How can science help with morality?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
How can science help with morality?

What effects if any will science education have on making moral decisions?

 

Can a science education make somebody more moral?

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
What is "more moral"?

What is "more moral"?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I mean less likely to commit

I mean less likely to commit immoral actions.

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I mean

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I mean less likely to commit immoral actions.

 

immoral to WHO exactly?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. I see a slight value

Indeed. I see a slight value in applying the scientific method to the question of morality, but seeing as how morals are inescapably tied to emotion, that application can only go so far. It certainly can't produce morals that are agreed upon and enacted by all, since it has never been demonstrated that morality is anything more than a judgement of action(s) viewed through an emotional lense based upon personal experience and instinct.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What effects if any will science education have on making moral decisions? 

Can a science education make somebody more moral? 

I think science has revealed that the whole concept of morality is BS. We only really care about ourselves. There is only social and anti-social behaviors.

If you made the goal less likely to commit criminal acts and acts harmful to others, perhaps science could help develop technology, social structures, teaching methods, drugs and psychiatry to further this goal. But education alone does nothing unless it is put into action based on scientific facts.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Morality requires ideals. 

Morality requires ideals.  Science can't choose which ideals should be important to you, but it can help find ways to achieve the ideals you do choose more efficiently. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:What effects if any

 

Quote:
What effects if any will science education have on making moral decisions?

Science -- specifically psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology -- can teach us how and why systems of morality exist, what morality is, and how our brains make moral decisions.  With this information, we can more accurately assess whether or not our "gut feelings" about the morality of a particular action are likely to coincide with the probable consequences of the action.  In other words, we are better qualified to separate our gut feelings from what is "really" the right thing to do.

Without understanding the scientific reality of morality, we are pretty much left in limbo.  Do the ends justify the means?  Is it ok to hurt someone if it helps later?  Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?  While there are no absolute answers to any of these questions, we can at least look at them within the context of human nature, instead of relying on artificial platitudes and blind philosophical attempts to create moral certitude.

Quote:
Can a science education make somebody more moral?

I believe it's made me more moral.  As a simple example, I was bigoted against gays before I learned science.  When I learned that there is actually no reason to be bigoted against gays, I made the conscious decision to stop being so, and even though it took several years to deprogram myself, I can say honestly that I have pretty much completely accomplished the task.  So, yes.  I'm more moral than I used to be, and science education is directly responsible.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
What effects if any will science education have on making moral decisions?

Science -- specifically psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology -- can teach us how and why systems of morality exist, what morality is, and how our brains make moral decisions.  With this information, we can more accurately assess whether or not our "gut feelings" about the morality of a particular action are likely to coincide with the probable consequences of the action.  In other words, we are better qualified to separate our gut feelings from what is "really" the right thing to do.

Without understanding the scientific reality of morality, we are pretty much left in limbo.  Do the ends justify the means?  Is it ok to hurt someone if it helps later?  Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?  While there are no absolute answers to any of these questions, we can at least look at them within the context of human nature, instead of relying on artificial platitudes and blind philosophical attempts to create moral certitude.

Quote:
Can a science education make somebody more moral?

I believe it's made me more moral.  As a simple example, I was bigoted against gays before I learned science.  When I learned that there is actually no reason to be bigoted against gays, I made the conscious decision to stop being so, and even though it took several years to deprogram myself, I can say honestly that I have pretty much completely accomplished the task.  So, yes.  I'm more moral than I used to be, and science education is directly responsible.

 

 

 

I have noticed that with increased education and exposure to diversity, people are less bigoted.

 

I'm attributing this to fear out of ignorance, which is propagated through communities. (Often religious communities, because they seem to like to be homogenized and have a "codified morality" from a book)

 

The less homogenized the community, the more it seems to be tolerant. Although, both what you said and what I have, share things in common...namely facing someone against their beliefs and challenging them. Science does it, and being exposed to the people you hold irrational views of does it.

 

Any education that challenges your understanding of the world is likely to change your views of it.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I have

ClockCat wrote:

 

I have noticed that with increased education and exposure to diversity, people are less bigoted.

