A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Montmorency]

So does atheism/secularism. So does progressivism, conservatism, environmentalism, and libertarianism. People who can be described by these "isms" very frequently have provably wrong beliefs that are part of their supporting framework. There's nothing special about religion in that regard. Religion is only special in that regard to people who are ideologically on the side of science/secularism. Religious people do the same thing--"so are descended from an ape on your mothers side or your fathers side?" etc. Picking out creationism is the intellectual equivalent of that.

Once again, you haven't shown that these -isms should be considered equal.

What's it good for besides medicine?

Humans are very centralized organisms...

And actually you are doing the apples to oranges comparison here. You can't just look at the places where people use religion to infringe on science's territory and criticize religion, you should look at where people use science to infringe on religion/humanities--as in the case of utilitarianism. Who would you rather have in congress, someone who follows Bentham or someone who follows the Bible?

Can science infringe on the humanities?

The only reason the truth about where we came from is important is so that we don't believe bogus misleading stories about it. The teaching of evolution has a very poor track record in that regard--just go listen to people talking about evolution and gender roles.

So palaeo-anthropological speculation is science?

Unwarranted contempt for those who reject parts of it.

Why is it unwarranted?

You can't gather data on some things. But you can believe you are, believe it's verified, and believe you are breaking preconceptions. Especially if you really want to do that. Laughable conclusions are very very common in psychology.

Laughable conclusions are typically attributable to the circumscribed character of the subjects. And data can be gathered on anything; the question is as to the formulation.

You've never met someone who says "the scientific consensus!" or "studies show!" when they don't know much about it? Are you seriously picking out creationism as something that makes appeals to authority?

Religion is more conducive to patriotic sequaciousness than science.

And usually the most important things aren't provable, they are about values.

Why are they important?

But superstitions like that are usually trivial.

Creationism is the equivalent of knocking on wood?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So there's matters where there are no such things as experience? Making it impossible to study it in any way? Brilliant, dear sir, brilliant.

Sure most matters in social science have no complete answer, but even density answers (aka most people react like this) is an answer. Even conflicting data is an answer. An educated guess is generally better than a random guess.

Science is to gather the available data (and determine it's accuracy) and be prepared not to draw any premature conclusions from it.

I'll take your word for it that this really happened, but even so, big deal. Professional misconduct happens in every sector.

Fraud does happen in science; especially the social sciences seem vulnerable to this. And sometimes scientists who act in good faith make mistakes or wrong assumptions. But here's the crux: nobody ever seriously argued that the scientific consensus is always right, or cast in stone.

Not a lot I suppose. What is religion good for outside giving people emotional comfort etc?

*******

I'm going to pick out these four quotes as representing the gist of it...that (1) Science is THE method, even when limited the alternative is a "random guess" (2) When we talk about Science in general we are talking about an ideal process with presumed perfect human actors--someone drawing premature conclusions is not doing science, but a religious person not being humble is being religious in the standard way(3) The errors of science are mostly fraud or mistakes by people acting in good faith, just like "every sector"--even in the social sciences (4) Everyone knows that science doesn't claim to be always right and have all the answers, so the fact that people treat it like it is is irrelevant (5) Religion is just a silly thing that gives some people emotional comfort

********

Everyone has a certain degree of religiosity, some more or much more than others. This will be present regardless of whether they are raised in a religion. Everyone is prone to dogmatism to a certain degree. Everyone has some amount of desire for a coherent world view, and will include false beliefs in it if they have to. There are saints who humbly avoided dogmatism and arrogance, and scientists who stay objective and are truly strict about limiting their conclusions. There are religious people who go by the book and atheists who go by popular science texts. Am I drawing equivalencies? No, I'm saying those atheists are worse.

Religion as a body of beliefs and doctrines is designed to give something for everyone. There are basic and oversimplified sets of rules and beliefs, and more complicated theology for those who go beyond that. There is a strong emotional component that in Christianity tends to be compassionate and humble.

Science as a method is analytical, rationalistic, and involves cumulative empirical research over time. This, as we know, gets you truth in many areas where religion would never have come close. Religious people have very often used it to make great advances, often it has been seen as a religious task. So what does it mean when people act like science and religion are opposed? Often, and this is what we are discussing here, they want to use a method that is analytical, rationalistic, and involves cumulative empirical research over time to answer the "big questions"--they want to do morality, the meaning of life, basic values, what society should be like, with that scientific method. Otherwise, who cares whether there was a big bang or god created the universe?

So now you take someone who would have been christian, who has a certain level of religiosity, dogmatism, puritanism, need for a strongly held world view and sense of morality, and you put them out in the world and tell them science is the only respectable way and they will end up crazy. You end up with a Bentham:

The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?

Is this science? Certainly not. Is it what you get when people try to use the intellectual tools of science to answer questions of morality? Very frequently. This shows up in congressmen too:

I made this lifestyle change many years ago, because I consider all life on our Earth to be sacred. As a vegan, I choose not to eat any animals or animal products.
...
It is our sense of interconnection with all living things that brings us to respect the rights of animals; to understand that animals are not to be "lower than"; that animals should not have less of a claim to existence, less of a claim to the possibility of survival, less of a claim to dignity . . . I would include advocacy of animal rights in the Department of Peace, which I have already proposed to Congress.

This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul.

We live in a country where it's understood that religion should have some separation from the state, that religious freedom is important, that we aren't going to try to make the whole country religious, and we have a basically decent religion in Christianity that has good qualities and known faults, that isn't going to change much and that people in general don't respect being used as an appeal to authority.

What we lack is a similar understanding about science. Currently the mainstream of thought in universities and in the media is dangerously deluded regarding science. To many people "studies show..." puts them in the same accepting mindset that "the bible says..." does for certain religious people. When it comes to the hard sciences, people overestimate their worth and benefit and have dreams of progress to a utopia. And when it comes to the humanities, belief in the primacy of logic and rationalism leads to utilitarianism and other cesspools, while belief in the cumulative progress leads to the belief that we can read the latest research or listen to the "top thinkers" of the time and learn what we need to know (in the way that we can about physics or chemistry), when in fact we have to work very hard, as individuals, to reach the level of the ancients. Look at modern philosophy, for example, and you can easily find statements like "It is no more wrong to slap a baby than it is to slap a horse, assuming you slap the horse hard enough".

