Science and Morality

[JDaniel]

This quote demonstartes my point. Rummel characterizes the communists as those who “could not be wrong.” They were convinced of infallible leaders and dogmas such as materialism and the dialectical process of society. These were not people who were too desirous of evidence. They were too religious in their devotion to ideology and cults of personality.

I think rather that communism, influenced by Marx (influenced by Hegel) and Engles, was very much a product of “evidence.” Remember, Marx was an economist, by trade. He saw poverty; he saw society’s classes and he thought capitalism was at fault. The evidence simply produced incorrect conclusions.

"Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism in theory is known as a economic political theory that states that law is an instrument of oppression and control, and that the ruling classes use against the working class. Marxism holds at its core a critical analysis of capitalism and a theory of social change. The powerful and innovative analytical methods Marx introduced have influenced a broad range of disciplines. In the 21st century, Marxist approaches have a theoretical presence in the Western academic fields of archaeology/anthropology, media studies, political science, theater, history, sociological theory, education, economics, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology and philosophy." - Wikipedia

Marx’s method was called dialectical materialism. You can think that through to understand what it means. Dialectical materialism is a method of discovery. It is the foundation of Marx’s conclusions. This was how an entire school of philosophical inquirers inquired after evidence. Their absurd conclusions continue to affect the thoughts of people today - especially our youth. Many of our youth fully believe that capitalism is the worst economic system ever perpetuated upon a citizenry.

However, though Marx called for social changes, in his philosophy, it wasn’t until the militarists took power, in Russia, that enforced social changes were implemented, supported by Marxian theoretics. Thus, it was the travails of the working class that encouraged that change enforcement, not, idol worship or personality. The rest of the military was dumbed down, or frightened, sufficiently that they followed orders.

jd

 

[liquidpele]

I think rather that communism, influenced by Marx (influenced by Hegel) and Engles, was very much a product of “evidence.” Remember, Marx was an economist, by trade. He saw poverty; he saw society’s classes and he thought capitalism was at fault. The evidence simply produced incorrect conclusions.

"Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism in theory is known as a economic political theory that states that law is an instrument of oppression and control, and that the ruling classes use against the working class. Marxism holds at its core a critical analysis of capitalism and a theory of social change. The powerful and innovative analytical methods Marx introduced have influenced a broad range of disciplines. In the 21st century, Marxist approaches have a theoretical presence in the Western academic fields of archaeology/anthropology, media studies, political science, theater, history, sociological theory, education, economics, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology and philosophy." - Wikipedia

Marx’s method was called dialectical materialism. You can think that through to understand what it means. Dialectical materialism is a method of discovery. It is the foundation of Marx’s conclusions. This was how an entire school of philosophical inquirers inquired after evidence. Their absurd conclusions continue to affect the thoughts of people today - especially our youth. Many of our youth fully believe that capitalism is the worst ever ever perpetuated upon a citizenry.

However, though Marx called for social changes, in his philosophy, it wasn’t until the militarists took power, in Russia, that enforced social changes were implemented, supported by Marxian theoretics. Thus, it was the travails of the working class that encouraged that change enforcement, not, idol worship or personality. The rest of the military was dumbed down, or frightened, sufficiently that they followed orders.

jd

In my opinion, it’s not really fair to bring in Marx. He was a dreamer, and his ideas sound really good, especially for the poor masses of the time. Thus, his ideas were used by political figures to gain power, but with no intention of actually trying to make things better. All the “communist” leaders were dictators calling themselves communist.

 

[Souline]

I read somewhere that God gave us science, not that we may prove Him wrong with it, but that Science will prove him right.
ex: Embryonic stem cell research hasn’t come up with one single cure as opposed to Adult stem cell, which has been very successful. Thou shall not kill

Thou shall not lie, steal, cheat, thou shall forgive, help your neighbor, be charitable, not sloth around all day, take care of your body, not use drugs, abuse alcohol. thou shall not get angry over nothing, thou shall not work every single day of the week. rest on Sundays for if you don’t the stress will kill you. Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Forgive to Live: How forgiveness can Save Your Life by Dr. Dick Tibbits, Chief People Officer at Florida Hospital, explains that understanding and practicing forgiveness can literally save your life!”

“Forgive to Live is based off a clinical study with Stanford University and Florida Hospital that proved forgiveness reduces high blood pressure, reduces anger and improves quality of life.”

“The data we collected was nothing short of remarkable. At the beginning of the study, we gave all participants a psychological test that measured anger and hostility. We found that, by the end of the eight weeks, individuals with high blood pressure and elevated anger, who practiced forgiveness as taught in my seminar, were successful at both reducing their anger and lowering their blood pressure. Beyond that, participants spoke a lot about improved relationships and reinvesting in life.”

God is proven right once again.

Gay sex:
"The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy."

