Science and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
Well, I didn’t say religion was too unadaptive. In fact, I am confident that religion has adapted itself to opposing the nuclear weapons that science had adapted itself to build. That’s certainly true of the Vatican and the American bishops who have periodically issued statements calling for world disarmament.
Click to expand...
Ah, I didn’t mean to imply that. My bad on the poor sentence structure 😃

However, the church’s condemnation of condoms in Africa is a perfect example of the how religion is un-adaptive. Simply put, religion is by it’s very nature dogmatic, and this can create problems when ethics needs to be adjusted or added to in order to fit new situations and different cultures.
 
If you think of morality as following the dictates of God, then people can argue for all eternity about what that entails and no one would ever have any basis for claiming to have it right over anyone else. But if morality is about human flourishing, then we can get broad agreement about many facets of what that is (high literacy, low infant mortality, low crime and incarceration rates, etc.) and science can help us learn how to achieve it. However, there is an is/ought chasm that cannot be bridged. Science can help us create the sort of world we want but it can’t tell us what sort of world we ought to want. Many see that as a mandate for religion to step in and muddle the issue with pointless discussion of what God wants, and even scientists too often come off as saying just that. They shouldn’t. There is no reason to think that the religions of the world have any standing to be able to tell us what we should want.
 
liquidpele

However, the church’s condemnation of condoms in Africa is a perfect example of the how religion is un-adaptive.

Put simply, it isn’t progress to have people use condoms when condoms won’t stop the spread of AIDS.
 
Leela

*There is no reason to think that the religions of the world have any standing to be able to tell us what we should want. *

If neither science nor religion has any standing to tell us what is moral or immoral, who does?
 
tonyrey said:
What do you mean by “everything”? Do you equate physical reality with “everything”?
Click to expand...
If it isn’t physical it isn’t real. Even your thoughts are a chemical process. Non-physicality would constitute nothingness, which is not real, which would mean it is mythical, like an invisible, incorporeal, fire-breathing dragon in your garage. The universe is simply everywhere all the time, and it is physical.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
liquidpele

However, the church’s condemnation of condoms in Africa is a perfect example of the how religion is un-adaptive.

Put simply, it isn’t progress to have people use condoms when condoms won’t stop the spread of AIDS.
Click to expand...
:confused: Why would they not? Perhaps you should cite a study or something.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela

*There is no reason to think that the religions of the world have any standing to be able to tell us what we should want. *

If neither science nor religion has any standing to tell us what is moral or immoral, who does?
Click to expand...
You may wish that there were someone else to tell you what you should do, but the fact is that you are responsible for your own choices. They are the only things you really possess. You are your choices.

Subscribing to a religion doesn’t solve the problem of deciding what you want for yourself since you have to choose to subscribe to that religion or not.
 
You may wish that there were someone else to tell you what you should do, but the fact is that you are responsible for your own choices. They are the only things you really possess. You are your choices.

Then how do we establish right and wrong through law? The law is not a centipede, accomodating each person’s choice of what is right and wrong.

Through all civilizations, religion has been the authority for civil law. Remove civil law and the law is powerless to provide a civic glue that holds people together in agreement about what is right and wrong.

Murder, stealing, lies, these are all covered by the Ten Commandments. Remove the authority of God, and where does that authority now reside? In the individual who decides that his murder, his stealing, and his lies are justified?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
You may wish that there were someone else to tell you what you should do, but the fact is that you are responsible for your own choices. They are the only things you really possess. You are your choices.

Then how do we establish right and wrong through law? The law is not a centipede, accomodating each person’s choice of what is right and wrong.

Through all civilizations, religion has been the authority for civil law. Remove civil law and the law is powerless to provide a civic glue that holds people together in agreement about what is right and wrong.
Click to expand...
People don’t agree about what is right and wrong. We have to figure out how to live together anyway.
Charlemagne_II said:
Murder, stealing, lies, these are all covered by the Ten Commandments. Remove the authority of God, and where does that authority now reside? In the individual who decides that his murder, his stealing, and his lies are justified?
Click to expand...
Religions have claimed moral authority in most civilizations in the past, and people believed the claims of authority that their local religions made. But now that we have the perspective of considering history and the many civilizations and noting the many incompatible religions it is impossible to see how any one of the world’s religions can claim to be the true authority over any other religion. Of course they all still try…

You can say that it is a problem that it would be a terrible thing if there were no supreme authority that has some foundation for telling us what we ought to want, but the fact that it would be nice to have such an authority has nothing to do with whether any religion actually has such authority.
 
People don’t agree about what is right and wrong. We have to figure out how to live together anyway.