The true study of the "big questions" must come from one's own life experience and the experience of others. It must be comprehended, you can not pick it up from simply reading words and certainly not from a statistical analysis of data. There is no substitute or shortcut. Many people today believe there is. They have an ideology that they believe in, with a few core texts (perhaps Ayn Rand). They believe in a historical narrative that makes them excessively confident in traditional patriotic ideas--or perhaps they read Howard Zinn instead. Perhaps if they aren't christian the believe in nihilism, or go for something new-agey, or take utilitarianism as true because they feel they have some need of a foundation. Often they see the world in fairly simple terms--intelligent people are pro-science and free of religious superstition, progress in society can happen just like it does in chemistry if only we could be free of tradition, and on moral issues the most modern thinkers are the best. And that's sad because that attitude contains nothing like the hard-headedness, mental asceticism, independence of mind and thirst for the truth that a good scientist has.

I don't respect people treating belief in creationism as an intellectual scarlet letter, when their motivations for doing so are rooted in an ideology that is worse than christianity. Believe me, I would be happy if fundamentalist religion decreased in this country--but only if hardcore libertarianism and various left wing ideologies died out at the same time.

But essentially, you can't be very far to the left and not think the above is nonsense

[rvg]

...This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul...

Couldn't agree more. People who put the lives of animals on par or above human lives are quite simply monsters. Their animal worship oftentimes goes hand in hand with utter contempt for humanity, and it's utterly despicable: I would refuse to shake hands with a man who would donate money to an animal shelter instead of, say, giving money to a program that feeds hungry children.

[Montmorency]

Then again, we are animals as well. Why should we give ourselves special treatment? Just because it's more conducive to widespread proliferation?

It always comes down to exceptionalism...

So what does it mean when people act like science and religion are opposed?

Frankly, PVC gives it a better treatment than you.

But essentially, you can't be very far to the left and not think the above is nonsense

So all lefties look to Science for values and moral guidance? I contest.

What we lack is a similar understanding about science.

Let this be a major point of contention between us. There is no such "understanding" concerning religion in America.

This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul.

Allow them to vent while quietly ignoring them. Tangentially, I find it interesting that I hated such individuals - as you seemingly do - most at the height of my socialist phase.

people overestimate their worth and benefit

If the hard sciences can be said to have any worth and benefit, they must be considered maximal.

to reach the level of the ancients.

Look at modern philosophy, for example, and you can easily find statements like "It is no more wrong to slap a baby than it is to slap a horse, assuming you slap the horse hard enough".

Are you sure this is not a red herring?

The true study of the "big questions" must come from one's own life experience and the experience of others.

What are these questions? Anyway, this sounds like platitudinous pop pablum to me.

the believe in nihilism

I don't see how it could be possible for a living human to believe in nihilism.

historical narrative

History is by definition a narrative. Do you stomach only chronologies? "Tell me everything or tell me nothing"?

and on moral issues the most modern thinkers are the best

It is no less simplistic to say that the most ancient thinkers are the best.

Most of what I haven't directly quoted or alluded to should check out, I suppose.

[HoreTore]

This thread has blown the absurd-o-meter.

I have Navaros-nostalgia.

[Papewaio]

IMDHO you will find some people who are not religious at all. They may or may not understand science.

Similarly there are those who are deeply religious and deep scientific thinkers.

Philosophy =/= Science

Also due to statistical limitations Social Sciences lag behind physical sciences. Until we have a mole of humans social sciences will be at a disadvantage.

=][=
Creationism, Greenpeace, PETA are all lacking in critical thinking. They appeal to literal or emotional followers, who are part of the herd animal. Broken clocks get things right occasionally, it does not mean I have to respect their poorly thought out ideas.

Georges Lemaître was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Religion is good when it is used to open up minds, it is terrible when it is used to stop thinking.

[Strike For The South]

The term gadfly comes to mind

I think I will go outside and speak to my animals

[Kralizec]

Everyone has a certain degree of religiosity, some more or much more than others. This will be present regardless of whether they are raised in a religion. Everyone is prone to dogmatism to a certain degree. Everyone has some amount of desire for a coherent world view, and will include false beliefs in it if they have to. There are saints who humbly avoided dogmatism and arrogance, and scientists who stay objective and are truly strict about limiting their conclusions. There are religious people who go by the book and atheists who go by popular science texts. Am I drawing equivalencies? No, I'm saying those atheists are worse.

Ridiculous.

(in reference to Bentham)
Is this science? Certainly not. Is it what you get when people try to use the intellectual tools of science to answer questions of morality? Very frequently. This shows up in congressmen too:

If you're going to quote Bentham from wikipedia, why did you leave out the rest?

Bentham did not object to medical experiments on animals, if the experiments had in mind a particular goal of benefit to humanity and had a reasonable chance of achieving that goal. He wrote that otherwise he had a "decided and insuperable objection" to causing pain to animals, in part because of the harmful effects such practices might have on human beings. In a letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle in March 1825, he wrote:

I never have seen, nor ever can see, any objection to the putting of dogs and other inferior animals to pain, in the way of medical experiment, when that experiment has a determinate object, beneficial to mankind, accompanied with a fair prospect of the accomplishment of it. But I have a decided and insuperable objection to the putting of them to pain without any such view. To my apprehension, every act by which, without prospect of preponderant good, pain is knowingly and willingly produced in any being whatsoever, is an act of cruelty; and, like other bad habits, the more the correspondent habit is indulged in, the stronger it grows, and the more frequently productive of its bad fruit. I am unable to comprehend how it should be, that to him to whom it is a matter of amusement to see a dog or a horse suffer, it should not be matter of like amusement to see a man suffer; seeing, as I do, how much more morality as well as intelligence, an adult quadruped of those and many other species has in him, than any biped has for some months after he has been brought into existence; nor does it appear to me how it should be, that a person to whom the production of pain, either in the one or in the other instance, is a source of amusement, would scruple to give himself that amusement when he could do so under an assurance of impunity.

This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul.

See above.

As for the actual loons who oppose experimentation on animals and feel they should be given equal rights, I'll quote you. Is this science? Certainly not. Then why bring it up?