 

  I think that is an over-simplification CC.  I think the effects of simply being exposed to a different culture and/ or gaining knowledge about that culture are irrelevant regarding whether bigotry is a continued byproduct.  In certain instances the more familiar one becomes with a dissimilar group the more reasons are found to actually intensify that aversion.

  I am not suggesting that my perception of human nature necessarily invalidate your position, I am suggesting that positive effects of increased exposure is in no way a foregone conclusion and that sometimes the opposite effect is achieved.

  


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I

Hambydammit wrote:

 I believe it's made me more moral.  As a simple example, I was bigoted against gays before I learned science.  When I learned that there is actually no reason to be bigoted against gays, I made the conscious decision to stop being so, and even though it took several years to deprogram myself, I can say honestly that I have pretty much completely accomplished the task.  So, yes.  I'm more moral than I used to be, and science education is directly responsible.

But an anit-gay theist would say this example shows that science made you more immoral. So if one believes there is such a thing as morality, wouldn't it be proper to say science caused you to change what you consider moral, rather than making you more moral? Which only demonstrates that everyone's moral standard is just what convenient for themselves based on their understanding of how the world works. (i.e. morality is a BS concept)

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think absolutely yes at a number of levels

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What effects if any will science education have on making moral decisions?

 Can a science education make somebody more moral?

 

I suppose we need to define morals to some extent and for the sake of it let's go with Dan Barker's "morality means not causing unnecessary harm".

So - does a knowledge of science help us to avoid causing unnecessary harm? Of course it does.

Consider that genetics allows us to prove that the differences between races are miniscule, that we are all direct descendants of a small group of forebears and a single concestor. 

The fact we are all in fact descended from the earliest single celled creatures and all travelers on spaceship Earth is an intensely bonding reality. 

There's there's repair of the ozone hole, the banning of leaded petrol, efforts to protect endangered species, the unraveling of diseases, feeding the starving, providing clean water and whatever

else scientific endeavour allows us to achieve in the way of avoiding harm.

So can science make a moral person more moral - ergo more caring, more tolerant, more open minded, more understanding? Can it arm them to do greater good?

It's a bit of a moot point, I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

"morality means not causing unnecessary harm"

This definition fails miserably.

It fails to determine what harm is, or why harm is bad.

It fails to explain who gets to determine what is necessary or not.

Someone might consider it necessary harm and for the survival of their kids to go downtown and kill all the people wearing gang colors...

This definition is almost infinitely ambiguous.

You guys have all admitted that God exists by speaking to an objective standard of right and wrong, thank you for confirming the Bible.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
eXni

eXnihilO wrote:

"morality means not causing unnecessary harm"

This definition fails miserably.

It fails to determine what harm is, or why harm is bad.

It fails to explain who gets to determine what is necessary or not.

Someone might consider it necessary harm and for the survival of their kids to go downtown and kill all the people wearing gang colors...

This definition is almost infinitely ambiguous.

You guys have all admitted that God exists by speaking to an objective standard of right and wrong, thank you for confirming the Bible.

 

If you have a better and cleaner definition of the functionality of human morality that does not run along the lines "avoiding doing others harm in a social context" then let's hear it.

Morality is not meant to dive off into determining what harm is or why harm is bad. Nor should it determine who gets to define 'what is necessary'. That would be a doctrine.

As for killing people who pose a direct threat, that's something completely different.

The fact is, morality is personal and cultural. It is a characteristic of human social behaviour. There was morality before your lot invented god and it will be here after your god is long forgotten. 

As for us confirming the bible, given your one-eyed position eXni, some schmuck could blow you a kiss on the subway and it would "confirm the bible".

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:You guys have

eXnihilO wrote:

You guys have all admitted that God exists by speaking to an objective standard of right and wrong, thank you for confirming the Bible.

You really have no idea what we're talking about, do you? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:eXnihilO

butterbattle wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:

You guys have all admitted that God exists by speaking to an objective standard of right and wrong, thank you for confirming the Bible.

You really have no idea what we're talking about, do you? 