Scientific study is used not that we may prove God wrong, but that it may prove God right. You don’t have to believe in religion to understand scientific fact.
I think that science and morality go hand in hand.

 

[liquidpele]

I read somewhere that God gave us science, not that we may prove Him wrong with it, but that Science will prove him right.
ex: Embryonic stem cell research hasn’t come up with one single cure as opposed to Adult stem cell, which has been very successful. Thou shall not kill

Thou shall not lie, steal, cheat, thou shall forgive, help your neighbor, be charitable, not sloth around all day, take care of your body, not use drugs, abuse alcohol. thou shall not get angry over nothing, thou shall not work every single day of the week. rest on Sundays for if you don’t the stress will kill you. Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Forgive to Live: How forgiveness can Save Your Life by Dr. Dick Tibbits, Chief People Officer at Florida Hospital, explains that understanding and practicing forgiveness can literally save your life!”

“Forgive to Live is based off a clinical study with Stanford University and Florida Hospital that proved forgiveness reduces high blood pressure, reduces anger and improves quality of life.”

“The data we collected was nothing short of remarkable. At the beginning of the study, we gave all participants a psychological test that measured anger and hostility. We found that, by the end of the eight weeks, individuals with high blood pressure and elevated anger, who practiced forgiveness as taught in my seminar, were successful at both reducing their anger and lowering their blood pressure. Beyond that, participants spoke a lot about improved relationships and reinvesting in life.”

God is proven right once again.

Gay sex:
"The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy."

Scientific study is used not that we may prove God wrong, but that it may prove God right. You don’t have to believe in religion to understand scientific fact.
I think that science and morality go hand in hand.

God hates figs.
tektonics.org/uz/zapfigtree.html

As for stem cells, I agree that using them from embryos is sadistic, but it doesn’t matter where you get them from as far as the research that can be done - a stem cell is a stem cell.

scienceprogress.org/2009/03/10-promising-biomedical-advances-in-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Souline

*I think that science and morality go hand in hand. *

Well, medicine and morality **should go **hand in hand.

Not so sure about nuclear weapons and morality.

 

[severntofall]

severntofall
Hmm. I wonder how we could sell a mathematical morality to the masses. Would we have to devise a calculus for sin, virtue, pleasure and pain? Sounds robotic. I like better the old fashioned love = heaven and hate = hell.

I’ve never suggested such a thing. I don’t believe that an individual’s morality will ever be based upon a system where the good of an action is weighed against the evil of the same action and thus a determination is made as to the morality of the acts. However, I do think that when it comes to the legislation of morality (which I believe all laws do in a sense), lawmakers do need to consider such things. For example, should marijuana be illegal? Rather than that decision just being the result of a religious based pronouncement, the decision should have been based upon a weighing of the benefits of outlawing the naturally present weed verses the harms to outlawing the substance verses the benefits to it’s being legal. I believe that if the influences of religion were taken out of the equation then, nobody would even have considered outlawing the substance as the harm in doing so far outweighs the benefits.
I must admit to being horribly disturbed by the fact that you would prefer a moral system where humans fail to meet god’s standard are forced to endure an eternity in a lake of fire where the worms never die/in isolation and misery or whatever the constantly evolving theology of hell is today.

 

[Souline]

Are scientists listening?
But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

“We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: The atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link,” he said.

Scientific reason on its own will lead to immorality. Scientific research has to be ethical. Even in regards to nuclear weapons:

"As the realization of nuclear weapons grew near, Einstein looked beyond the current war to future problems that such weapons could bring. He wrote to physicist Niels Bohr in December 1944, “when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life.” (Clark, pg. 698).

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: “I made one great mistake in my life… when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.” (Clark, pg. 752).

I think the key here is the destruction of life. Most major immoral options whether scientific or not somehow have the destruction of life at the center. Ex. abortion, war, embryonic stem cells, death penalty, gay sex (no life, no reproduction same as abortion) Euthanasia, suicide, birth control, over-weightness, stress, drug adiction, alcoholism, workaholicism ect…have the potential to end life, in addition, GM seeds where the seeds have been modified so that they don’t reproduce on the next planting season, also. No life in a seed, who would have ever thought about that. How immoral is that? God gave each living thing a cycle and man wants to play god and modify those cycles. For what? so that farmers will have to buy seeds every planting season from a corporation who has used science to make life harder for the agricultural industry? that’s immoral, unethical.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*I must admit to being horribly disturbed by the fact that you would prefer a moral system where humans fail to meet god’s standard are forced to endure an eternity in a lake of fire where the worms never die/in isolation and misery or whatever the constantly evolving theology of hell is today. *

Yes, the scriptures are rather poetic, aren’t they? And they do lay it out straight and easy to understand for the people who are not philosophers and skeptics. I should think that in their day they had some effect … perhaps more effective for some than today’s preference that there be no hell whatever, so I can do as I please; if I don’t get caught … and oh I am so smart … there being no God, there’ll be no consequences.

A recipe for the collapse of morality we see in the world today with the prisons so full of those smart fellows.

I believe that if the influences of religion were taken out of the equation then, nobody would even have considered outlawing the substance as the harm in doing so far outweighs the benefits.

Where in the scriptures is marijuana outlawed? And why would science, replacing religion, want to recommend the legalization of marijuana? Do you mean to suggest that science will now be making all the moral decision better than religion did. What recommendation would science be able to make better than “Love one another”? Again, religion has beat them to the punch.

And with “Love one another,” why would anybody have to worry about eternal lakes of fire where the worms never die?

 

[liquidpele]

GM seeds where the seeds have been modified so that they don’t reproduce on the next planting season, also. No life in a seed, who would have ever thought about that. How immoral is that? God gave each living thing a cycle and man wants to play god and modify those cycles. For what? so that farmers will have to buy seeds every planting season from a corporation who has used science to make life harder for the agricultural industry? that’s immoral, unethical.

:ehh:

Do you realize almost none of the food we eat is the original plant? Everything from tomatoes to nuts are modified to improve harvest efficiency. I’m not sure why that’s immoral… we are feeding people after all… although I agree that a lot of GM crops have extremely bad effects on small scale farming.

Anyway, if you’d like to learn more, here is a great video from Modern Marvels on the Harvest (very neat episode):

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3435511866329014353

It airs on history channel now and then.

 

[severntofall]

severntofall
Yes, the scriptures are rather poetic, aren’t they? And they do lay it out straight and easy to understand for the people who are not philosophers and skeptics. I should think that in their day they had some effect … perhaps more effective for some than today’s preference that there be no hell whatever, so I can do as I please; if I don’t get caught … and oh I am so smart … there being no God, there’ll be no consequences.

A recipe for the collapse of morality we see in the world today with the prisons so full of those smart fellows.

So you’re arguing that a belief in hell is an effective tool for effecting one’s behavior regardless as to whether or not hell actually exists. Just so long as the indivdual believes in hell is all that matters.

Where in the scriptures is marijuana outlawed?

It’s right next to the biblical prohibition of birth control and masterbation. Fact of the matter is that I am yet to met a person who favors it’s continued illegalization that was not religious. Perhaps just a coincidence.

And why would science, replacing religion, want to recommend the legalization of marijuana? Do you mean to suggest that science will now be making all the moral decision better than religion did. What recommendation would science be able to make better than “Love one another”? Again, religion has beat them to the punch.

Evidence demonstrates quite clearly that the adverse effects of it’s illegalization far exceed the benefits. I merely suggest that evidence and logical be used to guide our principles rather than morality being mandated by theologians. Sadly many inquisitors believed that burning people at a stake was a fulfillment of the concept of loving one another as the pain of burning to death would give the heretics cause to fear hell and repent in their final moments.

And with “Love one another,” why would anybody have to worry about eternal lakes of fire where the worms never die?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*So you’re arguing that a belief in hell is an effective tool for effecting one’s behavior regardless as to whether or not hell actually exists. Just so long as the person believes in hell is what matters. *

If the child believes his daddy is going to paddle him for a misdemeanor or a felony when he gets home, I think it matters! At least to any kid with an ounce of sense! :frighten:

I daresay electric chairs have also persuaded some to tone it down a bit.

Some respond more to fear than to love. God works both ends of the sprectrum.

 

[severntofall]

severntofall

*So you’re arguing that a belief in hell is an effective tool for effecting one’s behavior regardless as to whether or not hell actually exists. Just so long as the person believes in hell is what matters. *

If the child believes his daddy is going to paddle him for a misdemeanor or a felony when he gets home, I think it matters! At least to any kid with an ounce of sense! :frighten:

I daresay electric chairs have also persuaded some to tone it down a bit.

Some respond more to fear than to love. God works both ends of the sprectrum.

We do not disagre. I suspect that most of us will do just about anything if we think it will allow us to avoid torment.

 

[liquidpele]

We do not disagre. I suspect that most of us will do just about anything if we think it will allow us to avoid torment.

:ehh:

… send me all your money, or I will torment you.

Do you think most people would do that (or just about anything) to avoid the torment I threatened? Would people trust me after making such a threat, even if my request was technically for their own good? Besides, tormenting forever is beyond punishment because there is no chance for repentance, it just turns into something sadistic. I’m not sure what the catholic take is on hell, but for me the idea of a hell in which we are tormented forever smacks of human fear mongering more than any ideal I could see as divine.

Sorry, I know that was off topic for the OT, but I wanted to point out that you can’t compare a “forever” hell with punishing a child.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Sorry, I know that was off topic for the OT, but I wanted to point out that you can’t compare a “forever” hell with punishing a child. *

Hell is … living forever with a never punished child.