What we lack is a similar understanding about science. Currently the mainstream of thought in universities and in the media is dangerously deluded regarding science. To many people "studies show..." puts them in the same accepting mindset that "the bible says..." does for certain religious people. When it comes to the hard sciences, people overestimate their worth and benefit and have dreams of progress to a utopia. And when it comes to the humanities, belief in the primacy of logic and rationalism leads to utilitarianism and other cesspools, while belief in the cumulative progress leads to the belief that we can read the latest research or listen to the "top thinkers" of the time and learn what we need to know (in the way that we can about physics or chemistry), when in fact we have to work very hard, as individuals, to reach the level of the ancients. Look at modern philosophy, for example, and you can easily find statements like "It is no more wrong to slap a baby than it is to slap a horse, assuming you slap the horse hard enough".

That people might not understand, not appreciate or misuse the knowledge of science doesn't detract from the validity of science itself. You can name as many people as you like who don't understand evolution yet refer to it discussions, or people who use evolution to justify social darwinism etc., but you still won't have an argument not to teach the theory of evolution in schools, much less against the theory itself.

There were also bad philosophers in ancient times, the sophists come to mind. The ancient philosophers that are now famours were a tiny minority amongst their peers.

Utilitarianism is not a cesspool just because you disagree with it.

I don't respect people treating belief in creationism as an intellectual scarlet letter, when their motivations for doing so are rooted in an ideology that is worse than christianity. Believe me, I would be happy if fundamentalist religion decreased in this country--but only if hardcore libertarianism and various left wing ideologies died out at the same time.

Are you a creationist?

If no, then why do you go to such lengths to defend it?

But essentially, you can't be very far to the left and not think the above is nonsense

Probably not.

However you don't have to be very far to the left, or left of the center at all, in order to think that it's nonsense.

[Ironside]

So, short version. Some people need the safety of religion to feel safe in their moral compass. True. Some can't even comprehend something else.
Now, the problem is the following. Do the same defense for Hinduism and it's caste system as you're doing with Christianity. Not even Christianity can fully agree on what's right.

Philosophy isn't science. They've been contradicting eachother for centuries for example (why Aristoteles was the big man for centuries, despite being testably wrong), but it does touch the thing you're after. It's a lot about values. Basically if I read you right, you're blaming science for the loss of a coherant belief system about values, aka religion, causing confusion for many people. Some points there, but the determinism in Calvinism and the chosen one attitude in Jehova's vitness are examples of different value systems within the same religion.

So religions can't protect values either (the Bible was used to justify slavery and also to abolish it). So instead you're stuck with several ethical frameworks to work from. How to determine which one to use? First, establish the goal (not science), then use experience and data (aka science) to see how to come closest to the goal by using reasonable methods and working from what you got (humans are different and flawed, that needs to be taken into account).

Is this related to Creationism? Not really. There's no fundamental contradiction between evolution and the Bible. And it's not about ethics. You talk about religion vs science? This is the case where a small religious group charges in and screams: I challenge you science, with my beliefs!!

Short note on extreme animal rights activists. They often seem to conflate animals with children and innocence. That's what causing the compass to go a bit out of whack. Most of them (animal activists) are simply empathic for the animals and do not want to cause needless suffering.

The true study of the "big questions" must come from one's own life experience and the experience of others. It must be comprehended, you can not pick it up from simply reading words and certainly not from a statistical analysis of data. There is no substitute or shortcut. Many people today believe there is.

Certainly. The problem shows up in the experience of others (and yourself, but that's another matter). Very few will meet and fully experience enough people to be well rounded on the "big questions", so you have to take that short cut of reading words and data. The comprehension is less than the full experince, but it will still be helpful.

[HoreTore]

Couldn't agree more. People who put the lives of animals on par or above human lives are quite simply monsters. Their animal worship oftentimes goes hand in hand with utter contempt for humanity, and it's utterly despicable: I would refuse to shake hands with a man who would donate money to an animal shelter instead of, say, giving money to a program that feeds hungry children.

So....

Dog owners are evil and despicable? There are plenty of hungry kids in the world, yet they spend their money on dogfood instead of the kids?

I doubt you'll have many chances to refuse a handshake, I sincerely doubt many people are willing to shake hands with someone who spews such drivel.

[rvg]

So....

Dog owners are evil and despicable? There are plenty of hungry kids in the world, yet they spend their money on dogfood instead of the kids?

You said it, not I.

[Beskar]

I give money to the RSPCA and I also give money to Oxfam.

Animals do have rights, they have the right not to be tortured and exploited. If you adopt the religious caretaker approach, God gave you the mandate to look after the world, not house animals in disgusting conditions to rot, suffer and cause misery. Basic rights to animals is essential basis of a moral society.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So all lefties look to Science for values and moral guidance? I contest.

Me too.

They look to a secular culture that believes in a certain way of determining values. It inherited many ideas from christianity. Many of them still have religion in some form. But it seems like pseudo-science about the effect of buddhist meditation on the mind is a-ok with the supposedly pro-science people...

Let this be a major point of contention between us. There is no such "understanding" concerning religion in America.

There is enough of an understanding.

What are these questions? Anyway, this sounds like platitudinous pop pablum to me.

Sure. It's a platitude because it would be very difficult to really describe in words. That's part of the point.

History is by definition a narrative. Do you stomach only chronologies? "Tell me everything or tell me nothing"?

That's not true about history. It's too complex to simplify into a narrative (define roughly as a story simple enough for you to explain it verbally and have someone understand it). That's why historical narratives end up saying things like "and then Rome fell, and Europe was plunged into the dark ages".

It is no less simplistic to say that the most ancient thinkers are the best.

I don't say that. Seneca is good but so is Eric Hoffer.

A large part of what such thinkers have to deal with was the same then as it is now. There hasn't been fundamental progress in understanding, say, when should we be selfless, how selfless to be, and how to cultivate it as a virtue.

Other questions are circumstantial to the times and involve the adaptations people have had to make to changes in the world. So there is an important place for modern thinkers, but older thinkers are crucial as well--not only because there is a very limited number of great thinkers, but because they dealt with some things honestly that we lie about, and they had some things right that we have wrong.

If you're going to quote Bentham from wikipedia, why did you leave out the rest?
See above.

As for the actual loons who oppose experimentation on animals and feel they should be given equal rights, I'll quote you. Is this science? Certainly not. Then why bring it up?

