Science and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
This on genetic evidence for homosexuality:

dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article! My point in commenting about the homosexual issue relating to science and morality was echoed by this quote from the article:

“Regarding science and morality, Dr. Hamer stated, “…biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not.” Homosexual relations are moral, ethical issues."

Right. Though homosexuality may or may not be determined by nature/biology, and science will make that discovery, it doesn not make homosexual behavior right. Science will do nothing to change the moral negativity of homosexual activity, as no scientific discovery will ever make it right to murder, steal, or rape.
 
Thales said:
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.
Click to expand...
**Genetic **homosexuality is so deeply rooted it seems cruel and unfair to condemn all homosexual love as illicit and harmful. Sexual frustration often leads to a lifetime of unnecessary misery. Yet physical intercourse between two persons of the same sex is obviously unnatural regardless of whether it is immoral. Probably the best solution is a form of love which is primarily one of tenderness and affection expressed without going to such an extreme.

Unfortunately there are many individuals who have been brainwashed by our permissive society into believing homosexuality is a matter of choice rather than a biological necessity. In such cases they may not be responsible for the way they behave but tragically it has ill effects on their lives. We cannot be false to our nature without paying the price…
 
Dameedna said:
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.
Click to expand...
In an address to the Prussian Acadamy of Science in Berlin
on Jan 27, 1921, Einstein was discussing the significance of
mathematics in the history of scientific thought, and remarked

"At this point an enigma presents itself which in all
ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that
mathematics, being after all a product of human thought
which is independent of experience, is so admirably
appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason,
then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able
to fathom the properties of real things?

In my opinion the answer to this question is breifly
this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality."
 
Leela
*
“In my opinion the answer to this question is briefly
this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality.” *

It’s a good thing airplane pilots don’t believe this! 👍
 
Leela said:
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Click to expand...
The symbols we use to describe mathematical truths are human conventions but they refer to facts. Numbers and quantities exist regardless of our system of measurement.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela
*
“In my opinion the answer to this question is briefly
this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality.” *

It’s a good thing airplane pilots don’t believe this! 👍
Click to expand...
Is it really important that pilots believe that the mathematical tools that use to fly planes correspond to “the way things really are”? I suspect that it isn’t any more important for them that trigonometry corresponds to ultimate reality any more than it concerns them whether or not their airplane conforms to ulimate reality. Mathematics is a tool just like the airplane or a carpenter’s hammer. Of such tools we never need to ask “does this hammer conform to the way things really are?” Our tools just need to be useful for whatever we use them for. So it is with mathematics.
 
tonyrey said:
The symbols we use to describe mathematical truths are human conventions but they refer to facts. Numbers and quantities exist regardless of our system of measurement.
Click to expand...
How does, say, 14 exist without people to think about it? What is the essence of 14? What is 14 in itself outside of it’s relationships to other numbers? Is there any description that gets closer to the inner nature of 14 and is different in kind from such relations as 13+1 or 7*2 or the square root of 196? There are an infinite number of such descriptions and none of them get us any closer to the essence of 14 that is supposed to exist beyond human imagination.
 
Leela

*Our tools just need to be useful for whatever we use them for. So it is with mathematics. *

A hammer corresponds to a nail. But mathematics corresponds to the universe.

All of science has mathematics as its base. If you believe science corresponds to anything in the world, you must believe that mathematics does too, if the mathematics is correctly applied. :twocents:

Spinoza even used mathematics to develop his ethical system. which I’m sure he thought corresponded to the real world. 👍
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela

*Our tools just need to be useful for whatever we use them for. So it is with mathematics. *

A hammer corresponds to a nail. But mathematics corresponds to the universe.

All of science has mathematics as its base. If you believe science corresponds to anything in the world, you must believe that mathematics does too, if the mathematics is correctly applied. QUOTE]

Of course hammers and mathematics will be used in the universe. Where else would we use them? My words about correspondence refer to a correspondence theory of truth which pragmatists repudiate along with all theories of truth. My point is that we don’t need to ask whether or not mathematics or science correctly describes the universe any more than we would ask that question about any other tool such as a hammer. Mathematics doesn’t need to be a representation of “the way things really are” to be useful any more than a hammer needs to represent ultimate reality to be useful.
Click to expand...
 
Leela

*Mathematics doesn’t need to be a representation of “the way things really are” to be useful any more than a hammer needs to represent ultimate reality to be useful. *

Hmm. Then how are mathematics useful if not to represent things as they are? To represent things as they are not? :newidea:
 
Leela said:
How does, say, 14 exist without people to think about it?
Click to expand...
Suppose there are 14 stones on the ground. No one ever sees them. Does the quantity change because no one ever sees them? Before people knew the value of a physical constant like the speed of light did that affect the speed of light? One molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Does that mathematical proportion depend on the existence of human beings? Do you believe the difference between one and two is a human invention?
 
tonyrey said:
Suppose there are 14 stones on the ground. No one ever sees them. Does the quantity change because no one ever sees them? Before people knew the value of a physical constant like the speed of light did that affect the speed of light? One molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Does that mathematical proportion depend on the existence of human beings? Do you believe the difference between one and two is a human invention?
Click to expand...
The issue is not about whether things like stones existed before their were people to think about them. It is common sense that they did. The idea that stones existed before anyone could identify them as stones is a good idea, but an idea nonetheless, so the idea that stones come first still comes before stones in that sense. But all that is a separate question from whether math existed before people–whether math is invented or discovered. I can’t see how 14 can be said to have existed on the basis that stones existed before humans. There were stones, but there weren’t “14 stones” until someone was able to relate the stones to 10 fingers and four toes or 14 other things. Fourteen’s essence is not the number of stones you are talking about any more than it is the number of days in two weeks. There is no way to get any closer to fourteen than to relate it to other things and none of those particular relations is any more the essence of fourteen that was somehow “out there” waiting to be discovered once humans had evolved brains sophisticated enough to discover it.
 
