Science v. Religion

[pajarito 0]

You're giving very small examples (exceptions). I'm saying generally. Think big.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You're giving very small examples (exceptions). I'm saying generally. Think big.

Ok...killing other people. Some cultures don't have a problem with it or even encourage it. I can't think of a bigger moral issue than that.

[pajarito 0]

Most people around the globe, I dare say, think it's morally wrong, though. Wouldn't you agree?

[billvon 2,396]

>Most people around the globe, I dare say, think it's morally wrong,
>though. Wouldn't you agree?

We have people on this very board who have said they'd like to kill people, and further believe it would be morally correct to do so.

For the most part you're right, but that's more evolution than any innate morality, I think. A culture that is OK with killing people tends to kill people, and thus not survive very long. A culture that protects the breeders and children, has laws or other instruments that provide protection for people against violence etc. does better than one that does not.

I mean, imagine a society that advocates ritual suicide when you reach 21, or says it's OK to kill your neighbor. How long do you think they'd be around?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Most people around the globe, I dare say, think it's morally wrong, though. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't. If that were true there wouldn't be support for war or support for the death penalty or support euthenasia.

[pajarito 0]

Who set this moral code that you mentioned into action in the beginning, though? I mean, did we all just get monumentally lucky that it turned out the way it did for the betterment of mankind through evolution? I would think we would have killed each other off from the start.

[pajarito 0]

Even in your examples, people don't want to perform the action of killing "themselves." In war, there is extreme guilt felt by most when forced to kill the enemy even though it is justified. In capital punishment executions, automatic mechanisms were developed so that no individual would be expected to pull the lever or pull the trigger, etc. Inherently, we know killing is wrong even though it is sometimes necessary.

[billvon 2,396]

>Who set this moral code that you mentioned into action in the
> beginning, though? I mean, did we all just get monumentally lucky
> that it turned out the way it did for the betterment of mankind
> through evolution?

?? Turned out the way it did? Centuries ago, the societies that did nothing but kill each other faded away. The ones that remained were the ones with moral codes that reduced the killing to a manageable level, one where births could compensate for the small number of people killed. That's not to say we have sterling morals today - heck, we thought it was a good idea to kill 350,000 civilians with two bombs during WWII. But they are good enough that our society does well.

Keep in mind that either extreme is bad. A society that will kill no one would quickly be overrun by societies that don't mind a little killing when there's a buck to be made. A society that kills as a way of life will never get far beyond the stone age.

>I would think we would have killed each other off from the start.

An enormous number of people did. I know you're conversant enough with history to realize that war is more or less a way of life for us.

[PhillyKev 0]

Are you implying that animals have morals? Animals don't kill each other off. It's not because of morals, it's because they don't have a need to. Humans are one of the few animals that kill their own species for pleasure, for revenge, for punishment for differing opinions. I'd say that shows a definitive lack of morals. Animals kill their own kind mostly just over territorial disputes. Which is the main reason humans have gone to war throughout history. We invented other reasons to kill people.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

If you believe your last statement above, then you're not an Atheist.

Atheism Or Theism – I Know Whether God Or gods Exist Contrary to agnosticism, which says it does not know, are theism and atheism.

I'll agree not to define you, if you'll agree not to define me. Deal?

Most atheists use this definition:

Atheist: One who believes there is insufficient evidence to conclusively support the proposition that a supreme being exists.

It's generally the anti-atheists (usually deeply religious, evangelical types) who think that atheism implies a rejection of all possibility of a supreme deity. That's just not correct.

Atheism means: I don't see proof (either way).

Atheism does not mean: I have proof (either way).

Quote

Secondly, why are moral laws, generally speaking, around the globe basically the same? Why wouldn't a culture on one side of the world be different from one on the other?

I thought I covered that. Because there is an "ideal" or "near-ideal" form for human affairs to be organized in. And we are evolving very slowly toward that, with all the twists and turns that evolution implies.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,396]

>Atheism means: I don't see proof (either way).

Actually that's almost the dictionary definition of agnostic.



Agnostic:

-One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
-One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Atheist:

-One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

[champu 1]

Quote

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

I agree.

