last post of defining Faith.

I’ll repeat the parable grasshopper:

Before I got married, I reasoned that my girlfriend had all the qualities necessary to be a life long companion. I reasoned that she would be a great mother. With the hope of a life long marriage, I asked her to marry me. I have faith in my wife that she will be a good wife and mother. My faith and my hope are based on reason, not science. It would not conflict with science because science had nothing to say about it.

Ok so you use Faith as I would use a strongly justified belief. Like my experience with sitting in my chair is strongly justified that I will not fall out of it in the next 10 seconds vs. believing that I would not get hit by a car if I walk across the street at 2am without looking. Its the level of certainty. Correct me if I am using it wrong here.

You tell me.

 

[Russell_SA]

I’ll repeat the parable grasshopper:

Before I got married, I reasoned that my girlfriend had all the qualities necessary to be a life long companion. I reasoned that she would be a great mother. With the hope of a life long marriage, I asked her to marry me. I have faith in my wife that she will be a good wife and mother. My faith and my hope are based on reason, not science. It would not conflict with science because science had nothing to say about it.

Ok I took that as how you applied those words, but not how you defined them. That’s what I was asking for. For just the definition, not the application. It helps me understand if you just define out the words first and then, if needed to enforce the idea, to apply them in an example of their use. That just helps me understand better.

You tell me.

Ok I’ll take this as a “get lost” response and not a wanting to continue the conversation.

 

[Stephen168]

Ok I’ll take this as a “get lost” response and not a wanting to continue the conversation.

Or you could take it as: if you understand what I wrote, you would know the answer.

Ok if I am not addressing your points or not coming across as understanding your point than let me know so I can ask follow ups to address what you said. If you’re getting upset because I am communicating my points but my logical process is not changing because I dont see that it needs to be, then I’m sorry but thats not why I’m here. I’ll change my position when I see a need to because I don’t like using bad tools or tools the wrong way. I’ll make that change for myself. I’m here just to talk and communicate for understanding and the hope of empathy from the other side.

But from this and Post #38, I wonder if you are here to understand us, as in get an answer to your OP question, or are you here to school us.

 

[Wesrock]

To me, it seems you are suggesting that we can not observe someone crying in anguish over the actions that someone or something took place in their world. That is what I was describing. That is my reference point for how we can tell if something was a moral action or not. Where is my logic wrong there? Or did I miss read that? That’s how I understood your comment here.

I believe you misread it. We can observe someone crying in anguish. We can observe other things, too, especially with modern science. I am only saying that empirical science alone cannot tell you that this is good or bad, moral or immoral.

Are you describing personhood as personality here? If so, personality is an emergent property of a mind, just like wettness is an emergent property of water. Its a descriptive term of conditions that are displayed by a being. The personality is what describes those displays the individual is illustrating about itself. The resultant description and conclusion based on observed data. Or did I go down the wrong path here? If not, where is my logical conclusion and process wrong here?

I’m still drawing on the abortion example. To be more specific, I am using personhood to denote an entity that has a moral right to life. People often say we can scientifically test for personhood because we can see when the fetus becomes conscious or reaches other developmental milestones that they argue denotes when the fetus becomes something that has rights we should expect. That is true in some respects. However, the definition they are using is not empirically verifiable. “When a fetus becomes conscious, it has a moral right to life.” “When a baby becomes self-aware, it has a moral right to life.” “When a fetus feels pain, it has a moral right to life.” We can observe when consciousness appears. We can observe when self-awareness manifests. We can observe when a fetus first feels pain. We can observe any number of these criteria. But we cannot observe that any of these things gives the fetus a moral right to life. We come to that conclusion through reason, not by empirical study. Certainly we use our experiences to help us reason, but we can’t falsify the statement “harm to humans is a moral evil” without first concluding that harm to humans is a moral evil by reason. We can then observe what causes harm to humans and then categorize those things as good or evil, but the definition we use for good and evil (and perhaps even harm) is itself not falsifiable.