Seriously, if heaven is forever, why in justice shouldn’t hell be forever?

Do you think Satan should also get a pardon?

I mean, if God thinks it’s just, it must be. I don’t judge God’s idea of justice against my idea of pity. He gave all the pity He had to give on the cross. If that wasn’t enough to persuade us … so be it.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

*Sorry, I know that was off topic for the OT, but I wanted to point out that you can’t compare a “forever” hell with punishing a child. *

Hell is … living forever with a never punished child.

Seriously, if heaven is forever, why in justice shouldn’t hell be forever?

Do you think Satan should also get a pardon?

I mean, if God thinks it’s just, it must be. I don’t judge God’s idea of justice against my idea of pity. He gave all the pity He had to give on the cross. If that wasn’t enough to persuade us … so be it.

I never meant to imply we should get pardons, just that there is no sense in punishing someone indefinitely with no option for them to repent because the punishment becomes pointless with no goal for it.

If you really want to know, I personally think hell originates from the legends and stories surrounding Gehenna ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna ), and were later formalized and used by the church for conversion purposes (not to mention they matched great with greek philosophy of the time concerning hades). But anyway, those are my own thoughts on the subject, so just take them for what they are worth - opinion.

 

[severntofall]

liquidpele
Seriously, if heaven is forever, why in justice shouldn’t hell be forever?

Do you think that a punishment should be commensurate with the crime? If yes, then you realize that infinitely punishing a person for what is by definition a finite offense is in no manner justice. If no, then do you think that people caught exceeding the speed limit should be tortured daily for the rest of their life?
Granting an eternal reward to one is not a justification for eternally torturing another.

Do you think Satan should also get a pardon?

Don’t believe for a second that he actually exists, but if he does then yes I do think he has suffered enough. Even when I was a devote catholic I never actually believed in him.

I mean, if God thinks it’s just, it must be. I don’t judge God’s idea of justice against my idea of pity. He gave all the pity He had to give on the cross. If that wasn’t enough to persuade us … so be it.

That’s just it, when we honestly understand the warped morality expressed by the bible, rather than conclude that evil is good because god says that it is we should view it as evidence for what it really is: proof that the bible is a product of man rather than a god. Perhaps there is a god, and if so then I suspect that it is as outraged by the claims made of it in the bible as anyone.

 

[severntofall]

I never meant to imply we should get pardons, just that there is no sense in punishing someone indefinitely with no option for them to repent because the punishment becomes pointless with no goal for it.

If you really want to know, I personally think hell originates from the legends and stories surrounding Gehenna ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna ), and were later formalized and used by the church for conversion purposes (not to mention they matched great with greek philosophy of the time concerning hades). But anyway, those are my own thoughts on the subject, so just take them for what they are worth - opinion.

The concept of hell of course was not invented by Christians, but rather existed in one for or the other in various faiths. Christianity was merely the first to make it eternal. It’s the perfect form of extortion as it’s so severe that many are terrified by the prospect that it might actually be real, and of course by the time you can prove that it in fact is not real you’re already dead.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*It’s the perfect form of extortion as it’s so severe that many are terrified by the prospect that it might actually be real, and of course by the time you can prove that it in fact is not real you’re already dead. *

My dear old atheist uncle’s sentiments exactly until he began to wear a cross around his neck six months before he died.

:bigyikes: Yikes! What if it’s all true???

 

[severntofall]

severntofall

*It’s the perfect form of extortion as it’s so severe that many are terrified by the prospect that it might actually be real, and of course by the time you can prove that it in fact is not real you’re already dead. *

My dear old atheist uncle’s sentiments exactly until he began to wear a cross around his neck six months before he died.

:bigyikes: Yikes! What if it’s all true???

Fear of being tortured eternally is a powerful motivator. I’ll be honest, I cannot say for a certainty that if I am ever diagnosed with an incurable and fatal diease that I will not start wearing a cross for the same reason. Don’t get me wrong, I know that there is no hell but fear is a powerful emotion. Pascal’s wager might make a lot more sense to me in that situation, of course I’ll probably start fearing Allah as well.

 

[tonyrey]

-]I must admit to being horribly disturbed by the fact that you would prefer a moral system where humans fail to meet god’s standard are forced to endure an eternity in a lake of fire where the worms never die/in isolation and misery or whatever the constantly evolving theology of hell is today.

Your preoccupation with hell reveals that you are a staunch believer in goodness and justice but if God doesn’t exist there is no source of goodness and justice. If we are accidental freaks of nature we exist in a universe totally devoid of moral values. They must exist solely in human minds and bear no relation to harsh reality. So why are you so concerned? Is your state of being horribly disturbed simply an emotional reaction which has no significance?