 

It's beautiful in a twisted way how every time he asserts that he confirms his god is false.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:"morality

eXnihilO wrote:

"morality means not causing unnecessary harm"

This definition fails miserably.

It fails to determine what harm is, or why harm is bad.

It fails to explain who gets to determine what is necessary or not.

Someone might consider it necessary harm and for the survival of their kids to go downtown and kill all the people wearing gang colors...

This definition is almost infinitely ambiguous.

You guys have all admitted that God exists by speaking to an objective standard of right and wrong, thank you for confirming the Bible.

 

Ex nihilo, ab nihilo.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:1 -

Atheistextremist wrote:

1 - If you have a better and cleaner definition of the functionality of human morality that does not run along the lines "avoiding doing others harm in a social context" then let's hear it.

2 - Morality is not meant to dive off into determining what harm is or why harm is bad. Nor should it determine who gets to define 'what is necessary'. That would be a doctrine.

3 - As for killing people who pose a direct threat, that's something completely different.

4 - The fact is, morality is personal and cultural. It is a characteristic of human social behaviour. There was morality before your lot invented god and it will be here after your god is long forgotten. 

1 - To determine what is morally right or wrong, we must consult the Word of God and see what He expects from us in those areas.

2 - You can't use the word harm with any intent to explain something without defining the term...

3 - Oh is it? What if someone mistakes you as a direct threat based on the way you look, IE: Black skin, etc.

4 - You only say that, you don't actually believe that... I think we would agree that raping children for fun is universally wrong, and if not, what an indictment of your character.

To everyone: I am only going to respond to questions and rebuttals of my statements, not opinions or ad homs.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Problem for you there. Until

Problem for you there. Until you provide acceptable evidence to defend your position, that's mostly all you're going to get, because that's all you're giving.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Cpt_pineapple

EXC wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What effects if any will science education have on making moral decisions? 

Can a science education make somebody more moral? 

I think science has revealed that the whole concept of morality is BS. We only really care about ourselves. There is only social and anti-social behaviors.

If you made the goal less likely to commit criminal acts and acts harmful to others, perhaps science could help develop technology, social structures, teaching methods, drugs and psychiatry to further this goal. But education alone does nothing unless it is put into action based on scientific facts.

 

This, pretty much.  The term morality is too ambiguous.  Parts of traditional morality are even harmed by science, like sex morality.

However, if you are just trying to ask whether or not science can make a society a better place (and define 'better') then yes, it can.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think it's important to point out to those

eXnihilO wrote:

 

1 - To determine what is morally right or wrong, we must consult the Word of God and see what He expects from us in those areas.

2 - You can't use the word harm with any intent to explain something without defining the term...

3 - Oh is it? What if someone mistakes you as a direct threat based on the way you look, IE: Black skin, etc.

4 - You only say that, you don't actually believe that... I think we would agree that raping children for fun is universally wrong, and if not, what an indictment of your character.

To everyone: I am only going to respond to questions and rebuttals of my statements, not opinions or ad homs.

 

Watching from the sidelines that eXni believes human beings are capable of only evil until they have been washed in the blood of the lamb. Until then, every good thing they do is not being done by them, but by god who

is using them as a puppet to achieve his divine purposes. Hope that makes you all feel worthwhile, folks.

*****

1: Your point is laughable. You are claiming the source of all human morality ever is the christian bible? I will not debate your point any further.

2: You can't use the word god with any intent to explain something without defining the term. And while you're at it, define spirit, too.

3: Harming others is harming others. It doesn't consider issues of mistaken identity. A definition of morality does not take into account extenuating circumstances. That would be the role of a magistrate or a jury of peers.

4. Yes I do believe it. Morality is cultural despite the fact it is bound by general social mores that are based on looking after yourself, your family, your people and by extension, all people. Consider this, eXni. Once morality ignored the environment. Once

morality ignored indigenous people and counted them as savages and brutes. Once children could be beaten furiously for their own good. Once a people could be enslaved. Once morality was the morality of the old testament. Once innocent women in their

tens of thousands were burned at the stake for witchcraft. That was in the 1600s, eXni. Who presided over the burnings? The priests. Consider that for a moment. Burned at the stake - for nothing. In some societies women are murdered for kissing a man out

of wedlock. Why don't you spend some time explaining to me the cultural and historical variations of the word morality that do not include the morality impressed on you by your upbringing in a blessed and  enlightened nation, in a blessed and enlightened age.

