Science and Morality

[liquidpele]

You ignore the fact that no one is forced to endure the misery of separation from God. It is self-inflicted as the result of pride and the desire for total independence. Moreover it is not unmitigated misery because there is great satisfaction and pleasure in being totally independent. Otherwise no one would opt for hell. Don’t you ever find it irksome to be compelled to obey authority? I know I do.

The problem with that is that there is no going back or changing once you’re in hell. People in this world get depressed, have self loathing, etc, but you can change that and make different choices if you want, where with hell even if you decided to change there is nothing that you can do. Comparing any worldly self-inflicted suffering to an eternal hell is crazy… in fact, an eternal hell you can’t escape from is just crazy even for religion. However, it’s off topic I think for this thread, since the discussion is about science and morality and not the bible’s justification for hell.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with that is that there is no going back or changing once you’re in hell. People in this world get depressed, have self loathing, etc, but you can change that and make different choices if you want, where with hell even if you decided to change there is nothing that you can do. Comparing any worldly self-inflicted suffering to an eternal hell is crazy… in fact, an eternal hell you can’t escape from is just crazy even for religion. However, it’s off topic I think for this thread, since the discussion is about science and morality and not the bible’s justification for hell.

I have presented reasons elsewhere for believing that a person in hell still has free will and can decide to repent and try to make amends for the suffering he/she has caused. The issue at stake is whether morality can exist without free will. The onus is on you to explain how a person can be held responsible without free will.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I do believe this thread has derailed.

We are supposed to be talking about science and morality, not hell.

I think, to restate the original question, we should be asking what a moral world would look like with science, rather than religion, as the go-to source of moral values.

What authority would science have to impose a moral standard on society that would be generally acceptable and able to provide the social glue that keeps people bound to the same ethic and social cohesion?

I ask this because I have heard many people of science say that the world will get its act together when religion has been abolished and science has succeeded in tackling the problem of good and evil.

This claim has always perplexed me because I rarely see scientists even interested in doing such a thing. I don’t see scientists as paragons of morality either, so why would we go to them for guidance in the absence of God?

 

[Oreoracle]

To put it simply, Charlemagne, might makes right. No, I’m not saying that the strongest is best morally speaking, but you’re only asking how things will turn out. If the scientific community takes over, the most charismatic of scientists (or possibly whoever funds the experiments) will lead, it’s that simple.

 

[liquidpele]

To put it simply, Charlemagne, might makes right. No, I’m not saying that the strongest is best morally speaking, but you’re only asking how things will turn out. If the scientific community takes over, the most charismatic of scientists (or possibly whoever funds the experiments) will lead, it’s that simple.

?? wow. I for one welcome our new lead scientist overlords?

In reality, our moral code is already defined by governments and law… the foundation of which (as I believe and talked about earlier) is based on social rules developed by our species over time (like a wolf pack). I’m not sure science is really up for defining morality though since I find it very subjective, it can help build evidence about what laws will likely work and what won’t, but that’s about it I think. In short, I see science as a tool to help us build stable societies, which is the same goal as our morality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

In reality, our moral code is already defined by governments and law… the foundation of which (as I believe and talked about earlier) is based on social rules developed by our species over time (like a wolf pack).

But to date religion has been the principal purveyer of morals. And as religion declines, we note the decline of morality.

I’m not sure science is really up for defining morality though since I find it very subjective, it can help build evidence about what laws will likely work and what won’t, but that’s about it I think.

Give one way it could do that?

*In short, I see science as a tool to help us build stable societies, which is the same goal as our morality. *

Could science wrongly used also help to build unstable societies? The building of nuclear weapons throughout the world (a scientific achievement) … has that resulted in building stable international relations?

 

[Oreoracle]

?? wow. I for one welcome our new lead scientist overlords?

I’m not sure what the quizzical tone of your post is all about. Charlemagne asked who would seize power, and I told him. I did not describe anything concerning the nature of science or ethics.

 

[severntofall]

You ignore the fact that no one is forced to endure the misery of separation from God. It is self-inflicted as the result of pride and the desire for total independence. Moreover it is not unmitigated misery because there is great satisfaction and pleasure in being totally independent. Otherwise no one would opt for hell. Don’t you ever find it irksome to be compelled to obey authority? I know I do.

