As an Atheist - Can I find morality through science?

[Russell_SA]

This gets to the crux of the matter. Science deals with the observable, the measurable, the repeatable.
An atheist can indeed lead an upright and moral life. Nobody is disputing that fact. The motivation lies in the realm of philosophy or sociology, not science.
Psychological studies have shown the negative effects of isolation, for example.
Positive psychology has shown reduced recidivism resulting from employing hotel greeting techniques and avoiding negative conversations in hospital settings.
Those scientific studies merely show the practical effects which may lead to positive behavior or the avoidance of negative behavior.
It does not however account for altruistic behavior, which as stated lies outside physical science.
Science has a difficult time explaining outliers, those who do not fit within the normal statistical bounds of their studies. They are part of the reason that scientists are loath to say they have proved anything. Indeed, studies merely point to certain conclusions until shown otherwise.

Sociology is a science.
The difference between philosophy and science, to me, is that philosophy is just thoughts about anything you want to think about. Science is then using philosophy and referencing the conclusions of those thoughts to reality. Did our logical thoughtful conclusions match up with reality? Reality is the reference point, to me, for justified logical conclusions. A=A in reality only if we what we know about the first A is 5 out of 15 other truths and the second A is also 5 out of 15 truths. However, when we study the first A in reality, we may discover that it has 8 out 8 truths instead. So we were logically correct from the initial philosophical discussion to conclude that A=A, but because we are ignorant of the reality of A, we ended up being factually wrong.
To me: Science only has difficulty with outliers because of our ignorance of the subject and the restrictions of the model we created.
To me: all human behavior is grounded in physical science, just that we are ignorant of the biochemical processes that create our decisions and responses. There is a study that looked at the mind and when the individual was asked Yes or No questions, the scientists could look at the brain patterns and know that the person was going to select Yes or No before the person was consciously aware of it. I have no experience with any form of human thought or decision process that can operate with out a brain. And I’m ok with that because that is what reality it showing me. I am not ok with concluding beyond that.
This is how my world view works. I look at what reality is showing me and what I can justify through real tests and then ground my conclusions in that. I don’t see why that is wrong in any way. I find that it stops me from being swindled by snake charmers, psudo-medicine, chakra cleansers, and healing crystal gurus. Reality is magical enough for me to not insult it by making up stuff that I can’t justify is there at all.

 

[Russell_SA]

This is still a matter of positive vs. negative outcomes rather than a question of morality which falls into the sphere of philosophy and natural law.
Social norms do determine what a society codifies into law. Those laws are generally less stringent than those set by the society in which an individual lives. Some individuals may choose to live by norms more stringent than the social norms. Thus you have polygamist societies and those in which being a bigamist is a crime.

I appear to be equating the two together: positive and negative outcomes are what I would reference as moral or immoral.
I see social norms as the common overlap that is universal to that type of creature at a very basic level; such as for us: the need for community, love, emotional safety, etc. How we chose to express those fundamental drivers of the human experience is where education comes in. The education of the cultural norms to want to eat apples instead of the other culture that eats pears to satisfy their common human need to address nutrition.
This is why, in my world view, you can have polygamist societies and bigamists. They are all attempting to address the common need for socialization. Just their culture is addressing it differently than another. Where it becomes a moral issue is where it starts to infringe on those basic human conditions, I believe. Is the polygamist society forcing someone into a situation where their emotional well-being is being destroyed in order to be a sexual slave to their master? But if they are all able to address the basic human needs for everyone, then it does not become an immoral action in my world view.

 

[RCinMT]

I appear to be equating the two together: positive and negative outcomes are what I would reference as moral or immoral.
I see social norms as the common overlap that is universal to that type of creature at a very basic level; such as for us: the need for community, love, emotional safety, etc. How we chose to express those fundamental drivers of the human experience is where education comes in. The education of the cultural norms to want to eat apples instead of the other culture that eats pears to satisfy their common human need to address nutrition.
This is why, in my world view, you can have polygamist societies and bigamists. They are all attempting to address the common need for socialization. Just their culture is addressing it differently than another. Where it becomes a moral issue is where it starts to infringe on those basic human conditions, I believe. Is the polygamist society forcing someone into a situation where their emotional well-being is being destroyed in order to be a sexual slave to their master? But if they are all able to address the basic human needs for everyone, then it does not become an immoral action in my world view.