That people might not understand, not appreciate or misuse the knowledge of science doesn't detract from the validity of science itself. You can name as many people as you like who don't understand evolution yet refer to it discussions, or people who use evolution to justify social darwinism etc., but you still won't have an argument not to teach the theory of evolution in schools, much less against the theory itself.

Yes, and I could say the same about religion--people who misuse it etc.

But the validity of science is restricted to a very small area.

We are arguing about the misuse of it--one case is equal rights for animals, which you rightly call loony, but there are many others.

Are you a creationist?

If no, then why do you go to such lengths to defend it?

Defense can be a good method of offense.

So, short version. Some people need the safety of religion to feel safe in their moral compass. True. Some can't even comprehend something else.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive, and can't comprehend anything else. You don't think this is bad, it's something you'd praise about a moral compass?

Now, the problem is the following. Do the same defense for Hinduism and it's caste system as you're doing with Christianity. Not even Christianity can fully agree on what's right.

Philosophy isn't science. They've been contradicting eachother for centuries for example (why Aristoteles was the big man for centuries, despite being testably wrong), but it does touch the thing you're after. It's a lot about values. Basically if I read you right, you're blaming science for the loss of a coherant belief system about values, aka religion, causing confusion for many people. Some points there, but the determinism in Calvinism and the chosen one attitude in Jehova's vitness are examples of different value systems within the same religion.

So religions can't protect values either (the Bible was used to justify slavery and also to abolish it). So instead you're stuck with several ethical frameworks to work from. How to determine which one to use?

I wouldn't say that science has done that, it's more like a secular culture that need not have existed at the same time as secular advances. But I'm not talking about loss of religion in slums.

Religious people have adjusted and changed their beliefs practically continuously, for all they are accused of being dogmatic. God and inspiration have usually been seen as a higher authority than bible doctrine--when you bring up the different sects you support that.

The bible was used to justify slavery, as was science, but it was largely evangelism that ended slavery (in the us/uk).

If you want to justify a vice, it's easy to rationalize or misuse science. You can take some theory as true, or some absurd premise as true, and be confident that you have built logically on top of that. People who want to justify vice don't usually become satanists.

Moral and other big questions are usually deeply passionate. But science is supposed to be dispassionate. To science nothing is sacred. But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.

First, establish the goal (not science), then use experience and data (aka science) to see how to come closest to the goal by using reasonable methods and working from what you got (humans are different and flawed, that needs to be taken into account).

Certainly. The problem shows up in the experience of others (and yourself, but that's another matter). Very few will meet and fully experience enough people to be well rounded on the "big questions", so you have to take that short cut of reading words and data. The comprehension is less than the full experince, but it will still be helpful.

It will only be helpful if it's right. And if there isn't widespread comprehension, how will the truth spread over society?

Using science or a data driven approach to find the answer to the big questions doesn't work. Neither does the overly rational and logical approach. As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.


If it's very difficult to truly grasp the big questions then we should avoid everything that tends to fool us into thinking we have the answers. It's absurd to pick out creationists as a special kind of dogmatic and then (essentially) praise college kids going off of what their professor tells them about the latest psychology study. I don't know how it is in Sweden, but in America the people who don't go off of tradition or religion simply turn to some other authority--they are the ones who quote from newspapers admiringly, who speak the names of 20th century philosophers and artists reverently, the ones who say "studies show that people...".

[Montmorency]

That's not true about history. It's too complex to simplify into a narrative (define roughly as a story simple enough for you to explain it verbally and have someone understand it). That's why historical narratives end up saying things like "and then Rome fell, and Europe was plunged into the dark ages".

Chronology is complex. History is about simplifying chronology into a comprehensible narrative. I notice you picked a very simplistic and discredited narrative, anyway.

There is enough of an understanding.

Then it is simply prejudice against science which you proselytize. Religion in America very clearly has an ideological upper hand.

A large part of what such thinkers have to deal with was the same then as it is now.

For how much longer?

Other questions are circumstantial to the times and involve the adaptations people have had to make to changes in the world. So there is an important place for modern thinkers, but older thinkers are crucial as well--not only because there is a very limited number of great thinkers, but because they dealt with some things honestly that we lie about, and they had some things right that we have wrong.

Perhaps you relate to the moral conclusions of the greats, I don't know. I think that's silly, but we'll leave it aside. How can you see their non-moral philosophy, on the other hand, as having any worth at all? At least, I hope you don't.

Defense can be a good method of offense.

The attacker has the advantage of choosing the point of concentration, unless the defender has extensive reserves and excellent intelligence - this has up to now not usually been the case.

Yes, and I could say the same about religion--people who misuse it

This is crucial. It is impossible to misuse religion; it is possible to misuse a particular fixed doctrine, but religion is whatever one wants it to be. Science, however, at least within a particular historical context, can indeed be misused - that is, misapplied.

We are arguing about the misuse of it

But you aren't referring to the misuse of science - you are referring to the derivation of inappropriate - as you see it - conclusions from scientific data. This is quite an important distinction.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive

You don't believe your moral compass is rational and logically coherent or consistent? I've never heard that one before. Unusual. Does that explain your strange beliefs?

But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.

Done. Easy.

As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.

They presumably try to investigate particular aspects of the courtship ritual. What's wrong with that? Ethology can be applied to humans just as well as to chimps...

[a completely inoffensive name]

So you are basically saying that for many pro-science individuals, aggregate data has become their god, and the new commandments are whatever interpretation they can find of the data that makes them feel comfortable. And this is dangerous because data and science in general has an authority that religion no longer holds in modern society. People think it is obvious that there is no true reading of the bible, only competing opinions but mathematical tools are somehow impartial and foolproof in showing us the truth. Thus the pro-science people are more dangerous?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Chronology is complex. History is about simplifying chronology into a comprehensible narrative. I notice you picked a very simplistic and discredited narrative, anyway.

Believed for many years, still widespread, still argued for by some people. Simplistic narratives can be discredited but not replaced by a good narrative.

Anyway, history is about much more than even the attempts at creating a comprehensible narrative.

Then it is simply prejudice against science which you proselytize. Religion in America very clearly has an ideological upper hand.

Disagree.

For how much longer?

Perhaps you relate to the moral conclusions of the greats, I don't know. I think that's silly, but we'll leave it aside. How can you see their non-moral philosophy, on the other hand, as having any worth at all? At least, I hope you don't.

Most of non moral philosophy never had any worth to begin with.

