4 ms·

> I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. What useful definiti

> I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. What useful definition of true and false exist besides the scientific one? And why would any religion have a claim to this? > > I have serious problems with this sentiment that there's some other way of knowing things besides studying reality > What is reality? Is science reality? Science has models. We are mistaken to think that "particle" is somehow a brutally real thing. "Particle" is a word used to model observations. Reality is that which we attempt to describe using science. Any other definition is nonsensical, because of we want to actually know anything that is practically useful, we have no choice but to accept reality as real. If you disagree, please provide another definition and show me how it's useful. > Actually -- just to make sure I'm clear. You can't derive a workable moral system from scientific axioms/observations. There's no reason for moral axioms to be scientific. We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized. The difference is that I don't drag the baggage of religion with me. > Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. I think you're wrongly equivocating "religion" with simple value statements here. I personally think that this kind of rhetoric is dangerous and gives religion as a concept more credence that it deserves, but I won't go any further on that topic. EDIT: I was missing a rather crucial 'but'. I hope I didn't confuse anyone.

roca 7y ago
> We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized. Your "axiom" will also have to define what "universal wellbeing" and "suffering" actually mean, and how these maxima/minima are to be computed, etc. That is not simple at all. Having done that, you have to admit that your decision is arbitrary (except, hopefully, it aligns modestly well with the evolved/cultural preferences of some set of brains). I hope you won't lapse into dishonesty and tell brains that reach different conclusions from their evolved/cultural preferences that your decision is "right" or "wrong" in any sense similar to the "right" and "wrong" of scientific truth. Unfortunately I have never yet met anyone who is able to resist that temptation.
- chousuke 7y ago
  Of course it is arbitrary, just like every other moral compass out there ultimately is (as far as has been demonstrated). Practically, we already have a decent idea what "wellbeing" and "suffering" mean. That means we can use them as our axiom even if the understanding is not perfect. If you waited for perfection, you'd be stuck doing nothing forever for the fear that it's immoral. We can still use science to examine where our axioms lead, and see if we still agree with the projected outcomes. Then we may have a reason to modify the arbitrary starting point.

roca 7y ago

> We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized. Your "axiom" will also have to define what "universal wellbeing" and "suffering" actually mean, and how these maxima/minima are to be computed, etc. That is not simple at all. Having done that, you have to admit that your decision is arbitrary (except, hopefully, it aligns modestly well with the evolved/cultural preferences of some set of brains). I hope you won't lapse into dishonesty and tell brains that reach different conclusions from their evolved/cultural preferences that your decision is "right" or "wrong" in any sense similar to the "right" and "wrong" of scientific truth. Unfortunately I have never yet met anyone who is able to resist that temptation.

chousuke 7y ago
Of course it is arbitrary, just like every other moral compass out there ultimately is (as far as has been demonstrated). Practically, we already have a decent idea what "wellbeing" and "suffering" mean. That means we can use them as our axiom even if the understanding is not perfect. If you waited for perfection, you'd be stuck doing nothing forever for the fear that it's immoral. We can still use science to examine where our axioms lead, and see if we still agree with the projected outcomes. Then we may have a reason to modify the arbitrary starting point.