Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is amoral. When science becomes our only means of defining reality, WE become amoral. All the more-so when the scientism cultists actively attack and disparage any means we humans have of determining and enforcing morality, like philosophy and religion.

Nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nonsense.

Well, science is amoral in at least one sense.
But some people e.g. claim they can use science as per biology to do in effect objective morality. I even think we have such a member on this forum.
But I don't recall seen this member for a while.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, science is amoral in at least one sense.
But some people e.g. claim they can use science as per biology to do in effect objective morality. I even think we have such a member on this forum.
But I don't recall seen this member for a while.

I accept that science is a tool like a hammer and as such amoral, but it is the other trimmings that I find are nonsense. The definition of scientism is not anyone that accepts science or is in disagreement with a single, particular member of this forum. That incorrect definition is the one that is applied in many instances here. I agree that scientism exists, but anti-scientism (or perhaps better, reverse-scientism) seems also to exist. That application sees scientism everywhere.

No one comes to mind and I know several interested parties that have been absent for some time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept that science is a tool like a hammer and as such amoral, but it is the other trimmings that I find are nonsense. The definition of scientism is not anyone that accepts science or is in disagreement with a single, particular member of this forum. That incorrect definition is the one that is applied in many instances here. I agree that scientism exists, but anti-scientism (or perhaps better, reverse-scientism) seems also to exist. That application sees scientism everywhere.

No one comes to mind and I know several interested parties that have been absent for some time.

Yes, you might be right. I have experienced it on at least one forum, but I might get it mixed up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, science is amoral in at least one sense.
But some people e.g. claim they can use science as per biology to do in effect objective morality. I even think we have such a member on this forum.
But I don't recall seen this member for a while.

Do you think that learning new facts and accepting the scientific explanation of them makes a person amoral or immoral?

Is trying to understand the reality that we observe with recognition of our limited powers of observation and cognition really the first step into moral destruction.

The same amoral tool can kill a child in the wrong hands as well as save it in the right hands. Wouldn't it be those hands that wielding the morality in the first place?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, you might be right. I have experienced it on at least one forum, but I might get it mixed up.

I don't roam where I want to as much these days. I have looked at the content of some on other forums. My assessment is that they should stay out of science and focus on clad coinage where they seem to have had more success.

 

[PureX]

Here is an excellent example of both scientsm AND the amorality it engenders ...

"In biology, fittest means the most fecund. In economics, the fittest business is the most profitable one, as other less profitable business either just get by or close. In college applications, the fittest applicants are the ones that are accepted. I find the concept very much a description of reality ... (scientism) ... and not only harmless, but helpful" (amorality).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is an excellent example of both scientsm AND the amorality it engenders ...

"In biology, fittest means the most fecund. In economics, the fittest business is the most profitable one, as other less profitable business either just get by or close. In college applications, the fittest applicants are the ones that are accepted. I find the concept very much a description of reality ... (scientism) ... and not only harmless, but helpful" (amorality).

Whatever. Your opinion is noted. It is also noted that the judgements of humans about other humans predate modern science and biology. Often based in philosophical views during those times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does the amorality of a tool promote amorality or immorality in the user of the tool?

Or does the user of a tool use it by their own amorality and immorality to promote their personal agendas?

A hammer is very dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think that learning new facts and accepting the scientific explanation of them makes a person amoral or immoral?

Is trying to understand the reality that we observe with recognition of our limited powers of observation and cognition really the first step into moral destruction.

The same amoral tool can kill a child in the wrong hands as well as save it in the right hands. Wouldn't it be those hands that wielding the morality in the first place?

Well, part of learning science is to learn that morality as morality has no evidence. In a sense science can explain how morality works, but can't do it itself.
That can make some people into a sort of amoral version, where they claim that morality is meaningless since there is no evidence for it.

The short answer is that I went through such a phase years ago, but learned to do morality as the belief that humans have positive worth and matter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, part of learning science is to learn that morality as morality has no evidence. In a sense science can explain how morality works, but can't do it itself.
That can make some people into a sort of amoral version, where they claim that morality is meaningless since there is no evidence for it.

The short answer is that I went through such a phase years ago, but learned to do morality as the belief that humans have positive worth and matter.

Even if morality were determined to be some emergent property of biology, it still exists as a property. Those humble origins don't negate the value of it and the use it can be put to. Neither would that negate the existence of a Higher Power.

 

[gnostic]

Science is amoral. When science becomes our only means of defining reality, WE become amoral. All the more-so when the scientism cultists actively attack and disparage any means we humans have of determining and enforcing morality, like philosophy and religion.

This is BS.

excuse, the language.

Sciences do deal with morals, but not those in Natural Sciences (eg physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy & life sciences (or any biology related disciplines)), which are only concerned with studies of nature.

The study of morals is called Ethics, and Ethics falls under the Social Sciences.

Ethics overlap with other Social Sciences disciplines, such as Sociology, Anthropology, Cultural Studies, Law (eg legal ethics), Political Sciences (eg political ethics), and many others.

Natural Sciences have different scopes to sciences in Social Sciences.

For you to say that science don’t deal with morals, is wrong…you are looking at the wrong science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does the amorality of a tool promote amorality or immorality in the user of the tool?

Or does the user of a tool use it by their own amorality and immorality to promote their personal agendas?

A hammer is very dangerous in the wrong hands.

Well, according to David Hume there is no objectively wrong, thus all wrong is in effect from a given humans as understood as wrong by another human.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, part of learning science is to learn that morality as morality has no evidence.

I can't think of a particulate basis for morality that exists in the same sense that genes do for instance.

In a sense science can explain how morality works, but can't do it itself.

I agree. I think we all agree that science is a tool.

That can make some people into a sort of amoral version, where they claim that morality is meaningless since there is no evidence for it.

I'm not so certain those people are coming to their conclusions out of anything from science. That sounds like a conclusion from a mixed bag.

The short answer is that I went through such a phase years ago, but learned to do morality as the belief that humans have positive worth and matter.

I try to keep that idea alive myself. It only waivers when I engage with actual humans other than myself. But sometimes, as with our engagement, it sustains.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is BS.

excuse, the language.

Sciences do deal with morals, but not those in Natural Sciences (eg physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy & life sciences (or any biology related disciplines)), which are only concerned with studies of nature.

The study of morals is called Ethics, and Ethics falls under the Social Sciences.

Ethics overlap with other Social Sciences disciplines, such as Sociology, Anthropology, Cultural Studies, Law (eg legal ethics), Political Sciences (eg political ethics), and many others.

Natural Sciences have different scopes to sciences in Social Sciences.

For you to say that science don’t deal with morals, is wrong…you are looking at the wrong science.

@Dan From Smithville
What is social science and how does it deal with morality?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, according to David Hume there is no objectively wrong, thus all wrong is in effect from a given humans as understood as wrong by another human.

I'm currently delving into the philosophy of science, but I need to dig back into the wider field of philosophy that I used to read on more frequently. Perhaps we need more people grounded in a wider base of philosophy than a few tender egos that seem to fixate on clearly limited personal positions of philosophy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville
What is social science and how does it deal with morality?

That is a good question. Unlike some, I won't claim a vast knowledge and expertise at subjects outside my scope and provide a definitive answer in all its absolute glory.

I honestly don't know or if I do know something, it doesn't come immediately to mind.

Are psychiatry and psychology social sciences or a bridge between science and the minds of humans...and other animals? Those seek to understand who we are and establish aberrations in order to restore those with them to equilibrium.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville
What is social science and how does it deal with morality?

I just realized that it has been 40 years since I took an introductory course in sociology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville
What is social science and how does it deal with morality?

Clearly, I need a review and I'm not too proud or fragile to admit that.

 

[gnostic]

@Dan From Smithville
What is social science and how does it deal with morality?

social sciences are anything that deal with human society and social relationships between individuals or in groups.

Broadly speaking, Social Sciences deal with human behaviour, human cultures and human activities. You want to know more, then look it up. For me, I am retiring for the night, as it is late. Maybe I’ll have more to say tomorrow.