I think it's strange that many people claim to seek truth in their life through religion. The way I see it, once you believe (or disbelieve) something that can't be prooven, whether there is any truth to it or not is no longer relevant.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the justification for the moral rules is contradicted by science then the moral rules themselves are shown to be baseless and worthless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I disagree.

First, Moral Rules need not be derived from Religious Beliefs.

I was talking about the speficific rules derived from religious scripture and i suppose that what i should have said was that they are then no more or less valid than any other proposed set of morals and should not be set above or below what anyone else might suggest until you actually think about and evaluate them.
Obviously bibles have good points, dont kill/steal etc. but then on the same level don't carve graven images!
It seems to me that the divine rules of conduct are similar to sociological rules because THATS WHERE THEY CAME FROM. religious text just writes down what the good people are doing anyway and adds random worship related rules to keep everyone interested.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

That's not to say we have sterling morals today - heck, we thought it was a good idea to kill 350,000 civilians with two bombs during WWII. But they are good enough that our society does well.

Absolutely. I think today the greatest influence on the way we think of world morality today is the advent of the mass media, enabling us to see what happens when armies collide. Vietnam could be called the first war covered live on TV, HUGE public outcry massive demonstrations. Still though people only get worked up about what they see.
In the thread about Mugabe and Zimbabwe alot of people suggested that the Zimbabweans and all Africans got what they deserved for living in a violent place, and many people object to the loss of one US/allied soldier to save countless foreign lives. Compassion only for those people you can relate to.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BikerBabe 0]

My hearth (faith) says morals come from God. However, my logical mind knows that morals can and will exist apart from the presence of a supreme "moral-giver", so to speak.

As for this:

Quote

Firstly, morals are subjective

Bah! Moral relativism is what is causing this society to degrade and lose it's grasp of reality. Not sure how we got over to this from science vs. religion.

There is a fundamental flaw in the argument that there are no moral absolutes. Isn't what you are stating a "moral absolute"? if so, then you've already disproven yourself. Like saying "all generalizations are false". If morals are subjective, good! I tend to subject myself to the idea that there are absolute morals. See the problem with moral relativism? You can't disprove me. I'm right.

(should I be a lawyer or what?)

I go back to my original question. For those who think that science and religion cannot peacefully co-exist, what is science to you? Why do it?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[pajarito 0]

Agnosticism – I Do Not Know If God Or gods Exists

Agnosticism says, “I do not know if God or gods exist.” Some agnostics believe that it is not possible to know if a divine “being” or “beings” exist. Their view is that one cannot know anything about these matters. On the other hand, there are those agnostics who think that knowledge about God is possible, yet they are not convinced that there is enough evidence to prove the case. Whatever the exact position may be, an agnostic claims no knowledge, one way or the other, about the existence of God.

[kmcguffee 0]

I don't believe that the Bible and science contradict each other. I also don't believe that the Bible tries to give a literal description of the beginning of the earth and the universe. Genesis was a vision from God filtered through a human being who had no understanding of science, evolution, physics, etc.

As for the earth being created in seven days:

Quote

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day..." (2Peter 3:8,10).

Science is how, religion is why. IMO, If they conflict then we probably misunderstand one of them.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[pajarito 0]

Very well said. I agree. I'd still like to hear someone's answer to BikerBabe's question below:

Quote

I go back to my original question. For those who think that science and religion cannot peacefully co-exist, what is science to you? Why do it?

[TomAiello 25]

Again, I'll try not to define you according to my definitions of "Christian" if you'll kindly refrain from trying to pigeonhole me into your definition of Atheist.

In my personal nomenclature:

Agnostic = I think there's something, but I don't know what, and I don't think any particular church is right on.