An age driven by the engine of secular, not biblical, morality.

 

Finally eXni - why is it that time after time, when christians discuss morality, they don't bring up bad driving or giving the wrong change, or not visiting an aging parent in the nursing home - the sorts of wrongs that fill the typical human catalogue.

No, you christians focus on the sick stuff.  What is it with the christian fixation with murder, deviant sex and rape? Your repellent conclusion to point 4 should have been left in the mucky confines of your own head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

"1: Your point is laughable. You are claiming the source of all human morality ever is the christian bible? I will not debate your point any further."

Reply: You will not because you cannot. There is no morality outside of the standard that God has set in place.

“2: You can't use the word god with any intent to explain something without defining the term. And while you're at it, define spirit, too.”

Reply: The Word of God is the very words of God himself, specifically His revelation as found in the 66 books called the Bible. Spirit is a personal term, please be more specific. For instance, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of a dead man are vastly different.

“3: Harming others is harming others. It doesn't consider issues of mistaken identity. A definition of morality does not take into account extenuating circumstances. That would be the role of a magistrate or a jury of peers.”

Reply: Why is harm bad?

“4. Morality is cultural despite the fact it is bound by general social mores that are based on looking after yourself, your family, your people and by extension, all people. “

Reply: I believe I've shown this to be false. The moral culture of Nazi Germany and the death camps that were a part of it were morally wrong, even for them and if you disagree, I’ll let that speak for itself.

“Once morality ignored the environment. Once morality ignored indigenous people and counted them as savages and brutes. Once children could be beaten furiously for their own good. Once a people could be enslaved. “

Reply: Untrue. Sinful men disregarded the standard of morality, and these things were a result.

"Once innocent women in their tens of thousands were burned at the stake for witchcraft. That was in the 1600s, eXni. Who presided over the burnings? The priests. Consider that for a moment. Burned at the stake - for nothing."

Reply: You shouldn’t even look at casualties from atheists because they outnumber Christians 1,000 to one, at least. Consider Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, Castro, etc. The Bible says not to kill so when the priest burned someone at the stake they were in direct conflict with God's commands... when the atheist dictators set up death camps there is no moral standard to violate, so they aren't going against anything except the opinions of the men, women, and children being slaughtered...

As far as I know you are about 9,850 people and 300 years off with your witch burning figures unless there is a massive list of witch-burnings that I missed, which I admit is certainly possible. I agree that if it was only 30, it would have been 30 too many. Let me know.

"In some societies women are murdered for kissing a man out of wedlock. Why don't you spend some time explaining to me the cultural and historical variations of the word morality that do not include the morality impressed on you by your upbringing in a blessed and  enlightened nation, in a blessed and enlightened age."

Reply: Morality is not subject to culture or history, it’s subject to God.

Finally eXni - why is it that time after time, when christians discuss morality, they don't bring up bad driving or giving the wrong change, or not visiting an aging parent in the nursing home - the sorts of wrongs that fill the typical human catalogue. No, you christians focus on the sick stuff.  What is it with the christian fixation with murder, deviant sex and rape? Your repellent conclusion to point 4 should have been left in the mucky confines of your own head.

Reply: With all due respect, it's hard to get anyone to admit the standards of morality until we go as far as rape and murder. We live in an incredibly relativistic world. The most recent atheist I spoke with in public even confessed that if she was raped we should not prosecute the man who did it... she would disagree with his actions, but because he wasn't objectively wrong he should not be punished... and another said we should reform the legal system to avoid allocating blame to people at all…

 You can keep that repellent conclusion in the worldview of atheism because thank God it's not compatible with His expectations...
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rape is not condemned

Rape is not condemned explicitly in the Bible. It isn't even in the 10 commandments.