Some things like parts of political philosophy change with time because we have a different situation now then we did then.

This is crucial. It is impossible to misuse religion; it is possible to misuse a particular fixed doctrine, but religion is whatever one wants it to be.

No it isn't...

But you aren't referring to the misuse of science - you are referring to the derivation of inappropriate - as you see it - conclusions from scientific data.

Not really. It's about considering things as scientific data that aren't as well, and about whole areas where science shouldn't be considered relevant.

The whole concept of science vs religion is bizarre in that regard--the implication that science is more than a minor method that is mostly about being useful.

You don't believe your moral compass is rational and logically coherent or consistent? I've never heard that one before. Unusual. Does that explain your strange beliefs?

eh...your moral beliefs are rational and consistent? That's not good.

You would have to simplify, distort, twist, overreach, and place too much stock in principles for that to be the case. And how do you decide on the premises you take as true anyway?

They presumably try to investigate particular aspects of the courtship ritual. What's wrong with that? Ethology can be applied to humans just as well as to chimps...

Yes...yes indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbrGgiJCt5c

[Ironside]

Defense can be a good method of offense.

When your enemy's enemy isn't your friend, pick your battles carefully. Results of victory may vary.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive, and can't comprehend anything else. You don't think this is bad, it's something you'd praise about a moral compass?

I was refering to those who say that atheists can't be moral because any ethics they come up with doesn't have a divine mandate. The reverse attacks what they find as silly supersticions, but treat the ethics as a seperate issue.

I wouldn't say that science has done that, it's more like a secular culture that need not have existed at the same time as secular advances. But I'm not talking about loss of religion in slums.

Religious people have adjusted and changed their beliefs practically continuously, for all they are accused of being dogmatic. God and inspiration have usually been seen as a higher authority than bible doctrine--when you bring up the different sects you support that.

The bible was used to justify slavery, as was science, but it was largely evangelism that ended slavery (in the us/uk).

It's rather a consequence of the church having the highest authority on natural science for a very long time. Now the problem with bringing the old religions back on a massive scale is that it's not consitant enough to sustain without massive indoctrination, obfuscation and suppression nowadays. And you still will have faithless people. Yay!!
See, saying this is bad is a call for introspection, which is somewhat built in the system in the case of science. Saying anything more needs to give a practical alternative.

If you want to justify a vice, it's easy to rationalize or misuse science. You can take some theory as true, or some absurd premise as true, and be confident that you have built logically on top of that. People who want to justify vice don't usually become satanists.

Some do become satanists, some use the Bible. See point above, any system is easy to misuse.

Moral and other big questions are usually deeply passionate. But science is supposed to be dispassionate. To science nothing is sacred. But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.

Not familiar with any religion outside Christianity I take it? Human sacrifice, the Bible dumped that but have God doing and demanding genocides, Hinduism etc, etc. Man that was hard to imagine. Yes, the ethics has improved, but that's not something religion can celebrate (Christianity has been better than most on this matter though).
Science is a tool. Moral philosophy is moral philosophy. You can use the tool to help your moral philosophy, but that's about it.

It will only be helpful if it's right. And if there isn't widespread comprehension, how will the truth spread over society?

Using science or a data driven approach to find the answer to the big questions doesn't work. Neither does the overly rational and logical approach. As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.

That's a nice one. Science and logic are not anywhere close to replace the real thing, but it'll help to filter out wich one of the tips you picked up from media, family and friends that's actually useful (and that's not counting that those tips are science in a broader way, since it's data gatering). There's thousands of situations that you might experience or not, where science can be a helpful starting point. There's also many situations were you'll have to pick the girl without dating them first, so to speak. How does Sasaki do it then?

If it's very difficult to truly grasp the big questions then we should avoid everything that tends to fool us into thinking we have the answers. It's absurd to pick out creationists as a special kind of dogmatic and then (essentially) praise college kids going off of what their professor tells them about the latest psychology study.

Because coming up with the idea 200 years ago, that a 2000-year old book should be taken as the literal truth (except when it doesn't), sounds reasonable? And the main difference is yet this: According to the principles of science, the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest scientific study as gospel. According to the principles of "science" based from fundamentalism, the college kid is doing it perfectly correct if he's taking creationism as gospel.

I don't know how it is in Sweden, but in America the people who don't go off of tradition or religion simply turn to some other authority--they are the ones who quote from newspapers admiringly, who speak the names of 20th century philosophers and artists reverently, the ones who say "studies show that people...".

Interesting, that might actually be a discussion difference if that's common in the US. Authority refencing isn't that common here, unless it's really needed.

Anyway:
Tradition: ...Right, the big questions, we solved those ages ago, the answer was... Look a big wizard in the sky! "Runs away."
Religion: We've been thinking about this a lot and the answer is... The big wizard in the sky did it, using diamonds!
Science: The big wizard in the sky holds all the answers? Amazing! Do we have any real, useful data on him? No? Booring! Wake me up when you do.
Scientists: It would be really cool to know all the answers that the big wizard in the sky is supposed to know. Let's try! Even if we fail we might learn something.
"Moral" philosopher: The big wizard doesn't exist so we can make up what we want.
Moral philosopher: Let's try to generalize the best ideas the big wizard is supposed to have, mix it and see if we can get a better standard.

There are no clear answers on the big questions, that's part of why they're big. And any tool is flawed. But more information is always helpful and in sometimes it can even give an almost full answer.

[Montmorency]

No it isn't...

I'll clarify: I mentioned doctrine, which is basically most organized religion. It can be misused in both senses of the word: misapplied and mispurposed. Science - the scientific method - can be both misapplied and mispurposed as well. Personal religion, or spirituality, however, can not be misapplied - it is too nebulous and idiosyncratic.

Not really. It's about considering things as scientific data that aren't as well, and about whole areas where science shouldn't be considered relevant.

The whole concept of science vs religion is bizarre in that regard--the implication that science is more than a minor method that is mostly about being useful.

Why should religion be granted more prestige or authority?

I find it strange that you so easily ignore all the great ethical dilemmas generated by the fruits of science.

eh...your moral beliefs are rational and consistent? That's not good.

Your moral beliefs are not consistent? They seem consistent to me. You seem to be applying rational principles, or what is usually deemed rational: "This is harmful, so I should attempt to mitigate its expression."

