Results 1 to 30 of 121

Thread: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Myrddraal View Post
    I get your point, but fundemental differences in morality occur less often that you might think. In many historical cases such as slavery, one could quite strongly argue that there was some error according the slavers own moral principles. In going from their fundemental principles or axioms of morality to their codified form of morals, they had committed hypocracy, decieved themselves.
    So you can argue against these people, without getting into absolute morality, by using their own principals to show them the wrong of what they are doing. Many slavers were Christian, and also believed in doing what is 'good' for 'society'. The hypocracy was that God's laws did not extend to black people or that black's were not part of society. You can argue against this using the bible or having a go at defining what 'society' is.
    Not all immorality is based in hypocrisy, however. A large amount of it is, but I do not need to subscribe to someone's belief system alone and point out where they are being internally inconsistent to argue that they are being immoral. What they BELIEVE is irrelevant. I'm talking about what they do and how they treat others, regardless of belief. Their morality or immorality is based upon that, and even if they were being totally consistent with their philosophy, that does not ipso facto make it correct and morally righteous.

    Let's not confuse the law with morality. The law has always been determined by a combination of popular opinion and the sword.
    That's precisely what I was saying. Law, opinion, and violence do not make morality.

    That popular opinion may be based on a moral code, and I may personally believe that moral code to be the right one, so I am satisfied. If I believe that moral code to be 'wrong' then I may argue or fight against it. Others may come to agree with me and society shifts, laws change.
    But for all that I may thing that one moral principle is 'right' and the other 'wrong', what scientific or logical argument can I use to back me up? There are none.
    There are none yet.

    A science will never be if people do not try. What argument could I use to make men fly? Were I a cave man, perhaps I could not. But if I knew about the principles of aerodynamics, perhaps I could make men fly.

    Simply because I cannot do so now, that does not mean I can never.

    Though I may be convinced in my heart of hearts that someone's moral code is 'wrong' I cannot fundementally prove it to be so.
    One couldn't fundamentally prove the Earth was round without the proper evidence and equipment.

    I am wary of simply saying "I cannot" and leaving it be. That leads to nothing.

    Also, I'd like to stress that I'm not saying that all moral codes are equal. I believe that my moral code (which I hope you all share) is superiour to all others. What I am arguing is that I cannot prove this or fundementally argue about this in a scientific way.
    Why not?

    Other sciences are still in development. Do we understand the human mind fully? No, we do not. We cannot explain everything we see. And yet there is a science of the brain.

    Surely there can be a science of morality, if, as I hold to be true, morality is an objective concept, not a subjective one.

    Definately sounding religious here
    A man who believes the world is round, without proof, even with mathematics to back him up (which later proved to be miscalculated) may have to have belief in his opinions before he has the proof. Otherwise, why look for the proof?

    But it is an objective reason you cannot define with logical reasoning. I may agree with you that there is some underlying objective reason why something is moral, but I cannot define that objective reason without simply saying 'because it is' (something Sasaki would object to) or 'because I think it is' (something Sasaki might accept )
    That is because we lack the objective terminology, we lack the initiative to study the phenomenon of morality, and we are as cavemen attempting to describe eternity. But, over time, I believe it is possible to say more than "I believe it is so."

    Even mathematics has it's fundemental axioms.
    At one point, those axioms did not exist because we had not theorized about it yet. Morality is the same way.

    Like a scientific approach, a mathematical approach can only be taken once you have defined the axioms of morality. Although I disagree with lots in his post, the Stranger has the right of it here:
    Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?

    I think the reason why is because people are happy with their beliefs. Challenging the status quo and offering new theories is frightening to people, or confusing. Some might even call it dangerous. Certain people who wanted to study the dead were called witches and sorcerers and wizards and evil people. This study lead to modern anatomical knowledge and modern medicine.

    I believe there is room for theory and advancement in the field of moral and ethical study.

    I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.
    It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.