Leela

*There is no way to get any closer to fourteen than to relate it to other things and none of those particular relations is any more the essence of fourteen that was somehow “out there” waiting to be discovered once humans had evolved brains sophisticated enough to discover it. *

There are mathematical laws for the matter and motions of the universe, I’m sure you agree. These laws were discovered by men long after the laws began to exist. That the mind of man can fathom these laws, and that these laws conform to the human intellect, is an argument to prove that mathematics was not invented independent of any correspondence with reality. It’s true that numbers are in the mind of man purely intellectual constructs, but they could not exist in the mind of man if the real world did not give rise to them by evolving into being the very creature who can discover and use these laws of association for matter, motion, time, and energy.

How do you think we discovered that the universe is between 10-20 billions of years old?
Is the age of the universe in that time range, or did we just take a figure out of thin air? Math does correspond to reality, though there is nothing in numbers, as Einstein would say, that is precisely real … such as the number 14.

The really interesting question, as Einstein was fond of pointing out, is that the universe should bother to create a being capable of understanding its own laws. The sneaking suspicion arises, if one allows it to arise, that man was intentionally created by the reasoning Power that created the universe, so that the intelligent design of that creative Being could be shared with and appreciated by one of His own creatures! Otherwise, why did the universe begin to create conditions favorable to life at the very moment of its conception?

All of this, however, is off the topic of this thread.
 
Leela said:
…My words about correspondence refer to a correspondence theory of truth which pragmatists repudiate along with all theories of truth. My point is that we don’t need to ask whether or not mathematics or science correctly describes the universe any more than we would ask that question about any other tool such as a hammer. Mathematics doesn’t need to be a representation of “the way things really are” to be useful any more than a hammer needs to represent ultimate reality to be useful.
Click to expand...
So why then are Christianity and other religions such a problem. You cannot deny Christianity is a way for many to find peace in daily life, instill ethical behavior, and promote love of fellow man. Consider, “if we were to believe it and whether or not it helps us achieve our desired ends.” The ideal of the Catholic faith is not simply to believe but to practice the teachings and life of Christ, in other words the Catholic’s goal is to manifest, “the consequences of (its) beliefs in lived experience” For many, Christianity has made them better people, not perfect, but better. I don’t know what the Pragmatist has in mind for the “desired ends”, but making better people seems to me a good one. If Christianity is no more reflective of “the way things really are” than a hammer, but still serves a valid function, why such antithesis towards it?
 
I’m still waiting for someone to argue the case that science will make a morally better world, or that science can decide the questions of right and wrong using the scientific method.

Apparently the afficionados of science are without a clue?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I’m still waiting for someone to argue the case that science will make a morally better world, or that science can decide the questions of right and wrong using the scientific method.

Apparently the afficionados of science are without a clue?
Click to expand...
Science, by itself, cannot do anything except provide data. Data will then support or falsify a hypothesis.

Science itself cannot provide morality.

However, science CAN be used as a *tool *to help decide the rules of a society, which pretty much defines the moral beliefs of a society in writing and practice. For a loose definition of morality, you could say that science could help define some moral aspects of a society, or at least clarify how best to enforce them. Furthermore, science can teach us more about the *reasons *for certain moral traits that we hold, by doing studies to compare moral traits between different societies for instance.

Please don’t think this is a concession that morality must be divine. I’m simply saying that science is a process of determining facts and learning about things that exist, it was not meant to be a way to create new things.
 
*Please don’t think this is a concession that morality must be divine. I’m simply saying that science is a process of determining facts and learning about things that exist, it was not meant to be a way to create new things. *

Certainly an agnostic would not concede that morality must be connected with a sense of the divine. Yet in the history of the world it is virtually impossible to find a religion that has not featured morality as a central concern. Even when morality is discussed and admitted by those who have no religion, they do so by using up the moral capital created by the same religions against which they rebel. As religion declines, there is less and less capital, increasingly less foundation for morality other than the moralist with the biggest club.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Please don’t think this is a concession that morality must be divine. I’m simply saying that science is a process of determining facts and learning about things that exist, it was not meant to be a way to create new things. *

Certainly an agnostic would not concede that morality must be connected with a sense of the divine. Yet in the history of the world it is virtually impossible to find a religion that has not featured morality as a central concern. Even when morality is discussed and admitted by those who have no religion, they do so by using up the moral capital created by the same religions against which they rebel. As religion declines, there is less and less capital, increasingly less foundation for morality other than the moralist with the biggest club.
Click to expand...
Ah, but this is where we differ. You think religion created morality, I think morality created religion.
 
liquidpele

*Ah, but this is where we differ. You think religion created morality, I think morality created religion. *

Not exactly. God created the principles of right and wrong. Religion preserves them and teaches them.

Where do you get the idea that morality created religion? Is this a speculation of yours or have you read someone else’s speculation?

Since morality and religion were evidently present at the dawn of human history, I don’t think that view can be anything more than a speculation conveniently atheistic; whereas in Genesis we have the revelation of a covenant between Adam and Eve begun before the first exercise of free will in favor of evil rather than good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top