Atheist = I'm not convinced there is anything.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[enigmagic 0]

Well, I wouldn't exactly say I think they cannot co-exist peacefully, but nonetheless I'll attempt an answer from the perspective of someone who notices that they are not doing a very good job of it presently.
The difference between science and religion is pretty cut and dry if you codify it in the Kantian sense. Religion is based on a priori reasoning, that is to say inductive whereas science is, or is supposed to be entirely a posteriori. Difficulties come into play when you attempt to decide where the original deduction came from, rather than the role of science in general. Science's purpose is progress, deductive progress, rather than moral or spiritual progress. And to assess pajarito's questions concerning the categorical imperative is that it always presupposes that the general public can reason reliably, and thus is generally a weak argument for ethical absolutism. Consider this: have you ever heard from your parents or, even, told your children that you'll "love them no matter what they do"? This simple comment, said to a malleable child immediately ingrains the concept of ethical relativism being a correct mode of though. Essentially all this tells the child is that his parents will generally forgive anything and to have free will over any moral decision he wants to make.
-TomAiello:
I'm interested to know where your personal definitions of agnosticism and atheism came from, seeing as they're a near verbatim switch. I don't think anyone is trying to pigeonhole you by noticing you have a rather contrary classification of the terms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pigeonholing implies a certain level of simplification in classification. eg. I call a red breasted thrush "just a bird" I'd be pigeonholing it, non? However if I called a red breasted thrush a green tailed hummingbird I'd just be mixed up...
N.B. - For a long time I believed your definitions were the widely accepted ones, atheism as total doubt and agnosticism being a sort of pseudo-Deism. I still believe what I did, I just call it agnosticism now, because that's the more pervasive word for what I believe.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I'm interested to know where your personal definitions of agnosticism and atheism came from...

Mostly from participation/discussion in a various atheist groups while I was in college, perhaps 10 years ago.

From The Secular Web (emphasis mine):

Quote

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
...
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
...

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

edit to add: More from the same source:

Quote

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[enigmagic 0]

Also from the same site:

Quote

In this section, "arguments for atheism" means "arguments for the nonexistence of God." In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, such arguments are known as "atheological arguments."

Curiously enough, without digging around a great deal I came upon this, which seems to disagree. While this isn't exactly canonical proof, it does suggest a division in terminology, which is what I was arguing in the first place. Call yourself what you want, it still doesn't matter--as you said, only the beliefs truly matter.

Quote

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic.

Language is the best thing we have, and using the argument that it is inprecise is self-defeating. I wasn't trying to catagorize your beliefs at all, I was trying to ascertain how you would catagorize common beliefs obviously not in the scope of personal view.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Our concept of objective morality could simply be part of the evolution of humans as social organisms.

actually science has come a long way to doing just that. [I]I'll dig out the exact reference when i find it again[/I]

Test have shown that primates understand the concept of 'fairness'

2 groups of monkeys were given treats for a programmed behavior, when the second group was given a tastier treat (a grape iirc) the first group 'rebelled' and would throw their less tasty choice (peanuts?) back at the researchers.

also as part of the same study the monkeys were being fed in an separate enclosure, when researchers withheld food until all the group was inside the enclosure the monkeys punished and beat the stragglers from the previous day when the food enclosure was opened.

Morality comes from society, and is reinforced by claiming it comes from a 'higher power' if the reverse were true all societies would have the same morals..

unless of course they were each created by separate higher powers..

also for the record most agnostics will tell you the crux of their belief is that the nature of god is unknowable. It says nothing about the existence of divinity. I haven’t met an agnostic yet who leaned toward the idea that there was not a divine force behind creation. They just dont assume that man (or his literature) is capable of defining it.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I haven’t met an agnostic yet who leaned toward the idea that there was not a divine force behind creation.

Thats cos we're called atheists

Quote

Morality comes from society, and is reinforced by claiming it comes from a 'higher power' if the reverse were true all societies would have the same morals..

And surely the same basic religious structure, number of gods etc.

Good post about the monkey's, for me one of the best studies showed that chimps will lie about things that they know they shouldn't have done. Shows that they understand the rules and also can predict what others will think/feel about them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Paige 0]

Quote

Yep. I think it's as silly to read the bible for scientific fact as it is to read a science textbook as the basis for your morality.

Very well put. I believe the same thing but never seem to come up with the right words to describe it. Thanks!

Tunnel Pink Mafia Delegate
www.TunnelPinkMafia.com