3 ms·

I certainly agree that science can offer a more useful, factual and inclusive set of guide lines than any faith. Consider for example homosexuality which is in

I certainly agree that science can offer a more useful, factual and inclusive set of guide lines than any faith. Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to society or the individuals concerned. This can be used as a basis for policy in government and morality within society. Now consider slavery which many religion's texts consider acceptable. Science can tell us that it does a great deal of harm to the individual concerned, their close relatives and less but not insignificant harm to the host and parasitic societies. Again this can be used to form policy and wider morality. It doesn't mean that it will always be 'right' but it does mean we will be able to make changes to our moral landscape by learning from past mistakes and studying the data that led to past moral decisions. We will also be able to challenge other peoples morals using data and not ad-hominems etc. At the moment as a species we struggle with: - the false notion that morality is absolute: it never changes and can never change. - lack of data about how past absurd moral decisions were made (for example no gays, but slaves are a go)

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to society or the individuals concerned. Science can't tell us that, really. Even if we had an objective measure of "societal harm", we'd have to normalize somehow for the content of the cultures themselves. In other words, being gay may cause no social harm in a society that permits homosexuality, but may cause significant social harm in a society that does not. Science can be a contributing factor to discussions of morality, but it is not probative. At the moment as a species we struggle with: - the false notion that morality is absolute: it never changes and can never change. - lack of data about how past absurd moral decisions were made (for example no gays, but slaves are a go) In light of your first point: are you suggesting that morality is completely relative? Or merely that it is culturally contingent? If the latter, which portions are to be considered quasi-absolute so that we don't slip into the former? As to your second point: "absurd" by what definition? You are presupposing (by your notion of "absurdity") some sort of measure of "reasonability" that I think you will have trouble defining, especially if you think that absolute morality is a false notion.
tome 16y ago
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I'm really struggling to understand how science has much to say about the effects of homosexuality or slavery.
TGJ 16y ago
I'm on the fence about using data to try and decide moral guidelines. In a sense, you want to remove the responsibility of making a decision yourself about proper courses of action and leave it to studies and derived 'data'. Have we all lost the ability to think for ourselves? When you want data to define morality, you are simply removing god as the source and replacing it with man.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to society or the individuals concerned. Science can't tell us that, really. Even if we had an objective measure of "societal harm", we'd have to normalize somehow for the content of the cultures themselves. In other words, being gay may cause no social harm in a society that permits homosexuality, but may cause significant social harm in a society that does not. Science can be a contributing factor to discussions of morality, but it is not probative. At the moment as a species we struggle with: - the false notion that morality is absolute: it never changes and can never change. - lack of data about how past absurd moral decisions were made (for example no gays, but slaves are a go) In light of your first point: are you suggesting that morality is completely relative? Or merely that it is culturally contingent? If the latter, which portions are to be considered quasi-absolute so that we don't slip into the former? As to your second point: "absurd" by what definition? You are presupposing (by your notion of "absurdity") some sort of measure of "reasonability" that I think you will have trouble defining, especially if you think that absolute morality is a false notion.

tome 16y ago

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I'm really struggling to understand how science has much to say about the effects of homosexuality or slavery.

TGJ 16y ago

I'm on the fence about using data to try and decide moral guidelines. In a sense, you want to remove the responsibility of making a decision yourself about proper courses of action and leave it to studies and derived 'data'. Have we all lost the ability to think for ourselves? When you want data to define morality, you are simply removing god as the source and replacing it with man.