I don’t understand how my approach to ethics has been wrong. The path you described may well work for you but why would my approach not work either? To first see that “fire - hot - bad” and then work out an ethical way not to burn myself or others again. You reason first then apply the practices to the world. I look at the world first and then reason from that. I like my way because I wait to see what the condition of the human experience is before making decisions about it. It helps to remove my inherent bias and ignorance. I know that I may reason to my own benefit at the detriment of others. So I’m looking for a way to remove that as a possible (name removed by moderator)ut to the solution.

I’m not saying your method is entirely wrong here. I’m just saying that it’s not a “science alone” approach, where by science we mean the empirical analysis of falsifiable hypotheses. Perhaps that’s our miscommunication.

I completely agree that if I was in a situation where I can’t tell the difference between the two, then how could I pick between them. That is why I started out this process by stating that I do not go into absolute knowledge. I can only reason with what I can tell the difference between the two ideas. If I can not tell the difference between A and B, then I am not justified in treating A and B any differently. That is why for me existence is inherent on our ability to detect it in reality in some way, otherwise it’s just an idea in someone’s mind. There could be an asteroid coming to destroy the planet, but its not part of our reality until we can justify that it is even there in the first place. It is not useless to verify, to our understanding, that something happened or not. That is the grounding foundation of how we make justifiable conclusions. The people that did not believe that their observation of traffic and walking in front of cars only got to try that experiment the one time and were taken out of the gene pool. We’re the product of people that trust their senses regardless if the (name removed by moderator)uts are actually true or not.

I’m not a solipsist, either. We seem to be in agreement on our affirmation of reality being intelligible as being the rational choice. We even seem to be in agreement that humans are all in the same genus and there is a standard of what being human is to compare people to to see if we can judge how people are harmed and what it means to be healthy (a Thomist thinks of this as our formal cause), though that’s another can of worms. I am opposing the view that the empirical-analysis-of-falsifiable-hypotheses-alone view (scientism) is inaccurate, because there are things we believe in, that are based on our experience with reality, that are reasonable but not falsifiable through the scientific method. Science (as just defined) alone is insufficient to provide you with a moral system. Reasoning, based on observations, is needed, and the conclusions from that reasoning may not all be falsifiable.

Please excuse me for not proofing this more. It’s a very long post, and I’m doing this from my phone that has a touch screen with some dead spots.

 

[Russell_SA]

Or you could take it as: if you understand what I wrote, you would know the answer.

But from this and Post #38, I wonder if you are here to understand us, as in get an answer to your OP question, or are you here to school us.

My original post was to open up communication and I was just going to respond to where ever the conversation went. I don’t care if it stayed on that point. I am here to communication about these ideas that are across different world views. How was my approach condescending, dismissive, confrontational, or anything along those lines that made you feel combative? I want to be able to discuss any topic with people without them feeling like the conversation is about winning and loosing. I don’t believe I ever dismissed someone’s position as invalid or wrong. I just disagreed with their path because I didn’t see why my path was invalid.

 

[Wesrock]

Looking back on your first post, you gave a broad definition of science that went beyond just the falsifiable, so my responses have been off the mark, at least in responding to you, as I started using a different definition right off the bat. Sorry!

Your thoughts?

 

[Russell_SA]

I believe you misread it. We can observe someone crying in anguish. We can observe other things, too, especially with modern science. I am only saying that empirical science alone cannot tell you that this is good or bad, moral or immoral.