I think you have everything backwards from the usual manner.

too much stock in principles for that to be the case.

'Presidential debates are not about facts, they're about principles'. You evidently hold many principles. What are you on about?

You would have to simplify, distort, twist, overreach

Can you give an example?

And how do you decide on the premises you take as true anyway?

How do you? You're the biggest moralist in the forum!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's a nice one. Science and logic are not anywhere close to replace the real thing, but it'll help to filter out wich one of the tips you picked up from media, family and friends that's actually useful (and that's not counting that those tips are science in a broader way, since it's data gatering). There's thousands of situations that you might experience or not, where science can be a helpful starting point. There's also many situations were you'll have to pick the girl without dating them first, so to speak. How does Sasaki do it then?

Science is good because it helps you filter out all the bad science? That's an argument for understanding science and statistics and how psychological studies are done, sure. But not an argument in favor of the studies themselves.

Because coming up with the idea 200 years ago, that a 2000-year old book should be taken as the literal truth (except when it doesn't), sounds reasonable? And the main difference is yet this: According to the principles of science, the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest scientific study as gospel. According to the principles of "science" based from fundamentalism, the college kid is doing it perfectly correct if he's taking creationism as gospel.

This is great for, say, chemistry. But if you are going the "big questions", it is no longer significant praise of the principles of science to say that according to them the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest study as gospel. Because in that case, according to the principles of science, we should limit our beliefs in accordance with the scientific evidence--and therefore, if we lack scientific evidence that something is good or bad we should not venture too far in saying it is. This mindset often leads straight to naturalism--"people naturally do x, so what we say about it is that it's not really bad".

In other words, the only reason the principles of science are so inherently undogmatic is because science should rightfully be limited to a small area.

Needless to say, scientists and religious people have similar attitudes towards people who accept as gospel certain moral principles that they think are true and important.

Anyway:
Tradition: ...Right, the big questions, we solved those ages ago, the answer was... Look a big wizard in the sky! "Runs away."
Religion: We've been thinking about this a lot and the answer is... The big wizard in the sky did it, using diamonds!
Science: The big wizard in the sky holds all the answers? Amazing! Do we have any real, useful data on him? No? Booring! Wake me up when you do.
Scientists: It would be really cool to know all the answers that the big wizard in the sky is supposed to know. Let's try! Even if we fail we might learn something.
"Moral" philosopher: The big wizard doesn't exist so we can make up what we want.
Moral philosopher: Let's try to generalize the best ideas the big wizard is supposed to have, mix it and see if we can get a better standard.

???

I think it's really hard to summarize these things and not be goofy but can't we do better than that?

Tradition: old people have had more time on this earth, they have seen and experienced more...I remember being dumb when I was younger, I know better about stuff now, I expect to mature as I get older, so I expect some old people to be smarter than me...things that generation after generation have supported have some truth in them

Religion: I feel this strongly by intuition, I had an epiphany, the world is a beautiful place/the sun god will kill us all oh ****, I feel physical disgust when people are dishonest/eat random innocuous foods sometimes even though no harm comes to it, some people are more like animals and that's bad, some people seem somehow pure and more divine, we should emulate them and respect them/build giant statues made of gold in their honor

Scientists: this herb does seem to help cure this disease, but there is nothing in it that has that effect, it is peoples belief in the herb that cures them. Therefore irrational beliefs can be good. But perhaps if we experiment with other herbs we will find one that works better

Good moral philosopher: After much experience of life and thinking and learning from others I have come to understand some things, which I will try to express in a way that will hopefully be helpful to others, perhaps by writing them down in the form of letters to my nephew

Rationalist moral philosopher: When asked whether they would divert a trolley that was on track to kill 5 people on to a track that would only kill one person, most people said that they would divert the trolley, thus showing that they have at least some support for utilitarianism. However, they refuse to consider chucking a fat guy in front of the trolley to divert it. The masses (unlike we moral philosophers) are inconsistent and confused in their moral thinking

"Continental" moral philosopher: This other philosophy is too boring, I don't want to be a boring person, so I will express things in an exciting way with lots of flourishes and work real hard to make it kind of obscure so that people can't figure out exactly what I'm saying and then see how wacky it is

There are no clear answers on the big questions, that's part of why they're big. And any tool is flawed. But more information is always helpful and in sometimes it can even give an almost full answer

Sometimes in psychology the randomly select a group of people and do something experimental and analyze the results.

Other times they do case studies and just try to understand people...similar to how we do things in our regular lives. If you don't respect the first, but respect the second which you still think of as science then we don't disagree in this regard...

I'll clarify: I mentioned doctrine, which is basically most organized religion. It can be misused in both senses of the word: misapplied and mispurposed. Science - the scientific method - can be both misapplied and mispurposed as well. Personal religion, or spirituality, however, can not be misapplied - it is too nebulous and idiosyncratic.

Ok, I agree, and I think I talked about this in my 2nd bit above to ironside.

But I also think that people have personal religions that we can see will not lost given other realities about the world and their personality.

Why should religion be granted more prestige or authority?

It shouldn't. But we should understand that we cannot take passion and emotion out of our thinking about moral questions. When we understand that, religion is changed from something to be scorned to something that is interesting.

I find it strange that you so easily ignore all the great ethical dilemmas generated by the fruits of science.

I said that some new philosophy is needed as the world changes. But I'm curious what you mean here. Gattaca type stuff?

Your moral beliefs are not consistent? They seem consistent to me. You seem to be applying rational principles, or what is usually deemed rational: "This is harmful, so I should attempt to mitigate its expression."

They aren't consistent.

This is like saying my social beliefs are consistent because I generally interact with people the same way and thinking I must be applying rational principles therefore. But if I actually tried to state any rational social principles I had I would come up with something that wasn't true or that was trivially true.

I think you have everything backwards from the usual manner.

backwards is forwards as we would know if we didn't bow down before the dogmatic authority of linguists

'Presidential debates are not about facts, they're about principles'. You evidently hold many principles. What are you on about?

Well, let's say Mitt Romney has a principle that "america shouldn't apologize for her values". The debate would be about that more than about specifics. But my pointing that out doesn't mean I have much respect for taking that principle as a starting point.

I don't object entirely to attempts to take a stab at explaining something by stating a principle. But principles are usually considered to be more than that-- "I'm a principled person" etc.

Can you give an example?