    I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.
    Last edited by Askthepizzaguy; 03-29-2010 at 18:04.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  2. #2
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
    It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.

    I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.
    superstitious? me? now im offended!

    i just dont understand why people who charge at religion and morality and such to the very foundations that support it, but refuse to look if their own building is properly supported, if at all.

    there is a difference between the scientific method and science. a difference between mathematics and the mathematic system, between practised religion and religion as a system.

    if you accept christianity to be true than it works. if you accept the mathematic system to be true than 1 + 1 = 2. but actually its complete bs. Why can't A not be NotA at the same time. in reality manythings are and are not at the same time. yet we accept the rule of A cant be NotA at the same time as an objective truth.

    We do not sow.

  3. #3
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger View Post
    superstitious? me? now im offended!

    i just dont understand why people who charge at religion and morality and such to the very foundations that support it, but refuse to look if their own building is properly supported, if at all
    Actually that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

    I'm saying that in the field of scientific morality, there is no building whatsoever. No supports.

    What I propose is a construction project. Religion already has cathedrals. Why can science not at least attempt to explain morality?

    I am not satisfied with "I believe it." I want to understand why. Other than turning to a deity or a guru who I also have to accept at face value without understanding the why, and getting nothing except "because I said so".

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Science knows morality better than religion". I am saying Science hasn't even attempted to understand morality. I believe a building, with proper supports, is in order.

    if you accept christianity to be true than it works.
    I'd disagree, but that's theology and not the topic.

    if you accept the mathematic system to be true than 1 + 1 = 2. but actually its complete bs.
    That's your opinion, now prove it.

    Why can't A not be NotA at the same time.
    Now you're asking questions, which is a start.

    in reality manythings are and are not at the same time. yet we accept the rule of A cant be Not A at the same time as an objective truth.
    It is difficult to respond to this, it is quite vague and I don't agree with it.

    if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.
    If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

    Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  4. #4

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

    Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.
    I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

  5. #5
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.
    Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

    Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

    Maybe you would call it "air waves hitting an eardrum" but I can prove both the air waves, the ear drum, and the electrical activity in the brain, and prove that there is an intelligent comprehension of that data.

    You've given a bad example.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  6. #6
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.
    which only changes the question to

    if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around does it still create airwaves. this is an objection against idealism and in which ever way formulated it is a diffecult subjectmatter. i will return to it later on.

    We do not sow.

  7. #7
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
    Actually that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

    I'm saying that in the field of scientific morality, there is no building whatsoever. No supports.

    What I propose is a construction project. Religion already has cathedrals. Why can science not at least attempt to explain morality?

    I am not satisfied with "I believe it." I want to understand why. Other than turning to a deity or a guru who I also have to accept at face value without understanding the why, and getting nothing except "because I said so".

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Science knows morality better than religion". I am saying Science hasn't even attempted to understand morality. I believe a building, with proper supports, is in order.



    I'd disagree, but that's theology and not the topic.



    That's your opinion, now prove it.



    Now you're asking questions, which is a start.



    It is difficult to respond to this, it is quite vague and I don't agree with it.



    If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

    Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.
    science can attempt all it want and i will be the last person to stop it. why do keep connecting subjectivism to conservatism.

    you prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2 without using the mathematic system. i dont see why and apple (or wakhsdhadbhak) and apple (or wakhsdhadbhak) = 2 apples ( (or 2 wakhsdhadbhaks).

    there are days when you feel happy and unhappy at the same time for an example. yet that is supposedly to be mathematically impossible. humans are full of contradictions.

    oke. but to what level of intelligence will morality start to apply? is a baboon evil for killing an infant. answer that question according to those objective universal rules. surely if it is objective and universal it applies the same to humans as to all other animals whether they grasp the concept or not. whether they understand the consequences or not.
    Last edited by The Stranger; 03-29-2010 at 19:10.

    We do not sow.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO