Is Science Necessary...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh? You believe that morality is objective?

In the same sense that "nutrition" is objective: there are multiple viewpoints that are equally valid (or at least similarly valid within a reasonable range), but there are also viewpoints that are clearly wrong.

Reasonable people can have diverging views about the nuances of nutrition (e.g. how many servings of vegetables per day is optimal) while still recognizing that a diet of rocks or arsenic is not nutritious. Likewise, reasonable people can have diverging views about the nuances of moral behaviour while still recognizing that genocide is immoral.

You only need to start with a few basic, widely-accepted premises to infer a pretty robust moral system, such as:

• The object of morality is the well-being of thinking beings
• In general, we find life preferable to death, the absence of pain preferable to pain, and happiness preferable to sadness, all else being equal.

If you're actually curious, here's an (admittedly long) video with more about this approach:

From what I understand, Matt Dillahunty drew heavily from Sam Harris's arguments in The Moral Landscape, though I don't know if Dillahunty agrees with Harris on every point (and I personally haven't read the book).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In the same sense that "nutrition" is objective: there are multiple viewpoints that are equally valid (or at least similarly valid within a reasonable range), but there are also viewpoints that are clearly wrong.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe there is a core of morality that is objective, though on the periphery things get subjective. Okay let's work with that.

What is the source of this objective core morality?

 

[Stonetree]

If there is not harmony between science and religion then religion concerning the physical nature of our existence is mythology and ancient fiction not relevant to the physical nature of our existence and science,

Science has no FINAL answers...Scientific consensus is a changing progression of accepted information. If you trust science you are expressing a belief in it's methods and accuracy. None the less,you are expressing your belief. A Theist or an Atheist or even a scientist express their beliefs.For the scientist,however, the subject is generally of a physical nature and can gain consensus with objectively verifiable facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if I understand you correctly, you believe there is a core of morality that is objective, though on the periphery things get subjective. Okay let's work with that.

What is the source of this objective core morality?

I just told you what the source is:

• An acknowledgement that "morality" concerns the well-being of thinking beings (i.e. just semantics) and
• Reflection and deduction about what "well-being" means.

Now that I've answered several of your questions, I think it's time for you to answer mine that you skipped over: why would ethics or morality "belong in the religious domain" when religion is largely silent on these issues?

I mean, "God says do this and not that" with no deeper reason beyond "do what God says because he's God" is not an ethical or moral system.

 

[HonestJoe]

Don't get me wrong. I am thoroughly behind science -- it has delivered. Our lives are less painful, we have greater comfort and convenience, and we live longer directly due to science.

But science doesn't cover every element in life. Science is good for exploring the natural world. It doesn't really apply to topics such as ethics or whether anything or anyone exists outside the material world. The method simply can't empirically research such things.

I somewhat disagree with that common rhetoric.

Science as a fundamental process can be applied to anything which can be reliably observed. There is no logical limitation of science to the "natural" or "material" world. There are some practical limitations to human abilities to apply scientific methods but that is not a limitation to science in itself and is a limitation to human abilities to assess those things by any other method too. Even formally defining what you're calling "material" would require scientific process in the first place.

Science can certainly apply to aspects of concepts like ethics, such as around how our minds work and our instinctive behaviours, as well as practical elements such as determining relative levels of risk or harm from different behaviours. You certainly can't use science alone to reach definitive answers to any ethical questions but I'm not convinced we can reach definitive answers on ethical questions via any method. All we can do is understand as much about the relevant factors, recognise and accept the aspects we don't understand and reach the best rational conclusions we can as a consequence. I see no reason why science can't play a key role in that process.

 

[Audie]

Science has no FINAL answers...Scientific consensus is a changing progression of accepted information. If you trust science you are expressing a belief in it's methods and accuracy. None the less,you are expressing your belief. A Theist or an Atheist or even a scientist express their beliefs.For the scientist,however, the subject is generally of a physical nature and can gain consensus with objectively verifiable facts. Those members who kneel and pray to science and someone answers, please teach me those prayers.

Belief that science works or that
Paris is real is a wholly different thing from
Belief in something that takes Faith in
the supernatural.

Mixing them up is no help.

 

[Stonetree]

Belief that science works or that
Paris is real is a wholly different thing from
Belief in something that takes Faith in
the supernatural.

Mixing them up is no help.

I've never had a supernatural belief....Are you so absolutely certain your history and physics books are accurately teaching truth or fact? I believe the source of all energy and matter is natural.Don't you believe as I do?

 

[Audie]

I've never had a supernatural belief....Are you so absolutely certain your history and physics books are accurately teaching truth or fact? I believe the source of all energy and matter is natural.Don't you believe as I do?

I dont do absolute certainty, science doesnt do truth, and "fact" is an iffy word.

Your reply is 100% irrelevant btw

 

[metis]

All species have a genetic "pecking order" that undoubtedly helped form morality even though there are always going to be those who are different. But where religion especially is helpful is to reinforce certain sets of morals that will vary somewhat from society to society and religion to religion. In anthropology, we generally refer to "five basic institutions" all societies that we can trace have, and they are family, political, economic, education, and religion. Attempts by some to try and eradicate the latter historically have never worked out well.

 

[Audie]

All species have a genetic "pecking order" that undoubtedly helped form morality even though there are always going to be those who are different. But where religion especially is helpful is to reinforce certain sets of morals that will vary somewhat from society to society and religion to religion. In anthropology, we generally refer to "five basic institutions" all societies that we can trace have, and they are family, political, economic, education, and religion. Attempts by some to try and eradicate the latter historically have never worked out well.

Religious and political eachothers' evil twins
in practice.
As you note, morals/ ethics predate H sapiens,
as in, neither come from religion.

Rather, religions codified and then appropriated
the pre existing system, claiming origin and
authority over it.

There is an obvious aspect of self serving politics involved, the priestly classes having power and prestige.
Working with other powers, militarily / political
the people are thus controlled.
privilege .
How exactly religion is " helpful" in these regards is obscure to me.

 

[Audie]

Being so liberated and free to live,travel,study, teach and have such wealth of knowledge about the evils that communist materialism have saved you from is a real gift.

If snarky irrelevant nonsense is your thing, plz
dont respond at all.

 

[ppp]

If snarky irrelevant nonsense is your thing, plz
dont respond at all.

Absolutely. If one is going to be snarky, at least make it relevant, coherent snark.

 

[Audie]

Absolutely. If one is going to be snarky, at least make it relevant, coherent snark.

Zactly.
A skillful snark is good fun
Sloppy ones are like someone sneezing nearby.

 

[ppp]

Sloppy ones are like someone sneezing nearby.

LOLOLOL Ewwww!

 

[shunyadragon]

Science has no FINAL answers...

Science never claims to have the FINAL answers, though many diverse conflicting religions and their varieties do claim to have the FINAL answers.. All the knowledge of science is subject to change and updating with further research and discoveries.

Scientific consensus is a changing progression of accepted information. If you trust science you are expressing a belief in it's methods and accuracy. None the less,you are expressing your belief. A Theist or an Atheist or even a scientist express their beliefs.For the scientist,however, the subject is generally of a physical nature and can gain consensus with objectively verifiable facts. Those members who kneel and pray to science and someone answers, please teach me those prayers.

Actually it is not the consensus that determine the progression of accepted scientific knowledge, because it is common through history for the consensus of scientists have rejected new discoveries and advances in science at first until repeated research and discoveries confirms the new knowledge. It is the progressive knowledge through the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on the objective verifiable evidence the determines the relative certainty of the knowledge of science. Yes, science specifically ONLY falsifies theories and hypothesis concerning the physical nature of our existence.

 

[metis]

Religious and political eachothers' evil twins
in practice.
As you note, morals/ ethics predate H sapiens,
as in, neither come from religion.

Rather, religions codified and then appropriated
the pre existing system, claiming origin and
authority over it.

There is an obvious aspect of self serving politics involved, the priestly classes having power and prestige.
Working with other powers, militarily / political
the people are thus controlled.
privilege .
How exactly religion is " helpful" in these regards is obscure to me.

All religions are not the same and, yes, there's been some really bad stuff done in the name of God(s) but there's also some really good stuff as well.

 

[metis]

Being so liberated and free to live,travel,study, teach and have such wealth of knowledge about the evils that communist materialism have saved you from is a real gift.

There's also "capitalist materialism" as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I just told you what the source is:

• An acknowledgement that "morality" concerns the well-being of thinking beings (i.e. just semantics) and
• Reflection and deduction about what "well-being" means.

Now that I've answered several of your questions, I think it's time for you to answer mine that you skipped over: why would ethics or morality "belong in the religious domain" when religion is largely silent on these issues?

I mean, "God says do this and not that" with no deeper reason beyond "do what God says because he's God" is not an ethical or moral system.

You are simply begging the question. Why should the well being of other people be your concern?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are simply begging the question. Why should the well being of other people be your concern?

You've used up my willingness to answer your questions without you answering any of mine. Here it is again:

Why would ethics or morality "belong in the religious domain" when religion is largely silent on these issues?

 

[ppp]

You are simply begging the question. Why should the well being of other people be your concern?

We are social animals and the healthier and more stable our society is the better it is for us.