Lying and honesty...but I'm not sure what to say if you can't see how complicated moral judgments are in that regard. What's the definition of lying? Many people disagree. How do you judge how bad it is that someone said something untrue? There's a lot going on.

Philosophical debates on the subject are usually either simplistic and wrong or absurdly laborious.

How do you? You're the biggest moralist in the forum!

I don't decide on premises. I'm influenced by what I see, read, hear, etc and my thoughts about it and my attempts to express it. Then when I come into contact with a situation I react to it in a way that relates to my previous experiences/thoughts/feelings. So does everyone by the way, it's just that some people have intuitions but also notice that the situation matches up to a principle they heard of, and go by that principle.

Which is not necessarily bad--in fact the real point of having cut and dry moral principles like that is to counter weakness and vice that will otherwise have much more wriggle room. But that's another issue.

If I'm the biggest moralist it's because I treat a disgusted reaction I have to something as morally significant, and say something, instead of asking myself whether "the harm principle" is involved or whatever...


****************

Anyway, going back the OP and the different reactions people have to creationists.

Let's say that you were someone who believed in a fairly moderate view of abortion. First trimester, or something. And it was clear to you that there was no way that first trimester abortion was going to be made illegal in your country. But, there was a strong movement in favor of "until birth", and the arguments and mindset of the people arguing for it gave you no reason to believe that these people wouldn't extend their support to infanticide. And lets say these people often avoided making a decent and comprehensive case for their own belief and mocked the position of the "life begins at conception" religious believers instead. Wouldn't you be put off by them doing that?

That doesn't describe me in the case of abortion, but you understand if its expanded to a general disagreement, yes?

[Montmorency]

backwards is forwards as we would know if we didn't bow down before the dogmatic authority of linguists

Pass the bong, Jimmy.

Gattaca type stuff?

Think back to the neuroscience crypticism. I believe we covered Gattaca in another thread.

as the world changes

Evolution, auto-evolution, etc. It's not just the world that is changing.

They aren't consistent.

This is like saying my social beliefs are consistent because I generally interact with people the same way and thinking I must be applying rational principles therefore. But if I actually tried to state any rational social principles I had I would come up with something that wasn't true or that was trivially true.

I don't decide on premises. I'm influenced by what I see, read, hear, etc and my thoughts about it and my attempts to express it. Then when I come into contact with a situation I react to it in a way that relates to my previous experiences/thoughts/feelings. So does everyone by the way, it's just that some people have intuitions but also notice that the situation matches up to a principle they heard of, and go by that principle.

Well, that technically is a principle. Not a moral principle, perhaps, but a behavioral one. It's certainly a broadly consistent behavioral pattern.

But, there was a strong movement in favor of "until birth", and the arguments and mindset of the people arguing for it gave you no reason to believe that these people wouldn't extend their support to infanticide. And lets say these people often avoided making a decent and comprehensive case for their own belief and mocked the position of the "life begins at conception" religious believers instead. Wouldn't you be put off by them doing that?

The opposite is fairly common. But the "extend their support to infanticide" bit is redundant, as 3rd-trimester abortion would already be infanticide to such an individual.

[Papewaio]

Entropy not linguistics determines that backwards does not always equal forwards.

It helps with the historical narrative that entropy makes reversing nigh on impossible.

Now the assumption is that religion is more moral then no religion.

I would contend that literacy has a greater impact on human rights then any particular religion.

200 years ago as England tipped the 50% literacy rate the age of Enlightenment was stirring in the Western world.

Christainty had an 1800 year head start to get rid of slavery, imbue equal rights to woman and a host of other rights. It wasn't religion of any sort it was widespread literacy that improved humanity. The printing press, books, newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, google, Facebook and Twitter... Literacy and communication has tamed the wild beasts that are us humans.

Thousands of years of slavery, child abuse , inequality, animal abuse, torture and murder. Not stopped by religion of any form, instead held at bay by the ability to read and write about our fellow man.

[Strike For The South]

Entropy not linguistics determines that backwards does not always equal forwards.

It helps with the historical narrative that entropy makes reversing nigh on impossible.

Now the assumption is that religion is more moral then no religion.

I would contend that literacy has a greater impact on human rights then any particular religion.

200 years ago as England tipped the 50% literacy rate the age of Enlightenment was stirring in the Western world.

Christainty had an 1800 year head start to get rid of slavery, imbue equal rights to woman and a host of other rights. It wasn't religion of any sort it was widespread literacy that improved humanity. The printing press, books, newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, google, Facebook and Twitter... Literacy and communication has tamed the wild beasts that are us humans.

Thousands of years of slavery, child abuse , inequality, animal abuse, torture and murder. Not stopped by religion of any form, instead held at bay by the ability to read and write about our fellow man.

This same enlightenment allowed the industrialize killings of the holocaust and the weaponization of the atom.

The written word has been used to draw lines in the sand more often than not.

Progress is an illusion

[Papewaio]

Statistics say otherwise.

Even rolling in the world wars a 20th century human has less chance of dying by murder then one in the 19th century. Go back eight hundred years and the chance of such murder goes down by an order of magnitude.

Progress is pretty easy to point to when the sheer number of retired people is so large that the western economies are barely able to cope with such an unprecedented number of people living so long.

Show me a Roman Emperor who ate chocolate, drank coffee, ate pizza, flew in an airplane, used the Internet, had access to antibiotics. Then you might have a point that there is no progress.

[Strike For The South]

I didn't say there wasn't any

I said it was an illusion

[ICantSpellDawg]

I didn't say there wasn't any

I said it was an illusion

Nonsense, c'mon. It is an objective fact that time progresses and new technology is discovered that provides new potential for the human race. Are you a surrealist now? I disagree with Pape's assertions, but not that there has been objective progress that is not illusory unless everything is.

[Ironside]

Science is good because it helps you filter out all the bad science? That's an argument for understanding science and statistics and how psychological studies are done, sure. But not an argument in favor of the studies themselves.

Nah, alternatives are making theories by yourself (hardwired popular, but leads often wrong), go only on your own experience (insufficient), or going by "common sense", which can be summarized as all the experience you've picked up. So it's usually the best by those options, but since you have media with its false data and insufficient data from friends and family, you'll need something more as well.

