Science and evil

[tonyrey]

The widespread tendency to believe science will eventually explain everything overlooks the fact of evil. It recognises malfunctions but not moral responsibility because persons are regarded as biological machines in the universal machine. Yet in practice no reasonable adult lives as if that is the case. The sense of justice is deeply rooted in every civilised man and woman: even criminals complain when they think they are unfairly treated. In spite of the way they have treated others they don’t really believe it’s just a human convention. They are illogical and so is anyone who refers to the Problem of Evil. There is no problem whatsoever if everything has natural causes. People may behave unnaturally but that is not their fault. It is just the way they are made…

Too bad! (Not evil, of course…

 

[InJesusItrust]

Science is unequipped for dealing with morality. Just because you can tell the way something is, doesn’t mean it gives you a purely rational path to what ought to be.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

science is based on reproducible results.

period.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Scientism

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

 

[RPRPsych]

Science is unequipped for dealing with morality. Just because you can tell the way something is, doesn’t mean it gives you a purely rational path to what ought to be.

Excellent point.

Morality is not part of the field of study of science; even if neurobiology or psychology can explain the processes involved in making a judgement, they cannot decide on what is right or wrong.

 

[paduard]

Excellent point.

Morality is not part of the field of study of science; even if neurobiology or psychology can explain the processes involved in making a judgement, they cannot decide on what is right or wrong.

Yes I agree exellent point made by InJesusITrust.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

RPR

**Morality is not part of the field of study of science; even if neurobiology or psychology can explain the processes involved in making a judgement, they cannot decide on what is right or wrong. **

Unfortunately, many of the pronouncements of the behavioral sciences deny natural law morality. In doing so they make relative much of morality. For example, I hear many psychologists (who call themselves scientists) blithely refer to any act between consenting adults as perfectly normal. That includes anal sex. Usually they back this up with statistics to show that everybody, or at least the majority or near majority, are doing it. This is no way to diagnose mental illness, as if it had nothing to do with morality. Nor is it any way to identify morality, as if slavery was moral in the South because most Southerners were O.K. with it. Or as if Nazism was O.K. because the Nazis were democratically voted into power. Or as if abortion was O.K. because 7 of 9 Justices voted for Roe v Wade.

 

[tonyrey]

Science is unequipped for dealing with morality. Just because you can tell the way something is, doesn’t mean it gives you a purely rational path to what ought to be.

I agree that science tells us nothing about moral questions but philosophy does. We cannot be moral unless we use our power of reasoning. Otherwise we are lost in the dark!

 

[InJesusItrust]

I agree that science tells us nothing about moral questions but philosophy does. We cannot be moral unless we use our power of reasoning. Otherwise we are lost in the dark!

I think we cannot reason correctly about morality without basing our reality around God. Without supernatural authority natural law is “just an opinion” and we can break it if we feel like. See: today’s sexual morality.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The widespread tendency to believe science will eventually explain everything overlooks the fact of evil. It recognises malfunctions but not moral responsibility because persons are regarded as biological machines in the universal machine. Yet in practice no reasonable adult lives as if that is the case. The sense of justice is deeply rooted in every civilised man and woman: even criminals complain when they think they are unfairly treated. In spite of the way they have treated others they don’t really believe it’s just a human convention. They are illogical and so is anyone who refers to the Problem of Evil. There is no problem whatsoever if everything has natural causes. People may behave unnaturally but that is not their fault. It is just the way they are made…

Too bad! (Not evil, of course…

I am always reminded of Richard Dawkins’ absurd little about face wherein he first declares that there is no such thing as evil, and then decries the Catholic Church as an institution which propagates evil. There again, perhaps this isn’t as contradictory as it first seems. After all, Mr. Dawkins doesn’t believe that God exists and the Catholic Church propagates God. Dawkins has also expressed his opinion of the Judeo-Christian as being evil Himself. So in some convoluted way, I guess it makes sense:

1. God is evil but evil doesn’t exist, ergo God doesn’t exist!
2. The Catholic Church spreads the word of God, ergo the Catholic Church spreads evil, both of which are completely imaginary.

I suppose Messr. Dawkins is a more sophisticated philosopher than we had first thought!

 

[prodigalson2011]

The widespread tendency to believe science will eventually explain everything overlooks the fact of evil. It recognises malfunctions but not moral responsibility because persons are regarded as biological machines in the universal machine. Yet in practice no reasonable adult lives as if that is the case. The sense of justice is deeply rooted in every civilised man and woman: even criminals complain when they think they are unfairly treated. In spite of the way they have treated others they don’t really believe it’s just a human convention. They are illogical and so is anyone who refers to the Problem of Evil. There is no problem whatsoever if everything has natural causes. People may behave unnaturally but that is not their fault. It is just the way they are made…

Too bad! (Not evil, of course…

Now that I’ve sated my mischievous impulses, I will address this post seriously. However, I will again, at the risk of seeming obsessive, resort to my favorite Punching Bag of Scientism (Dawkins), who actually has put forth the very thesis with which you have concluded your OP, i.e. “people may behave unnaturally but that is not their fault; it is just the way that they are made.”