I’m pretty much done for the day here at work, so that’s why all the responses By empiricism are you meaning data obtained through our senses? I believe that we take (name removed by moderator)ut from our environment and then extrapolate from that based on previous experience to make conclusions about similar experiences and likely outcomes. This is why its easy for use to imagine what it would be to fly without ever having the actual ability to just Neo into the air. Flight is an experience we have witnessed as well as imagining what it would be to be able to move in all 3 dimensions, even if we never experienced something in flight. What would it be like to experience something in the 6th or 8th dimension? I can not even imagine that because it is not something that I have experienced or could even wrap my imagination around. So to me, my (name removed by moderator)ut from reality is what limits my imagination and logical thought process. Why is it a logical absolute that 1 = 1 and not 1 = 2. I can ground this in reality based on my initial (name removed by moderator)ut of reality first. There may be realms of reality where that is not always the case but it is not mine. So back to the point, psychologists take measures to improve people’s psychological well-being by understanding the predictive common nature of all humans. There are many objective truths of the human experience, like " fire - hot - bad" but how to implement that truth into a social condition is where it becomes subjective. How much “fire-hot-bad” can the society take before it starts to tear apart the community. We are social creatures and have evolved to need community for our psychological well-being. That is why I use the subjective reference point of human well-being as a reference point for objective and subjective truths. That’s how I understand it anyways, so where am I wrong here? How can you come to truths about ethics and morals within the context of the human experience without first observing what the human experience is before you can make conclusions of ethics and morals? I have to know first what hurts and heals these creatures physically and emotionally before going forward. If I went the other way then I could make bigger mistakes than the other I believe, because my limited experience as a male or female, white or black, american or british, etc. would limit what would be ethical and fair for others outside those groups. To give a real world example: gay couples are just now legally allowed to adopt children. I believe the laws that were in place were built from the idea of logic first, then study its affects. Instead of study the human condition first then create logical conclusions on that then make the laws.

 

[Russell_SA]

Looking back on your first post, you gave a broad definition of science that went beyond just the falsifiable, so my responses have been off the mark, at least in responding to you, as I started using a different definition right off the bat. Sorry!

Your thoughts?

I’m fine with what ever words you want to use as long as you define them for how you are using them. That way I can understand what you are trying to say. The important part is the communication instead of getting all tied up with arguments over, No you need to use this word like I use this word. I just walk away from people like that, they care more about making people like them instead of learning about what it is to be with diverse people.

 

[Russell_SA]

I’m still drawing on the abortion example. To be more specific, I am using personhood to denote an entity that has a moral right to life. People often say we can scientifically test for personhood because we can see when the fetus becomes conscious or reaches other developmental milestones that they argue denotes when the fetus becomes something that has rights we should expect. That is true in some respects. However, the definition they are using is not empirically verifiable. “When a fetus becomes conscious, it has a moral right to life.” “When a baby becomes self-aware, it has a moral right to life.” “When a fetus feels pain, it has a moral right to life.” We can observe when consciousness appears. We can observe when self-awareness manifests. We can observe when a fetus first feels pain. We can observe any number of these criteria. But we cannot observe that any of these things gives the fetus a moral right to life. We come to that conclusion through reason, not by empirical study. Certainly we use our experiences to help us reason, but we can’t falsify the statement “harm to humans is a moral evil” without first concluding that harm to humans is a moral evil by reason. We can then observe what causes harm to humans and then categorize those things as good or evil, but the definition we use for good and evil (and perhaps even harm) is itself not falsifiable.

From my world view, the argument for the pro-birth side is that we can empathize with what it would be to be a human who’s entire future is in the hands of someone else and by their actions, not yours, that it put you in this position. If you are able to remove basic human rights to one group of humans, then this could come around to your group. I can not logically get around the idea that a fetus is a human, just at an earlier stage of development; just as a child is to an adolescent is to a teenager is to an adult. However, we have determined that the bodily rights of an individual supersedes the life of another. That is why we do not force drunk drivers to give up their organs for the people they hit. Also, this issue appears to be only about women and children because men can just walk away from their responsibilities in this. Imagine how this issue would be addressed in society if men were forced into the situation that women are. It’s like a man and a woman are both in a car that hits someone, but the guy gets to get out and walk away while the woman is forced to be hooked up to the injured person till they recover in 9 months. How messed up is that.

I am opposing the view that the empirical-analysis-of-falsifiable-hypotheses-alone view (scientism) is inaccurate, because there are things we believe in, that are based on our experience with reality, that are reasonable but not falsifiable through the scientific method. Science (as just defined) alone is insufficient to provide you with a moral system. Reasoning, based on observations, is needed, and the conclusions from that reasoning may not all be falsifiable.

Could you give an example of where ethics and morals are not falsifiable through science? You’ve read how I would approach the process, where would it fail? I would argue that observing the human condition first would let you know what harms and heals a human’s physical and mental well-being and then use the softer sciences of psychology, anthropology, and sociology to come to conclusions as to what social laws would promote human well-being to combat our more selfish biological motivations and social ignorances.