Allow me to provide an anaology to this hell scenerio (totally conjecture based hell theory as there is zero reason to assume your description of hell is accurate as opposed to the scripture based hell as eternal physical punishment):

Imagine that the next time I met my friend Dan I ask him “Hey Dan, how’s your son 6 year old son Ben”?
He replies, "Not well…he has fallen into the pit I dug in my backyard and can’t get out. He’ll likely starve to death over the next 20 - 30 days”.
“Oh my gosh, " I reply “that’s horrible. Can’t you get him out”?
“Well yes…of course I could, but here’s the deal: Two years ago, I warned him not to get near that pit, and here he goes, two years later and falls into it. He deserves his fate, and if I rescued him…which I easily could…he would not learn a lesson from this sad experience. Like I said, I warned him to stay away from that hole. Ultimately, if he loved me, he’d have listened to my rule and avoided the pit. He has choosen his fate”.
“But…but…he’s just 6 years old…you’re his father… You can’t just let him starve to death in that hole”!
“Listen, I love Ben more than anything. I love him with my whole heart, but he was warned two years ago…he deserves his horrible fate”.
“If you warned him, why did he get near the hole? I mean outside of the fact that he’s just a finite child with an extremely limited understanding of the world and of the consequences of his actions. Plus it’s been 2000 years, I mean 2 years since you last instructed him as to you expectations”.
“Well, he was trying to get the toys and candy that were in the pit”.
“TOYS AND CANDY! Why were there toys and candy in the pit”?
“Well, I let my other evil son Stan place them there, you know, to lure Ben into the pit”.
“Why do you allow you son to do that”!
“Why should I attempt to stop him, after all Ben has been warned to stay away from the pit? How many chances do I have to give him? Here’s the deal, Ben’s not the first of my many children to fall in that pit, nor will he be the last. To be my loving child, one must obey my commands…it’s that simple”.

Ask yourself, what’s your opinion of Dan’s parenting skills? If Dan allows this to happen, does Dan truly love his son or does he hate him? How is Dan’s attitude any different from that of a God who would allow his own creation to suffer eternal hell? Can Dan really claim that this is not his fault? At least the son’s torment will be over in 20 -30 days; Your God would mercifully allows us to suffer for an eternity if we anger him or fail to love him according to his demands.

 

[severntofall]

Could science wrongly used also help to build unstable societies? The building of nuclear weapons throughout the world (a scientific achievement) … has that resulted in building stable international relations?

I believe that an evidence based moral structure (aka science based) has far less potential for corruption and abuse that a theology or ideology based morality code. Granted, an evidence based system cannot ensure compliance with threats of eternal torture, but I’m not sure it’s necessary. I’m certainly would not say that scientists should be considered ethicists; however odds are that the next time a nuclear weapon is used in anger it will be for largely religious reasons.

 

[severntofall]

I do believe this thread has derailed.

We are supposed to be talking about science and morality, not hell.

I think, to restate the original question, we should be asking what a moral world would look like with science, rather than religion, as the go-to source of moral values.

What authority would science have to impose a moral standard on society that would be generally acceptable and able to provide the social glue that keeps people bound to the same ethic and social cohesion?

I ask this because I have heard many people of science say that the world will get its act together when religion has been abolished and science has succeeded in tackling the problem of good and evil.

This claim has always perplexed me because I rarely see scientists even interested in doing such a thing. I don’t see scientists as paragons of morality either, so why would we go to them for guidance in the absence of God?

Ultimately we acquire our morality from purely mundane sources. Even if there is a theistic god who wants us to behave in accordance with his desires, we none-the-less must depend on humans to provide us with their interpretation of god’s will (assuming that they aren’t just pursuing their own agenda while claiming to be men of god). History has shown that this has been done in an extremely inconsistent manner over the centuries and has often been very much at odds with our current understanding of right and wrong.

One way or the other, whether it be bishops or popes, presidents or dictators, humans are determining our enforcement of right and wrong. Again, this is true even if there is a god.

 

[tonyrey]

Allow me to provide an anaology to this hell scenerio (totally conjecture based hell theory as there is zero reason to assume your description of hell is accurate as opposed to the scripture based hell as eternal physical punishment):

You are assuming that the Scriptures must be interpreted literally even though this is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Do you think the Church commands us to believe Eve was created from Adam’s rib?

Jesus was a Jew. He used Jewish hyperbole and imagery to convey spiritual truths to ordinary people. Do you think the command to cut off your hand if it commits an offence is intended to be taken literally?

When confronted with the diabolical evil that exists in this world, such as the exploitation of the poor by the hypocritical Pharisees and moneylenders in the “den of thieves”, it is essential to use forceful imagery. Do you think a philosophical exposition of the consequences of egoism would be heeded or even understood by men and women in the street or in the fields?

The notion of everlasting hellfire is totally incompatible with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father whose Son has come to liberate us from evil by His self-sacrifice on the Cross.

 

[tonyrey]

Ultimately we acquire our morality from purely mundane sources. Even if there is a theistic god who wants us to behave in accordance with his desires, we none-the-less must depend on humans to provide us with their interpretation of god’s will (assuming that they aren’t just pursuing their own agenda while claiming to be men of god). History has shown that this has been done in an extremely inconsistent manner over the centuries and has often been very much at odds with our current understanding of right and wrong./quote]

You are simply pointing out that humanity is incapable of pursuing the right path when left to their own devices. Hence the need for revelation.