If I approached a homeless man, gave him ten dollars and he then punched me in the face because of being afflicted with some sort of psychological disorder, that would be a a negative outcome. In your worldview the takeaway for me would be that giving money to the homeless is immoral because my experience with it generated a negative outcome?

 

[Russell_SA]

If I approached a homeless man, gave him ten dollars and he then punched me in the face because of being afflicted with some sort of psychological disorder, that would be a a negative outcome. In your worldview the takeaway for me would be that giving money to the homeless is immoral because my experience with it generated a negative outcome?

If that was the only data point, i could conclude that person does not appreciate that type of help. So I would look for alternatives. The assistance is not justified to be unwanted, only the way i went about it. Also, anicdotal evidence is not what i would take as the norm for that type of creature.

 

[RCinMT]

If that was the only data point, i could conclude that person does not appreciate that type of help. So I would look for alternatives. The assistance is not justified to be unwanted, only the way i went about it. Also, anicdotal evidence is not what i would take as the norm for that type of creature.

Morality isn’t based on data points and sociology is not a science in the way we define science. There’s nothing per se testable about sociology: e.g. My neighbor may be an atheist polygamist whom I grew up with throughout life while I may be a committed Catholic who practices monogamy. Doesn’t tell us much about society as those are two different moral views on a subject from two people who grew up 20 feet from each other.

Sociology isn’t information upon which one would or could base their morality. But if you really want to have this discussion then I would say there is mounting evidence about the scientific value about Christian moral teachings whether we discuss published data about the disparate outcomes (education, depression, drug/alcohol abuse) observed between children raised by biological parents versus other situations; birth control and various medical conditions and depression; issues for post abortive women…

Reading a book about ancient Mayan culture or pre-colonial Indian culture would be a bizarre thing upon which one would base morality.

I think you called into Catholic Answers not along and had a very angry disposition in a discussion with Trent Horn–was that you?

 

[Stephen168]

I disagree because of how I understand the application of my world view. I look at the world for data first and then use that data to make logical conclusions. I equate the amount of psychological and physical joy, pain, angst, etc that someone communicates to me as data into my understanding of universal norms for this creature. That is how I come to understand what actions are benign, better, worse, etc. for the well-being of that creature. Those concluded actions that I apply toward that creature are grounded in my understanding of that creature and I equate that as the reference point for what is morally good or not for it. I have to apply my strongly evolved ability to infer, empathize, the betterment of the community, etc. that are my evolved social drivers as a reference point and filter. I can not help but do this because that is an essence of what I am as this biological creature. That is where I would say I am applying science to come to moral truths about a sentient being. I extrapolate data, look for the common, overlapping norms and then come to justified conclusions about predictive models for how to socially engage that creature. For instance, as a human we all react with “Fire - Hot - Bad” and come to the logical conclusion that burning me is bad, aka immoral. Once I joined a group, we had to take in my feed back for when I accept being burned or not as a moral reference point as well. I could be ok with social branding as an identity label but not ok with burning me against my consent. I don’t see how I can apply logical conclusions first without first experiencing reality as a reference point of what makes logical sense in that reality. That, as I understand it, is how my world view works. You’re group has a different process for looking at the world, but this is mine. I haven’t heard any arguments through this whole thread as to why this process is wrong. I have read where people are applying the same words in different meanings than I would, but we don’t communicate in words, we communicate through ideas.

You are using utilitarian ethics; if it feels good do it. But science does not have anything to say about whether that is moral. You are using “universal norms” but science has nothing to say if universal norms are good. You just claim they are good.
I think my post #72 brings this to a head and why you have not been able to respond to it. You are not applying your “universal norms” universally.
This is not the first time this has been said on this thread, so your claim that you “haven’t heard any argument through this whole thread as to why this process is wrong” is just not true.

 

[Russell_SA]

Morality isn’t based on data points and sociology is not a science in the way we define science. There’s nothing per se testable about sociology: e.g. My neighbor may be an atheist polygamist whom I grew up with throughout life while I may be a committed Catholic who practices monogamy. Doesn’t tell us much about society as those are two different moral views on a subject from two people who grew up 20 feet from each other.

Sociology isn’t information upon which one would or could base their morality. But if you really want to have this discussion then I would say there is mounting evidence about the scientific value about Christian moral teachings whether we discuss published data about the disparate outcomes (education, depression, drug/alcohol abuse) observed between children raised by biological parents versus other situations; birth control and various medical conditions and depression; issues for post abortive women…

Reading a book about ancient Mayan culture or pre-colonial Indian culture would be a bizarre thing upon which one would base morality.

I think you called into Catholic Answers not along and had a very angry disposition in a discussion with Trent Horn–was that you?

I haven’t had an angry back and forth with Trent Horn as I understand it. I did call in once and asking what the point of his show was, to see if it was to continue the Us vs Them or just to discuss ideas. I did point out the inherent bigotry that the religious leaders promote about not intermarrying people outside of their faith for no other reason than they might get someone to leave their faith. But that wasn’t a heated debate by any means.

I understand your version of looking at the world, but all I’m doing is explaining mine and how it still works just as well and even better than other world views in my opinion. That’s the conversation I want. So that people understand the common overlap instead of having a conversation of how someone’s point of view is wrong, even if the results are still beneficial. If someone treats me with respect because they believe it’s a biological beneficial result of evolution or some other reason, I don’t really care about their motivations. Its their actions and the results that I care about.

 

[RCinMT]

I haven’t had an angry back and forth with Trent Horn as I understand it. I did call in once and asking what the point of his show was, to see if it was to continue the Us vs Them or just to discuss ideas. I did point out the inherent bigotry that the religious leaders promote about not intermarrying people outside of their faith for no other reason than they might get someone to leave their faith. But that wasn’t a heated debate by any means.

I understand your version of looking at the world, but all I’m doing is explaining mine and how it still works just as well and even better than other world views in my opinion. That’s the conversation I want. So that people understand the common overlap instead of having a conversation of how someone’s point of view is wrong, even if the results are still beneficial. If someone treats me with respect because they believe it’s a biological beneficial result of evolution or some other reason, I don’t really care about their motivations. Its their actions and the results that I care about.

That’s not how I remember the call–you, if it were you, were angrily telling him that sociology is science and disproves religion. Bigotry is a strange word: is it bigoted that I cannot force a justice of the peace to perform a Catholic marriage ceremony or to wed siblings?

Your heat-fire-bad example was specifically called out by Trent as being contradictory as there are several painful things that are good for people (exercise for instance). How about tattoos, which can be painful: are tattoos immoral?

As for your definition of what you consider moral, consider that most pedophiles treat adults and older children extremely well. They are often very nice, even obsequious. The result would be that you would feel good after interacting with such a person, which would make him or her moral in your definition.

 

[Russell_SA]

RCinMT:
That’s not how I remember the call–you, if it were you, were angrily telling him that sociology is science and disproves religion. Bigotry is a strange word: is it bigoted that I cannot force a justice of the peace to perform a Catholic marriage ceremony or to wed siblings?

Your heat-fire-bad example was specifically called out by Trent as being contradictory as there are several painful things that are good for people (exercise for instance). How about tattoos, which can be painful: are tattoos immoral?

As for your definition of what you consider moral, consider that most pedophiles treat adults and older children extremely well. They are often very nice, even obsequious. The result would be that you would feel good after interacting with such a person, which would make him or her moral in your definition.

My example of bigotry was a specific issue that is still commonly taught at the podium.
If it was heated, then post the link to the discussion and I’ll leave it to the fair-mindedness of the audience to see if it was or not. Heated or not to me isn’t really a problem as long as both sides are addressing what is being brought up, that the addressing of the points was fair.
See when I brought up a point of an example that was limited in time for us to explain it, then not having time to discuss it in full, you can respond with glib remarks that undercut only for the affect of scoring points. He is intelligent enough to understand what I was talking about and could have taken an approach to bridge where there might be misunderstanding, but he decided to respond in a way that was not what I was representing and would take longer than the call to unravel. That’s a debate technique, not an honorable approach to true understanding. He show is just another main-stream news talking points show. Not really there to education and inform, but to create Us vs Them again.

 

[RCinMT]

My example of bigotry was a specific issue that is still commonly taught at the podium.
If it was heated, then post the link to the discussion and I’ll leave it to the fair-mindedness of the audience to see if it was or not. Heated or not to me isn’t really a problem as long as both sides are addressing what is being brought up, that the addressing of the points was fair.
See when I brought up a point of an example that was limited in time for us to explain it, then not having time to discuss it in full, you can respond with glib remarks that undercut only for the affect of scoring points. He is intelligent enough to understand what I was talking about and could have taken an approach to bridge where there might be misunderstanding, but he decided to respond in a way that was not what I was representing and would take longer than the call to unravel. That’s a debate technique, not an honorable approach to true understanding. He show is just another main-stream news talking points show. Not really there to education and inform, but to create Us vs Them again.

Friend, you have said your view is better, insinuated that some people who base morality on religion do so unthinkingly and you’ve failed to answer several well thought out objections to your contentions.

I want to address one final item, namely your ongoing comments on bigotry: marriages in churches, particularly sacramental marriages in the Catholic Church, are marriages that bind a man and woman in Christ. In the ceremony you are affirming your intention to have a Christian marriage; raise kids, if one is so blessed, as Christians, & C. Why would somebody oppossed to that worldview want to be married in a church by a minister or priest? Why would they want to stand in front of family and friends and lie about their intentions? You see, the Catholic wedding is not ceremonial in the now common usage of the word. I know that several people, including Catholics, do think the ceremony or mass is just a formality but it’s more than that to the church.

I know of no other organizations other than churches toward which charges of bigotry are leveled for not averting their stated beliefs or purposes in order to accommodate aggressive secularists. Is it bigoted that the armed forces wouldn’t accept the enlistment of a known Muslim jihadist? Is it bigoted that the DNC didn’t invite President-elect Trump to address their convention? Is it bigoted that a football coach wouldn’t allow a kid to join the team and show up to every practice in shorts, dribbling a basketball around the field? Is it bigoted that state bar associations don’t license people who don’t pass bar exams?

The more pressing question is why would somebody who does not believe in church teachings want to force a church to marry him or her?

 

[Stephen168]

Friend, you have said your view is better, insinuated that some people who base morality on religion do so unthinkingly and you’ve failed to answer several well thought out objections to your contentions.

I think it is more than avoiding to answer. I see name calling when objections are presented. His solution to avoiding the creation of “us vs them” is that we should agree with him.

This conversation has devolved into only the religious community …. Sorry but I think that’s really messed up and I’m sorry to bring out that side of everyone.

That’s a debate technique, not an honorable approach to true understanding. He show is just another main-stream news talking points show. Not really there to education and inform, but to create Us vs Them again.

 

[DebChris]

I think it is more than avoiding to answer. I see name calling when objections are presented. His solution to avoiding the creation of “us vs them” is that we should agree with him.

The question has been more than sufficiently answered using generally accepted definitions of science and scientific inquiry, observation, and experimentation.
The scientist begins with a hypothesis which leads to a conclusion based on observable data.

How meditation effects brain waves has been scientifically studied and has led to recommendations of incorporating it into a person’s daily life, just as the optimum amount of physical exercise that a person needs for a healthy lifestyle continues to be studied. The brain waves of individuals who pray on a daily basis have been compared to those who do not. There have been longevity studies showing that nuns tend to live longer than people in the general population; and that those who enter their vocation with a joyful attitude live longer than pessimists.
Morality, as such, lies within natural law. What can be measured are the behaviors that are considered moral within social boundaries. Science itself will not make me a moral person any more than all the acts of prayer and penance that I make if they are simply a matter of checking one more thing off my to do list rather than furthering my relationship with Him whom I claim as my redeemer and savior and allowing for His transforming grace to change me into the person I am meant to be.
A tree needs to be watered at its roots
St. Paul talks about faith. St. James talks about works. They go together. Faith in God’s transforming power makes it possible to do the works that we are called to do. “Show me your faith without works and I will show you my the faith that underlies my works.” The result is the fruit that St. Paul talks about.

 

[Contarini]

I disagree because of how I understand the application of my world view. I look at the world for data first and then use that data to make logical conclusions. I equate the amount of psychological and physical joy, pain, angst, etc that someone communicates to me as data into my understanding of universal norms for this creature. That is how I come to understand what actions are benign, better, worse, etc. for the well-being of that creature. Those concluded actions that I apply toward that creature are grounded in my understanding of that creature and I equate that as the reference point for what is morally good or not for it. I have to apply my strongly evolved ability to infer, empathize, the betterment of the community, etc. that are my evolved social drivers as a reference point and filter. I can not help but do this because that is an essence of what I am as this biological creature. That is where I would say I am applying science to come to moral truths about a sentient being. I extrapolate data, look for the common, overlapping norms and then come to justified conclusions about predictive models for how to socially engage that creature. For instance, as a human we all react with “Fire - Hot - Bad” and come to the logical conclusion that burning me is bad, aka immoral. Once I joined a group, we had to take in my feed back for when I accept being burned or not as a moral reference point as well. I could be ok with social branding as an identity label but not ok with burning me against my consent. I don’t see how I can apply logical conclusions first without first experiencing reality as a reference point of what makes logical sense in that reality. That, as I understand it, is how my world view works. You’re group has a different process for looking at the world, but this is mine. I haven’t heard any arguments through this whole thread as to why this process is wrong. I have read where people are applying the same words in different meanings than I would, but we don’t communicate in words, we communicate through ideas.

Here’s the basic problem (and I haven’t read the whole thread, so someone may have said this already): you’re making a leap from description to prescription, from “is” to “ought,” that science alone can’t support.

Empirical observation tells you what experiences are pleasant or unpleasant. But it can’t tell you how to act.

It is, of course, natural for us to avoid things that are unpleasant for us personally. Even that isn’t dictated by science. If I make choices that science tells me will hurt me physically or bring me more pain than pleasure, science can’t tell me that that’s “wrong.”
But of course the point is moot, because we all agree that pursuing only one’s own gratification is not moral, whether or not it could be called “scientific.”

What you can’t justify by science alone is the choice to make the well-being of other entities a basis for your actions. You seem to think that because you can define “well-being” in scientific terms and ascertain what will promote the well-being of others, therefore the choice to pursue their well-being is based on science. But you haven’t made a case for that. I don’t see how you could.

Science can never, ever tell us why we should prefer one outcome to another. It can only tell us what sorts of outcomes we will get.

Edwin

 

[DebChris]

Here’s the basic problem (and I haven’t read the whole thread, so someone may have said this already): you’re making a leap from description to prescription, from “is” to “ought,” that science alone can’t support.

Empirical observation tells you what experiences are pleasant or unpleasant. But it can’t tell you how to act.

It is, of course, natural for us to avoid things that are unpleasant for us personally. Even that isn’t dictated by science. If I make choices that science tells me will hurt me physically or bring me more pain than pleasure, science can’t tell me that that’s “wrong.”
But of course the point is moot, because we all agree that pursuing only one’s own gratification is not moral, whether or not it could be called “scientific.”

What you can’t justify by science alone is the choice to make the well-being of other entities a basis for your actions. You seem to think that because you can define “well-being” in scientific terms and ascertain what will promote the well-being of others, therefore the choice to pursue their well-being is based on science. But you haven’t made a case for that. I don’t see how you could.

Science can never, ever tell us why we should prefer one outcome to another. It can only tell us what sorts of outcomes we will get.

Edwin

This is exactly what has been repeated throughout the thread.
New evidence shows that what makes for a happy life, as supported by positive psychology, is not simply seeking experiences that are pleasing but living a life that has purpose. The pessimist tends to be self-centered while the optimist has a broader view and sees greater opportunities by looking outward.

aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/12/thinking-happiness-wrong-161219115849195.html

Science talks about learned helplessness resulting from negative experiences. As stated, it does not explain the outliers, those who become successful despite circumstances.
Both Angela’s Ashes and The Boys in the Boat describe negative childhood experiences and it is easy to draw parallels. .
I am currently reading The Boys in the Boat which tells of the life of Joe Rantz’s in Sequim, WA. His mother died when he was five. He was shipped to the east alone when he contacted Scarlet Fever. He was kicked out of the house when he was ten and worked while living in the school house. Finally he was completely abandoned by his father when he was fifteen.
Why did Joe Rantz’s outlook on life differ from that of Frank McCourt who wrote Angela’s Ashes?
The revelation that one could find free food just sitting on a stump in the woods landed on Joe like a thunderbolt. That night he lay in his bunk in the schoolhouse, staring into the dark rafters above thinking. There seemed to be more than a schoolroom science lesson in the discovery of the fungus. If you simply kept your eyes open, it seemed, you just might find something valuable in the most unlikely of places. The trick was to recognize a good thing when you saw it, no matter how odd or worthless it might at first appear, no matter who else might just walk away and leave it behind.