 

[benjohnson]

Perhaps you could develop a morality based on science, but it wouldn’t be anything like our current morality.

Stealing is considered a crime, but scientifically it’s just the acquisition of resources.

Rape is considered a horrible crime, but being entirely logical and scientifically dispassionate about it rape is just another method of reproduction. One could study populations that did practice rape and very well find out that there was more genetic fitness combined with more population increase.

One of my pastors reminds me that we did have one of the most educated and scientifically advanced cultures in the last 70 years - and they came to the logical conclusion that some people were disposable. Godwin’s law and all that.

 

[Stephen168]

How was my approach condescending, dismissive, confrontational, or anything along those lines that made you feel combative?

I said, “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.”

The you said, “I don’t use the term “faith” or “supernatural” in my vocabulary. So you’ll have to tell me your definition of “faith” in this statement. It’s been my understanding that “faith” is used in the place of "hope.”

So I gave you a story to explain my meaning of faith, and hope from reason alone, “Before I got married, I reasoned that my girlfriend had all the qualities necessary to be a life long companion. I reasoned that she would be a great mother. With the hope of a life long marriage, I asked her to marry me. I have faith in my wife that she will be a good wife and mother. My faith and my hope are based on reason, not science. It would not conflict with science because science had nothing to say about it.” Then I responded to one of your posts to show how that would fit.

Then you proceed to tell me that I really didn’t do that and tell me how you would pick a wife. And my definition of faith and hope was not really my definition and a poor one at that. But you sure got animated when I used the word “hope” as an example where you had used “believe.” So you reject my example.

That is why I believe you don’t want to understand us, just school us.

I did notice you had also said, “So to address this point: I am using reason, that is grounded in science by observing reality as a reference point for reason. Reason, as I understand it, is the application of thought based on information about reality to come to conclusions.” Reason flows from science.

While you were schooling me about my poor substandard understanding of faith and hope, you changed it to reason is checked by science. Which is what we have been saying all along.

 

[Wesrock]

Could you give an example of where ethics and morals are not falsifiable through science? You’ve read how I would approach the process, where would it fail? I would argue that observing the human condition first would let you know what harms and heals a human’s physical and mental well-being and then use the softer sciences of psychology, anthropology, and sociology to come to conclusions as to what social laws would promote human well-being to combat our more selfish biological motivations and social ignorances.

“Actions intended to inflict harm on a person are immoral.”

Is that empirically falsifiable? How so?

 

[DebChris]

Science and Faith do not contradict each other.
I recommend that you read John Newton.
Both John Newton and Chesterfield show how Evolution, which will always be a theory since it can never be scientifically proven, is compatible with Christian Faith. Evolution is a workable theory accepted by scientists that allows continued research. An item can be carbon dated. Genetics can be used in the medical field.

Why would an atheist want to go into medicine? Can he quantify natural law? Yet he does want to heal, which is a moral desire.

There are many men of faith who are also scientists. The first college I attended was a Catholic College with a Chemistry professor, a monk who was actually rated at the time fourth in his field. Biochemists came to the small campus during the summer for seminars from this man.

St. Paul was able to debate the Greek philosophers.using logic as shown in his epistles.

You may lead a moral life an atheist, doing all the right things. What are those quantified? St. Paul talks about the fruit of Spirit, the observable presence that God is working in a person’s life. If there is no God, how can that be measured?

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t see how science could tells us what we “ought” to do.

Among sailors it is a moral imperative to help others in distress. You would not sail past someone treading water.

How would science prove we should help? Or does it?

 

[DebChris]

I don’t see how science could tells us what we “ought” to do.

Among sailors it is a moral imperative to help others in distress. You would not sail past someone treading water.

How would science prove we should help? Or does it?

As a sailor, you need all hands on the team so if a man goes over board, it is a loss and pragmatic to save him. His loss means that somebody needs to take up the slack. The loss in man hours can be quantified scientifically.
The moral obligation, the altruistic motive that comes from Natural Law to save a human is not so easy to quantify.
I am trying to remember the Jack London novel about a boat captain who does take out his vengeance on two seamen by leaving them to drown in the sea.