You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Marc Oraison defines morality as "the science of what man ought to be by reason of what he is"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If brain circuitry governs moral judgment - and every other judgment for matter - right and wrong are illusions!…a panel of renowned scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals gathered to discuss what impact evolutionary theory and advances in neuroscience might have on traditional concepts of morality. If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong?
It depends on your definition of science. If morality includes the effects of virtues and vices on personality and society it undoubtedly is.Is Morality a Science? Thoughts?
W
Warrenton
Guest
Saints above, people like this make me sick.
Give me robust atheists like Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin any day over such a bunch of mamby pambies.
Gather together a load of “scientists” and “public intellectuals” (whatever that means) and what do they discover? “Murder is wrong.” No fooling? Whoever would have thought?
What is the use of being an atheist/materialist if all you get is to sleep in on Sunday and have a bit of consensual fornication (within reason, of course).
They don’t even take their own beloved “evolution” to its next logical phase. For example, once whales moved into the ocean, what happened to their legs?
Once emus and ostriches decided that they really did have a fear of flying, what happened to their wings?
Once people “evolve” and realize that religion is a myth and morality is just a function not disimilar to digestion, should we expect the moral sense to increase or atrophy?
And of course, they will be without answer when the next superman comes, heralding himself as the next evolutionary advancement, and proceeds to eat people for supper.
Then, the “public intellectuals” and scientists will sit on the fence while men and women of faith wage the war, so they can announce that the winner was scientifically predistined all the while.
Give me robust atheists like Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin any day over such a bunch of mamby pambies.
Gather together a load of “scientists” and “public intellectuals” (whatever that means) and what do they discover? “Murder is wrong.” No fooling? Whoever would have thought?
What is the use of being an atheist/materialist if all you get is to sleep in on Sunday and have a bit of consensual fornication (within reason, of course).
They don’t even take their own beloved “evolution” to its next logical phase. For example, once whales moved into the ocean, what happened to their legs?
Once emus and ostriches decided that they really did have a fear of flying, what happened to their wings?
Once people “evolve” and realize that religion is a myth and morality is just a function not disimilar to digestion, should we expect the moral sense to increase or atrophy?
And of course, they will be without answer when the next superman comes, heralding himself as the next evolutionary advancement, and proceeds to eat people for supper.
Then, the “public intellectuals” and scientists will sit on the fence while men and women of faith wage the war, so they can announce that the winner was scientifically predistined all the while.
L
larkin31
Guest
You have basically abandoned your other thread on science and religion. You ever coming back?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.