You only have access to what purports to be the 'Word of God' by the writings or testimony of other mortals, who could always be mistaken or lying, or via internal experiences, which could also be mistaken, delusional, unconscious-wish fulfilment, with no way to distinguish between whatever might be a 'real' revelation and something that felt like what you imagined such a 'true' experience would feel like.

IOW, relying on the 'Word of God' opens the door to anything that 'feels right' to you within your belief context. It is far more subjective than secular morality based on our evolved empathy and instinct for cooperation which comes along with being a social species. 

So Xians have been able to burn heretics and witches, for purely imagined 'offences' against an imaginary entity.

Your belief system is built on the sand of your imagination.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:IOW,

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, relying on the 'Word of God' opens the door to anything that 'feels right' to you within your belief context. It is far more subjective than secular morality based on our evolved empathy and instinct for cooperation which comes along with being a social species. 

So Xians have been able to burn heretics and witches, for purely imagined 'offences' against an imaginary entity.

Your belief system is built on the sand of your imagination.

 

Exactly.  I mentioned this earlier, but he never addressed it.  When all you have to sort truth from fiction is your own interpretation of a single, non externally verified source, how in the world can you navigate reality?  And what could possibly make your claims any better than the rest of humanity that holds opposite beliefs for the same reason?

I don't see how a Christian can say the Muslims are all wrong, or the Mormons, or the Jews, or anyone.  They all say the exact same thing when defending their faith and the only people who believe their holy books are the people who already drank the Kool-aid.  The whole thing is incredibly circular.

Then you point this out and he says logic is circular too, which is disingenuous, or at least ignorant.  It is like he relies on logic and rational thought right up to the point where it doesn't confirm his bias, then he happily chucks it aside and embraces madness and superstition as a solution without any thought toward the consequences.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually I didn't want to argue your first point

 

eXnihilO wrote:

"1: Your point is laughable. You are claiming the source of all human morality ever is the christian bible? I will not debate your point any further."

Reply: You will not because you cannot. There is no morality outside of the standard that God has set in place.

 

because it's far too stupid to bother with. But hey. Let's alter our tack slightly. The bible as we know it is far less than 2000 years old and before this time, and long after it in remote areas, there was no access to the allegedly moral teachings it contains.

Are you saying that the milk of human kindness, that love, empathy, sympathy - and everything else we might conclude goes to making up a moral person - did not exist prior to the bible and does not exist prior to reading the bible and accepting its teaching?

Did mothers not care for their children back then? And how old do you think the earth is and how old human history? How long did humanity have to make do without morality, given morality and all the qualities of human goodness did not exist before 325, the

year the first council of nicea sat through the world's most tedious long weekend? I'm also wondering if there is no human morality, no true human sense of doing right or wrong, how it is possible to possess free will in relation to one's actions before becoming

a christian? Oh - and the rule is that the first person who brings up the nazis loses the argument.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:1 - To

eXnihilO wrote:

1 - To determine what is morally right or wrong, we must consult the Word of God and see what He expects from us in those areas.

Nup.

P1. If you would not desire to have someone visit A upon you then A is "bad".

P1a. definition of bad = having undesirable qualities.

P2. One should not do that which is bad (non-contradiction) ie ~(bad and ~bad)

Conclusion: The "golden rule" is a tautology, the most rudimentary level of logical consistency is quite sufficient to determine morality. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
What happened to the rest of

What happened to the rest of this thread?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:What happened

Eloise wrote:

What happened to the rest of this thread?

I don't notice anything missing. But then I go through so many topics I might remember it wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Eloise

Vastet wrote:
Eloise wrote:

What happened to the rest of this thread?

I don't notice anything missing. But then I go through so many topics I might remember it wrong.

Yeah there's about four posts missing, I'm sure. Two by Atheistextremist and one each from me and eXnihilo.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Maybe I said fuck once too often

 

Did I say fuck?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

I think it's clear that I've been censored for making irrefutable points Smiling They had to dispose of the context too …

 

Kidding, what a mystery.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no morality within

There is no morality within Christianity, merely demands that we follow prescriptive laws, with extreme carrot-ant-stick promises to reinforce the message. That isn't even as fair and just as modern legal systems, which have weighing of evidence, formal appeal systems, and at least nominally proportionate punishment.