Our beliefs in human rights stem from the heritage of Christianity with its teaching that we are all children of the same Father. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have no rational foundation if we are strange freaks of nature in a godless universe…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*… however odds are that the next time a nuclear weapon is used in anger it will be for largely religious reasons. *

Oh, I didn’t know North Korea was a religious nation!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seveeeerntofall

• History has shown that this has been done in an extremely inconsistent manner over the centuries and has often been very much at odds with our current understanding of right and wrong. *

In the past, when religious institutions became corrupt, they had a reason to reform, and most of them soner or later did.

Exactly what is our current understanding of right and wrong?
Are you speaking for yourself or for the whole world?

Again, why would science be less corrupt than religion, as you think, in administering an ethical system? You think scientists can be dedicated to the subject of morals? You think scientists are less corruptible than people of religion? Do you have any facts to prove that, if so, or are you just making up the truth as you go along?

 

[severntofall]

You are assuming that the Scriptures must be interpreted literally even though this is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Do you think the Church commands us to believe Eve was created from Adam’s rib?

Jesus was a Jew. He used Jewish hyperbole and imagery to convey spiritual truths to ordinary people. Do you think the command to cut off your hand if it commits an offence is intended to be taken literally?

When confronted with the diabolical evil that exists in this world, such as the exploitation of the poor by the hypocritical Pharisees and moneylenders in the “den of thieves”, it is essential to use forceful imagery. Do you think a philosophical exposition of the consequences of egoism would be heeded or even understood by men and women in the street or in the fields?

The notion of everlasting hellfire is totally incompatible with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father whose Son has come to liberate us from evil by His self-sacrifice on the Cross.

I agree; however your church seems to believe in hell as a physical punishment for disobedience for a very long time.

 

[severntofall]

Again, why would science be less corrupt than religion, as you think, in administering an ethical system? You think scientists can be dedicated to the subject of morals? You think scientists are less corruptible than people of religion? Do you have any facts to prove that, if so, or are you just making up the truth as you go along?

I don’t personally think scientists should be placed in charge of morality, I just think that morality whould be rooted in reality and evidence rather than based upon our attempts to discern what a god (assuming one exists) expects of us.

 

[severntofall]

severntofall

*… however odds are that the next time a nuclear weapon is used in anger it will be for largely religious reasons. *

Oh, I didn’t know North Korea was a religious nation!

Touche.

 

[severntofall]

You are simply pointing out that humanity is incapable of pursuing the right path when left to their own devices. Hence the need for revelation.

No. I merely think reason and evidence are the best methods to determine a health moral standard.

Our beliefs in human rights stem from the heritage of Christianity with its teaching that we are all children of the same Father.

I do believe that many of the teaching credited to Jesus were revolutionary (though many seem to have predated him and originated in Egypt), as well as completely incompatible with the god of the OT.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE&feature=channel_page

youtube.com/watch?v=wKtuk0ZpnbY&feature=channel_page

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have no rational foundation if we are strange freaks of nature in a godless universe…

I couldn’t disagree more. I believe that these principles make perfect sense from a perfectly naturalistic point of view. You seem to be of the impression that without a god, we would all be cannibalistic mass murders without a concern for anyone but ourselves. Of course such an attitude would provide our species with a very quick end. Truth is, a species that acts cooperatively and in unison has a far better chance of survival than a species that incessantly preys upon itself. A species that respects the existence of its fellow species members is vastly superior to one that does not. Morality makes no sense without evolution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

Morality makes no sense without evolution.

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. I know that today we are all supposed to genuflect and make a sign of blessing at the word “Evolution,” but I don’t understand how morality evolves. Do you mean that our morality is better than the morality of the animals behind us on the evolutionary scale? Or do you mean that morality evolves as throughout life we grow in wisdom and experience?

In either case, can you give an example?

In either case, what would science have to do with it, if anything?

 

[severntofall]

severntofall

Morality makes no sense without evolution.

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. I know that today we are all supposed to genuflect and make a sign of blessing at the word “Evolution,” but I don’t understand how morality evolves. Do you mean that our morality is better than the morality of the animals behind us on the evolutionary scale? Or do you mean that morality evolves as throughout life we grow in wisdom and experience?

In either case, can you give an example?

In either case, what would science have to do with it, if anything?

For the most part, our concepts of morality serve to increase our species survivability. Our genetic inclination towards cooperativeness and our natural abhoration of chaos is proof of that. I just don’t think morality could exist without evolution.

I’m not entirely sure how much science can benefit our morality. Science does provide us with evidence and knowledge of how to better improve our moral coades, but I don’t have a concept of a science of morality. I do believe that morality can be compaired to mathmatics when it comes to determining the nature of an action. Most if not all acts have evil and good effects, understanding which actions maximize good and minimize evil is could be considered the math of morality…