I agree. But we don’t figure out a way by letting everybody decide for himself what the law should be.

So, I’ll ask it again:

How do we establish social consensus for right and wrong without God and religion?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
People don’t agree about what is right and wrong. We have to figure out how to live together anyway.

I agree. But we don’t figure out a way by letting everybody decide for himself what the law should be.

So, I’ll ask it again:

How do we establish social consensus for right and wrong without God and religion?
Click to expand...
You’re asking the wrong question. The question should be “How do we establish social consensus for right and wrong.” In many people’s eyes, religion has already failed at this, so saying how can we do it without it is like saying how can we create fire without water.
 
liquidpele

You’re asking the wrong question. The question should be “How do we establish social consensus for right and wrong.”

O.K. How do we do that?

In many people’s eyes, religion has already failed at this, so saying how can we do it without it is like saying how can we create fire without water.

In many people’s eyes religion has not failed … but people have failed to be religious. Go into any prison and see how many people went to Sunday church meetings before they got into prison. Very few. Some, but very few compared to those who failed to attend. The recidivist rate shows the same tendancy. Those who attend chapel service in prison were less likely to return to prison than those who did not.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
liquidpele
O.K. How do we do that?

In many people’s eyes religion has not failed … but people have failed to be religious. Go into any prison and see how many people went to Sunday church meetings before they got into prison. Very few. Some, but very few compared to those who failed to attend. The recidivist rate shows the same tendancy. Those who attend chapel service in prison were less likely to return to prison than those who did not.
Click to expand...
Indeed. How DO we do that. It’s a great question, and one that can provide endless debate 🙂

While I agree that people in prison are generally not church going, I think this is a good example of causation vs correlation. You can correlate the two, but not going to church does not necessarily cause on to be a criminal. For instance, those that go to church do so because they are trying to be a good person, so they go to church and not break laws for the same reasons, one does not cause the other necessarily.

Anyway, I actually think most religion CAN be a good moral code to go by in some cases, but I don’t think it’s perfect by any means (not much is), and I think the answer of how to define morals is a deeper on than what religion can offer by itself.
 
*Indeed. How DO we do that. It’s a great question, and one that can provide endless debate *

O.K., let the endless debate begin. If science and religion are not the source of collective morality that underlies the civil law, what is?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Indeed. How DO we do that. It’s a great question, and one that can provide endless debate *

O.K., let the endless debate begin. If science and religion are not the source of collective morality that underlies the civil law, what is?
Click to expand...
My own opinion is that morality is originally formed from social constructs. Humans are pack animals, we live with each other and need social interaction, and morality helps us keep those social connections alive.

For instance, imagine a pack of wolves. One wolf could kill other males in the pack and he could then mate with all the females right? Surely that is a good thing for his evolution? Not so fast, the pack is much stronger as a group in their hunting, so his success is tied to the success of his pack. Social constructs arise, and you get things like pack order and the wolves helping each other, protecting each other, playing (training), etc.

Humans are similar, we developed morality because it helps our survival as social animals. On top of that, we have added specifics that include different nuances for our different environments and cultures, but the basics are always the same: Don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t be selfish, etc etc etc.

If you consider morality to be something inherit in our societies, is it any wonder that it would also appear in our government? Religion used to be, and still is in some areas, a form of tribal government after all.

Just my humble opinion of course 😃
 
*If you consider morality to be something inherit in our societies, is it any wonder that it would also appear in our government? Religion used to be, and still is in some areas, a form of tribal government after all. *

Yes, it is inherent, but largely because religion has nurtured it. Wolves have no institution comparable to religion. Without religion, what is to maintain moral order? Certainly not the wolves among us (that was tried with Hitler, etc.)Your post talks a great deal about the history of animal relations, but you don’t address the need to find a method of achieving moral consensus sufficient to maintain social order in the absence of religion dictating moral principles.

Can you give a specific method to establish moral order in the absence of religion?

I won’t be able to post again until Friday morning. See you then. 🙂
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Yes, it is inherent, but largely because religion has nurtured it. Wolves have no institution comparable to religion. Without religion, what is to maintain moral order? Certainly not the wolves among us (that was tried with Hitler, etc.)Your post talks a great deal about the history of animal relations, but you don’t address the need to find a method of achieving moral consensus sufficient to maintain social order in the absence of religion dictating moral principles.
Click to expand...
Ha… so you invoke Godwin’s law eh? :rolleyes:

I’m not sure what you mean about finding a method of achieving moral consensus in order to maintain social order… As with my wolf example, social order is possible without either religion or even being self aware. That social order is exactly what I think morality IS at it’s core. In other words, I think our morality gave way to religion and government, and not the other way around.

Have a good night 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top