There is also a serious problem with tying ethical systems to old beliefs, since even if those ethical systems have merit, they are likely to be discredited by association when the myths, such as Genesis, are shown to have no ground in reality.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no morality within Christianity, merely demands that we follow prescriptive laws, with extreme carrot-ant-stick promises to reinforce the message. That isn't even as fair and just as modern legal systems, which have weighing of evidence, formal appeal systems, and at least nominally proportionate punishment.

There is also a serious problem with tying ethical systems to old beliefs, since even if those ethical systems have merit, they are likely to be discredited by association when the myths, such as Genesis, are shown to have no ground in reality.

For the sake of anyone reading, notice how Bob appeals to (and even emphasizes) these abstract notions of 'fair' and  'just...' without an objective standard of morality you simply do not have these 'fair' and 'just' concepts.

To reinforce the truth, the standard set fourth through the Word of God and the law within are both objective, authoritative and unquestionably binding on the souls of all men, including Bob.

Bob's later appeal to a 'serious problem' also admits and presupposes a 'serious solution.' Which would an objective standard of morality rooted in an unchanging God...

I address it this way because Bob seems to have stepped beyond rational thought on this subject as he appeals to things he can't justify. (Again for those of you following any of our 'conversations.'

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh man, Bob's going to walk

Oh man, Bob's going to walk all over that one. Where the hell is my popcorn...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Science --

Hambydammit wrote:
Science -- specifically psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology -- can teach us how and why systems of morality exist, what morality is, and how our brains make moral decisions.  With this information, we can more accurately assess whether or not our "gut feelings" about the morality of a particular action are likely to coincide with the probable consequences of the action.  In other words, we are better qualified to separate our gut feelings from what is "really" the right thing to do.

Without understanding the scientific reality of morality, we are pretty much left in limbo.  Do the ends justify the means?  Is it ok to hurt someone if it helps later?  Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?  While there are no absolute answers to any of these questions, we can at least look at them within the context of human nature, instead of relying on artificial platitudes and blind philosophical attempts to create moral certitude.

I'd like to add to this as well.
As well as revealing truths about ourselves, why we have morality and why it is important to us, it also guides us on how to impliment our moral beliefs. Sometimes people with strong moral opinions feel that something is right, and people who disagree with and/or don't follow it are a threat, that stand in the way of "rightness". Having a more scientific understanding of the way people think and how we might persuade them is extremely important for both resolving conflicts and to promoting morality in general. I've started training to become a Maths teacher and there's been a lot of research on how to nurture children's responsibility in making decisions and develloping socially acceptable behaviour.

 

EXC wrote:
But an anit-gay theist would say this example shows that science made you more immoral. So if one believes there is such a thing as morality, wouldn't it be proper to say science caused you to change what you consider moral, rather than making you more moral?

Surely improving the accuracy of your moral beliefs is an important part of becoming "more moral"?

EXC wrote:
Which only demonstrates that everyone's moral standard is just what convenient for themselves based on their understanding of how the world works. (i.e. morality is a BS concept)

A bit of a hasty non-sequiter if you ask me.
You go from saying "People disagree about morality" to "Morality is just a bs concept"
Isn't another possibility that people disagree but some are right while others are wrong?
After all, people disagree about the beginning of the universe. Does that entail that any theory about how the world began is BS, just because not everyone has a perfect understanding?
 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:For the sake

eXnihilO wrote:
For the sake of anyone reading, notice how Bob appeals to (and even emphasizes) these abstract notions of 'fair' and  'just...' without an objective standard of morality you simply do not have these 'fair' and 'just' concepts.

To reinforce the truth, the standard set fourth through the Word of God and the law within are both objective, authoritative and unquestionably binding on the souls of all men, including Bob.

*yawn*

Absolute morality is not necessary for such abstract concepts nor is it even necessarily sufficient. The Bible is a compilation of religious myths that contradicts observable reality. There is no evidence for the existence "souls," and it is nonsensical considering our knowledge of neuroscience.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare