C
cho_pilo
Guest
Please illustrate the absurdity of posing the question above as a binary decision to compare truths of morality and of science?
Which are you more certain of, that murdering innocent babies is wrong is that the the Earth is subject to gravitational forces?
- Status
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Murdering innocent babies is always wrong, but Earth’s gravity is variable. So I am more certain of the former.
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
Seconded!
R
Rascalking
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
- All scientific propositions are based on our certainty that we are thinking.
- Science presupposes integrity.
- Scientific conclusions are provisional whereas moral principles are not!
O
OvrlapnMagstria
Guest
I just gotta point out: that link showing that Earth’s gravity is variable does not mean that Earth is not always subject to variable forces. It shows that gravity is slightly stronger in some areas than others (due to different densities, if I remember right.)
But what an unfair question! I’m really certain of both! But if you force me to pick one… I guess I’ll say I’m more certain that murdering babies is wrong - since gravitational theory could potentially be contradicted by evidence (though at this point that is extremely unlikely!)
…But then again what if there was evidence that murdering babies was OK? I can’t imagine what kind of evidence that could possibly be, and I am sure that its very far fetched. But evidence against Earth being subject to gravity is also very far fetched.
I think the absurdity of this question is mostly because of the emotional reaction any of us would have at murdering babies. Nobody would feel awful about giving up gravity, but we get a very strong reaction to baby killing. One choice is waaay easier than the other, but not for the same reasons. It’s comparing apples to oranges.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
cho
*Please illustrate the absurdity of posing the question above as a binary decision to compare truths of morality and of science? *
The degree of a truth’s certainty is not conditioned by whether it is in the moral realm or the scientific realm, so I agree with the poster who said it was like comparing apples and oranges. Both propositions are eminently certain, though both are approached by different avenues. This is another reason why scientism is not so humble a creed as it might be. There is an illusion among those dedicated to the creed that only science can achieve true certainty compared to all other avenues of knowledge. And even then, the certainty of science is only provisional. Our certainty about gravity, for example, is provisional and subject to incoming evidence; whereas our certainty about the immorality of killing innocent children is absolute.
*Please illustrate the absurdity of posing the question above as a binary decision to compare truths of morality and of science? *
The degree of a truth’s certainty is not conditioned by whether it is in the moral realm or the scientific realm, so I agree with the poster who said it was like comparing apples and oranges. Both propositions are eminently certain, though both are approached by different avenues. This is another reason why scientism is not so humble a creed as it might be. There is an illusion among those dedicated to the creed that only science can achieve true certainty compared to all other avenues of knowledge. And even then, the certainty of science is only provisional. Our certainty about gravity, for example, is provisional and subject to incoming evidence; whereas our certainty about the immorality of killing innocent children is absolute.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
But Descartes said that the only thing we can be certain of is that we are thinking.
I don’t think so. Why it is necessary to test and retest hypothesis? If it presupposes integrity we’d take people on their word.
I don’t know. Perhaps moral values shouldn’t change all the time.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
They are different kinds of knowledge so I don’t think it’s comparable. You can be just as sure of each because you know each in a different way.
T
tonyrey
Guest
But Descartes said that the only thing we can be certain of is that we are thinking.
Precisely! He was right.
Without integrity you are free to falsify the results! (And some do…)
They don’t! Values like love and respect for the rights of others never change.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
On what grounds does the questioner assert that it must be one or the other?
C
cho_pilo
Guest
So you deny that 150 years ago having skin that was darker than the average European meant you were property in the good old USA. Your owner could do pretty much anything he wanted from rape to murder with your person and you had no recourse. In more ancient history it was ok to own humans, and do anything you wanted with them.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is people not values that change. Do you think goodness and justice are merely a matter of opinion?
S
smichhertz
Guest
Fourthed!Thirdeded!
Um…I mean…I agree with the two other posters!
L
limabeanerson
Guest
I’d say I’m more certain that murdering babies is wrong.
It is possible, though unlikely, that someday down the road scientists discover that the effect which we know as gravity is actually caused by something else entirely and its relation to the size/mass of an object is just a byproduct of whatever is actually causing it, or even that items with high mass are in their locations because of whatever the actual cause of the effect we know as gravity is? Granted, quite unlikely, but possible.
Killing babies is a moral or immoral thing and we don’t get to make the rules or morality. Killing babies is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.
It is possible, though unlikely, that someday down the road scientists discover that the effect which we know as gravity is actually caused by something else entirely and its relation to the size/mass of an object is just a byproduct of whatever is actually causing it, or even that items with high mass are in their locations because of whatever the actual cause of the effect we know as gravity is? Granted, quite unlikely, but possible.
Killing babies is a moral or immoral thing and we don’t get to make the rules or morality. Killing babies is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The reason being that we have a choice whereas gravitational forces do not.
I
Ichthys4121517
Guest
This reminds me of something Richard Dawkins said, that being that he is more certain that evolution occurred than that killing is wrong. Assuming he means unjust killing, heck, even if he doesn’t, I completely disagree. It astonishes me that Dawkins thinks his faith in evolution is perfectly reasonable, but not his faith in his morals. At least the topic question deals with observational science.
Regarding the question itself, though, I’d say the same as Reepicheep (clearly a fellow C.S. Lewis fan). This kind of question is irrelevant because it’s not the right question. It’s like asking, who do you love more - your wife or your kids? That is, assuming morality is absolute, and I believe it is, because I wouldn’t base so many of my life’s decisions on arbitrary cultural standards.
Regarding the question itself, though, I’d say the same as Reepicheep (clearly a fellow C.S. Lewis fan
). This kind of question is irrelevant because it’s not the right question. It’s like asking, who do you love more - your wife or your kids? That is, assuming morality is absolute, and I believe it is, because I wouldn’t base so many of my life’s decisions on arbitrary cultural standards.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
Richard Dawkins is, as far as I can tell, a closed-minded bigot. He can believe in evolution all he wants but the way he insults those who are religious is unacceptable. He seems to take evolution to be sacrosanct and that’s not the way science is supposed to be. Honestly the man is an insult to science.
- Status