Ever done a good psychology test (there's planty of bad ones though)? It'll go something like this on the points: Lol totally wrong. Wrong, but I can see how you got there. Correctish. So true. Man, I would never have come up with it, but everyone agrees it's an excellent fit, including me in retrospect. The last part is really hard to get otherwise.

This is great for, say, chemistry. But if you are going the "big questions", it is no longer significant praise of the principles of science to say that according to them the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest study as gospel. Because in that case, according to the principles of science, we should limit our beliefs in accordance with the scientific evidence--and therefore, if we lack scientific evidence that something is good or bad we should not venture too far in saying it is. This mindset often leads straight to naturalism--"people naturally do x, so what we say about it is that it's not really bad".

In other words, the only reason the principles of science are so inherently undogmatic is because science should rightfully be limited to a small area.

Needless to say, scientists and religious people have similar attitudes towards people who accept as gospel certain moral principles that they think are true and important.

You're not familiar with advanced chemistry and biochemistry I take it? Those got areas worse than social science when it comes to vagueness. Statistics are the only thing that works, maybe.

I'm going to put it this way. Have some of the big questions changed because of science? Yes, well rather thanks of the knowledge gathered by science. If that's the case, what does rejecting science tells us?

???

I think it's really hard to summarize these things and not be goofy but can't we do better than that?

It was probably a bit missed when I went on with the goofy list, but the original point was that traditions don't really have an answer to the big questions, they rather fumbled together something and since it's traditions, that's how it works.

Religion are dealing with the big questions, but often falls back to that the gods did it. And since the gods did it according to my interpretation, I'm really right on the matter.

So no method is really equiped for it, partially because some depends on your values and people will have different values.
Will that authority searching person change with any system? No, so why bother picking him up as science is bad? He would be as bad in the other systems as well.

Sometimes in psychology the randomly select a group of people and do something experimental and analyze the results.

Other times they do case studies and just try to understand people...similar to how we do things in our regular lives. If you don't respect the first, but respect the second which you still think of as science then we don't disagree in this regard...

Both are useful. The first is good for extreme situations and to understand single or a few factors, the second one provides interactions and context. Take neurology for example, without shutting down braincenters, you'll never understand how they work and are linked together, yet on a normal person they're all (somewhat) functional. This have a massive influence in understanding human psychology.

Let's say that you were someone who believed in a fairly moderate view of abortion. First trimester, or something. And it was clear to you that there was no way that first trimester abortion was going to be made illegal in your country. But, there was a strong movement in favor of "until birth", and the arguments and mindset of the people arguing for it gave you no reason to believe that these people wouldn't extend their support to infanticide. And lets say these people often avoided making a decent and comprehensive case for their own belief and mocked the position of the "life begins at conception" religious believers instead. Wouldn't you be put off by them doing that?

In your example, you're allying yourself with the "abortion after conception is murder and deserves the death penalty"-crowd. Pick your battles.

Pape, while I agree that literacy and communication certainly have helped, it's a multitude of factors behind the lesser violence.

[Papewaio]

Multitude of factors, yes. Very very much so. Other factors include wealth, distribution of it, lifespan and of course general education.

The decrease in violence is closely linked to increase in communications that includes better roads, healthier livestock which until a hundred years ago was the main powered transport, libraries, monasteries, universities, scholars and teachers. Which in themselves are an increase in social wealth and infrastructure.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So,

1) What are the basic science advances that have changed our view of the big questions, and which questions?
2) What are some psychology studies that really show us things we couldn't have known otherwise on the important topics? Treating the abnormal, understanding sensation/perception, and medical therapeutical stuff is a different category.
3) Same as 2, but for the neuroscience, brain imaging type studies

The stuff I've read about falls into three categories: 1) wrong, 2) not really important, 3) laborious and questionable support for something that you will likely come across in the course of a humanities education, which psychologists don't have

But obviously I quit looking into it at a certain point.

We know that science and reason can work well destructively, in pointing out flaws and impossibilities, and this can open peoples eyes. But we are talking here about a direct advance.

[Kralizec]

By your own admission, you're not a creationist. I assume you "believe" in the standard scientific view of self-replicating molecules being generated by chance and evolving into life forms that are more recognisable to us. I can understand why someone wouldn't really care about the evolution/creationism controversy, but I can't for the love of god understand why you take the side of the creationists.

Science literally means "knowledge". There's also something called "the scientific method" as advanced by Popper foremost (allthough he was probably too dismissive of inductive reasoning). Defined in it's simplest terms, I can't think of any rational reason why people would oppose either.

I'm getting the impression that you have a warped view of what Humanities is. Psychology is part of it, by the way. With the possible exception of religious studies, they're all sciences that concern themselves with the human mind and it's products. Religious studies can be scientific provided that they follow an empirical setup, but a strictly theological study (i.e. reasoning from religious premises) isn't. In any case the humanities are irrelevant when we're dealing with subjects that fall out of the scope of human society, such as the origin of life which goes beyond humans.

About your questions:

1 - I interpret this as "which scientific advances led to a drastic change in which humans see things". Evolution is an obvious one. Other ones include metereology and seismology, which have shown us that natural disasters really aren't Acts of God, or at least provided a natural explanation we can understand and believe. The discovery of the atom and molecule debunked the whole ancient concept of "elements" as conceived by Greek philosophers.
Or an example that's relevant to pretty much everyone: historically many children died in shortly after birth, and the parents would ask "why, God, why?". The local priest would likely mutter something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways we can't comprehend, also she's in a better place now". By inductive reasoning people discovered that if midwives and doctors washed their hands before assisting in childbirth, the fatalities dropped enormously. Later on we discovered that microbes were responsible for most diseases. I would not dismiss the priest's words as useless, because they serve a real social purpose, but they're not much help in answering the "big questions that really matter"

2 - a flawed question, I think. If you don't think treatment, understanding of sensation/perception or having an emperical understanding of why humans act the way they do is important, then the answer is invariably "there are none". I fail to see what other discipline could produce the same knowledge without becoming part of what we'd call "psychology" - since it's the study of the human mind.

3 - same as 2 really. I'll add that neuroscience has revealed that there are physical causes, instead of metaphysical reasons like a "it's the soul", that are responsible for how humans think and perceive things.

[Montmorency]

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment.

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

As someone who conceives of moral perception as stemming from the sum of one's own experiences, shouldn't you be interested in what neuroscience can tell us about how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality are represented in the brain?