Science and Morality

[pplsearch]

Can science be used to derive moral values? No, values are emotional, and emotion is abstract and not quantifiable.

I agree that emotions are very difficult to quantify, however, affective science is heading in this direction, quantifying more than research has allowed for in the past. Does that mean that we will have cracked the “coded” to all emotions in the future? Probably not, since there is a lot of individual variation.

But in this regard, science has expanded our knowledge of emotions.

Science can also allow us to expand our knowledge of morality, in that cognitive science gives us a better understanding of human behavior.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Science can also allow us to expand our knowledge of morality, in that cognitive science gives us a better understanding of human behavior.

Can you give a small example of how science can help us expand our knowledge of morality?

Since a good deal of Christian morality is based on believing in God, how does science “help” religious people to understand morality better than their God has helped them to understand it?

 

[cm25]

cm25

Charlemagne, in your response to Leela on the previous pg. did you mean that morality is like Art man made and changing or like math unchanging, or somewhere in between? could you explain thanks.

Mathematics as a logical discipline is different from from one culture to another, because some cultures do not grasp the simplest principles of mathematics; but there are internal laws of mathematical logic vested in us by nature and nature’s God that cannot be violated with impunity without dire consequences. Morality (the laws of right and wrong) changes from culture to culture. In that sense morality may be man made, and errors in morality may reflect the inadequacy (or refusal) of the culture to know those rules that were vested in our hearts by God. However, the objective rules for right and wrong, like the objective rules for mathematics, come ultimately from God and cannot be violated with impunity without dire consequences.

So are you saying that it is somewhere in between art( man made and changeable, social upbringing) and math (objective truth on all planets 2 martians + 2 martians = 4)

 

[Leela]

So are you saying that it is somewhere in between art( man made and changeable, social upbringing) and math (objective truth on all planets 2 martians + 2 martians = 4)

Mathematics are free creations of human minds. Where did “2 +2 =4” exist before there were human beings to think such a thing?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Mathematics are free creations of human minds. Where did “2 +2 =4” exist before there were human beings to think such a thing? *

Most likely in the mind of God, since He created everything that is. But it’s certainly a problem for atheists, because nature can be divined using mathematics. Certain man didn’t create nature too, as you think he created God.

 

[cm25]

Mathematics are free creations of human minds. Where did “2 +2 =4” exist before there were human beings to think such a thing?

Hey, that’s true Leela I think Charlemagnes example is more fitting. I think it has to do with the structure in math if im not mistaken. maybe you could expand on this Charlemagne i would appreciate it.

 

[Dameedna]

Science can also allow us to expand our knowledge of morality, in that cognitive science gives us a better understanding of human behavior.

Can you give a small example of how science can help us expand our knowledge of morality?

Since a good deal of Christian morality is based on believing in God, how does science “help” religious people to understand morality better than their God has helped them to understand it?

People understand God in accordance with what they have been taught by other humans. And what they have been taught is usually dependant on faith, not fact or observation.

Science can at the very least show us the nature of things. For example, science will probably eventually determine the Genetic reasons for Homosexual behaviour.

Now Science cannot ever convince some-one that being Gay is okay in terms of their religion, but it can show that nature has allowed for this biologically and (according to their beliefs) so has God.

This then forces the believer sometimes into a dilema where they have to face a God that would choose a sexual orientation then force a person to endure a lifetime of loneliness. No matter how it’s justified(the result of a fall from sin, a cross they must bare etc etc), eventually the awareness that science has pushed to the forefront of human understanding will force people to question their religious views on love and morality.

I personally, can never force that person to see that their religious view is immoral, unethical and ultimately unloving. But knowlege does it’s job, regardless of what I do and say. Eventually, a person has to make a choice between what they’ve been “taught” is moral and what they are being shown through science as factual.

Yes, science can very well help humanity find it’s way to a more moral and ethical state. It has already done so many times. But it cannot make a choice for you.it will help you question what you’ve been taught through the use of knowlege based not on a persons view of faith but on that which is empiricle.

Obviously, I do not consider christianity to have any correct sense of morality in every area of life. Nor have many christians that have reformed and re-invigorated the church over the last 2 millenium.

Science, will just move our moral code and understanding of ethics along a lot quicker and render more ridiculous(and cruel) religious believes unconscionable much sooner.

 

[Dameedna]

Mathematics are free creations of human minds. Where did “2 +2 =4” exist before there were human beings to think such a thing?

Ah, usually I agree with you Leela, but this one I think is debatable.

In the same way I think the universe would still exist, regardless of wether we are here to observe it, the concept of quanity would exist, regardless of who measures it.

I don’t think Math is a free creation, I think it’s an observation of an already existing concept/phenomenom.

Those hell bent on converting me, will try and convince me that this leads one down the path of “who” and “what” created that concept. There’s nothing actually wrong with asking the question “did something do it?”. Of course for them…what did it…was a God who got up and walked around after he died 2 thousand years ago…hmmmm.

I personally don’t have a problem with the paradox presented by existance or “pre-existing” concepts without their being a “first” cause. All things are possible to me(including a first cause…lets call him the flying spaghetti monster for arguments sake).

In other words, it’s okay for me to say Math and the laws of nature exist independantly of me and at the same time say I’m an athiest. The answers to the question of why these laws and why this universe are not answered by any religion that I know of, with any sincerity or integrity.

I can still however say that those laws exist with or without me.

Hope that makes sense. Would love to hear an alternative view(IE why do you think it’s a free creation…how can you explain what that really means?)

Cheers
Dame

 

[liquidpele]

Wow, I just found this Ted Talk that pretty much nails the topic of this thread…

ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Just thought I would share… fantastic discussion in the video!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cm25

*Hey, that’s true Leela I think Charlemagnes example is more fitting. I think it has to do with the structure in math if im not mistaken. maybe you could expand on this Charlemagne i would appreciate it. *

e= mc 2 By Einstein’s formula we are able to discern how small bits of mass can release large quantities of energy.

Natures opens to us knowledge through mathematical equations that reflect on the state of nature. Copernicus did the same thing computing his heliocentric theory. And ID scholars compute the probability that abiogenesis happened by chance as near 0.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dameedna

Now Science cannot ever convince some-one that being Gay is okay in terms of their religion, but it can show that nature has allowed for this biologically and (according to their beliefs) so has God.

God also allows us to commit other unnatural acts, like murder, child molesting, etc. That doesn’t mean God favors those acts.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that you upper case Gay and lower case christian.

Are those typos or on purpose?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

Just thought I would share… fantastic discussion in the video!

Discussion? I only heard one view … that conservative moralists are intolerant and stupid.

So I don’t know how liberals get such a reputation for tolerance when they talk like that about conservatives. Also, I don’t know how liberals get a reputation for tolerance when they are willing to be intolerant of the right to life of millions of babes in the womb.

In short, I think many liberals are tolerant of just about anything … even saving the whales … but are tolerant of killing the children.

Explain to me how science justifies that kind of morality of hatred, or indifference to the welfare of those humans on their way into the world.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

Just thought I would share… fantastic discussion in the video!

Discussion? I only heard one view … that conservative moralists are intolerant and stupid.

So I don’t know how liberals get such a reputation for tolerance when they talk like that about conservatives. Also, I don’t know how liberals get a reputation for tolerance when they are willing to be intolerant of the right to life of millions of babes in the womb.

In short, I think many liberals are tolerant of just about anything … even saving the whales … but are tolerant of killing the children.

Explain to me how science justifies that kind of morality of hatred, or indifference to the welfare of those humans on their way into the world.

The video made some jokes about both liberals and conservatives… more the latter, but the research showed did not favor either one. In fact, it showed why both are important and should be understood. If you missed that from the video, perhaps you should re-watch it.

More importantly, it showed how certain things that we see as moral corverstones differ between the liberal and conservative groups, and looks at reasons behind why that might be, which ties in very well to the topic of this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Can science top “Love one another”?

If not, religion has beaten it to the punch.

 

[tonyrey]

People understand God in accordance with what they have been taught by other humans. And what they have been taught is usually dependent on faith, not fact or observation.

 

[Thales]

Science can at the very least show us the nature of things. For example, science will probably eventually determine the Genetic reasons for Homosexual behaviour.

Now Science cannot ever convince some-one that being Gay is okay in terms of their religion, but it can show that nature has allowed for this biologically and (according to their beliefs) so has God.

I already believe some instances of homosexuality are a genetic disorder, and expect science to reveal it in the near future. I don’t see how that has any effect on the morality of homosexual behavior though. Because a thing is proven scientifically doesn’t make it any more right or wrong in a moral sense.

Science does not offer value judgements on the things it investigates. The best it can do for morality is add additional knowledge to help us make more prudent decisions on moral issues. It will never make a moral law. For example by using forensics we can better determine if someone committed a murder.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Since moral laws are not falsifiable in a lab setting, I don’t know why science would even want to touch the subject.

 

[tonyrey]

I already believe some instances of homosexuality are a genetic disorder, and expect science to reveal it in the near future. I don’t see how that has any effect on the morality of homosexual behavior though. Because a thing is proven scientifically doesn’t make it any more right or wrong in a moral sense.

If a person is genetically homosexual the compulsion to behave homosexually must affect one’s moral judgment of that behaviour.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Are there instances of genetically traced homosexuality among any other species?

 

[Thales]

If a person is genetically homosexual the compulsion to behave homosexually must affect one’s moral judgment of that behavior.

Everyone is predisposed to a myriad of behaviors, some good and some bad. Some men have a natural tendency to be short tempered and violent, some women have an overwhelming desire to gossip, some have same sex attraction. People with these afflictions naturally would like to justify their tendencies by adjusting one’s moral judgments. However, people need to develop self control and fight against natural tendencies that lead to harm and social discord. Because a thing is natural or scientifically proven does not mean a hill of beans to its being good or bad.

Unlike mere animals, man’s eyes have been open to good and evil, and our higher nature and civilization are dependent on the morality which flows from that awareness.