The Virtue of Scientific Thinking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soletluna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a rather long link. Yet, it is very interesting because of the word “virtue” in the thread title.

My apology. I will need to study it later.:o
 
Soletluna said:
bostonreview.net/steven-shapin-scientism-virtue
Click to expand...
“Can science make you good?” is the first line in the linked article.

To me, the key sentence is this reply to the question. "Some ways of understanding it do lead to the glib dismissal, but other ways powerfully link science to moral matters. "What follows is interesting, but … I visualize the “link” as a link to science as a source of information, which information can aid in “morality.”

Of course, I agree to this first sentence of Aristotle’s *Metaphysics. “*All men by nature desire to know.” Natural science is a true gift from God. However, I would not necessarily go along with the Puritans who thought that the human desire for knowledge of the world fulfilled a religious duty.

In the middle of the article, there is this conclusion. “… you can’t reason your way from nature to morality.” To me there is a possible yes to this conclusion. The yes would be the moral statement that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Studying the various species in nature, I find sufficient cause to conclude that the human species is peerless in its natural intellectual abilities. These abilities make the human person worthy of profound respect. Morality in one sense is profound respect. On the other hand, as the article points out, there are no sermons in stones. Yet, from being in Alaska, I would offer that there were multiple sermons from nature.

The section on scientism was important to me, because I lack knowledge about it.

The article’s last sentence should be memorized. 😃
 
Soletluna said:
bostonreview.net/steven-shapin-scientism-virtue
Click to expand...
It seems that, in the end, Shapin accepts the idea that science is our savior. The fallacy of course is that nature never has been a moral arbiter. Natural philosophy alone never led to moral values which must be accepted on the penalty of loosing one’s soul. Not even metaphysics ever claimed that. In Aristotle, ought never morphed into must.

As taught by Thomas Aquinas, metaphysics could lead to right thinking in morality, but it had no power to make you moral. Only Divine Revelation can turn ought into must. The natural moral law discovered in Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics can tell us what ought might be. But only Divine Revelation as enunciated by the Catholic Church can tell us what the ought actually is and why it is actually a must, and why it must be obeyed - because God’s mercy and justice demands it.

So no, neither science nor philosophy can lead to or be the basis of a moral society/culture founded on moral individuals. Only God can do that.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
This is the final sentence in the article.

“We need to trust scientists, but we need scientists to be trustworthy.”

And for that there is no science, only good philosophy and God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top