To illustrate the logical disconnect that the Scientistic Religion must inevitably yield if it is not to become completely utilitarian and amoral, look again to this example of moral hypocrisy: In one breath, Dawkins berates the masses for being angry at rapists and child abusers (They’ve just got faulty machinery that needs to be fixed. After all, they have no free will. They’re just doing what their selfish genes make them do). In the very next, he’s delivering fiery rally speeches all but calling for the Pope’s head for his “crimes against humanity.” Dawkins is the perfect refutation of his own materialistic worldview: unless one is a complete sociopath, everyone draws their moral line somewhere. It’s just a shame he draws his in such an odd place.

 

[tonyrey]

Now that I’ve sated my mischievous impulses, I will address this post seriously. However, I will again, at the risk of seeming obsessive, resort to my favorite Punching Bag of Scientism (Dawkins), who actually has put forth the very thesis with which you have concluded your OP, i.e. “people may behave unnaturally but that is not their fault; it is just the way that they are made.”

To illustrate the logical disconnect that the Scientistic Religion must inevitably yield if it is not to become completely utilitarian and amoral, look again to this example of moral hypocrisy: In one breath, Dawkins berates the masses for being angry at rapists and child abusers (They’ve just got faulty machinery that needs to be fixed. After all, they have no free will. They’re just doing what their selfish genes make them do). In the very next, he’s delivering fiery rally speeches all but calling for the Pope’s head for his “crimes against humanity.” Dawkins is the perfect refutation of his own materialistic worldview: unless one is a complete sociopath, everyone draws their moral line somewhere. It’s just a shame he draws his in such an odd place.

Intellectual pride is the downfall of other eminent scientists, including Nobel laureates:

"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition – or the hope – that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.”

Jacques Monod - Chance and Necessity

 

[Ismael]

The widespread tendency to believe science will eventually explain everything overlooks the fact of evil. It recognises malfunctions but not moral responsibility because persons are regarded as biological machines in the universal machine. Yet in practice no reasonable adult lives as if that is the case. The sense of justice is deeply rooted in every civilised man and woman: even criminals complain when they think they are unfairly treated. In spite of the way they have treated others they don’t really believe it’s just a human convention. They are illogical and so is anyone who refers to the Problem of Evil. There is no problem whatsoever if everything has natural causes. People may behave unnaturally but that is not their fault. It is just the way they are made…

Too bad! (Not evil, of course…

What people also overlook is the fact that as humans we are limited and thus we might be incapable of understanding everything in the first place.

The idea that ‘science can understand everything’ is a very very optimistic one and sincerely not a very realistic one either.

Take for example Hawking: he’s super-smart when it comes to physics and math, but he’ ‘retarded’ when it comes to metaphysics and even proper coherent logical arguments when he tries to attack philosophy. Unfortunately many scientists who have an high IQ (hence aptitude for math and physics) are often quite lacking in other fields.

This shows how limited the human mind can be. To just assume that ‘one day we will understand everything’ is quite a leap of faith, seen the facts.

 

[tonyrey]

What people also overlook is the fact that as humans we are limited and thus we might be incapable of understanding everything in the first place.

The idea that ‘science can understand everything’ is a very very optimistic one and sincerely not a very realistic one either.

Take for example Hawking: he’s super-smart when it comes to physics and math, but he’ ‘retarded’ when it comes to metaphysics and even proper coherent logical arguments when he tries to attack philosophy. Unfortunately many scientists who have an high IQ (hence aptitude for math and physics) are often quite lacking in other fields.

This shows how limited the human mind can be. To just assume that ‘one day we will understand everything’ is quite a leap of faith, seen the facts.

One must feel compassion for Hawking in view of his infirmity but not for his needless distortion of the facts.

 

[paduard]

What people also overlook is the fact that as humans we are limited and thus we might be incapable of understanding everything in the first place.

The idea that ‘science can understand everything’ is a very very optimistic one and sincerely not a very realistic one either.

Take for example Hawking: he’s super-smart when it comes to physics and math, but he’ ‘retarded’ when it comes to metaphysics and even proper coherent logical arguments when he tries to attack philosophy. Unfortunately many scientists who have an high IQ (hence aptitude for math and physics) are often quite lacking in other fields.

This shows how limited the human mind can be. To just assume that ‘one day we will understand everything’ is quite a leap of faith, seen the facts.

I think that phyics and maths ultimately point towards God. Perhaps better described as always striving so to speak but never completing.