Science vs. Faith

[Guest]

happiness = morality?

Yes. Collectively.

Keep in mind that human compassion and empathy must be taken into consideration.

If one supposes that we should, as a society, kill or imprison Mitt Romney and take his millions of dollars and evenly distribute it to all unhappy people, in order to increase their happiness, thus making a 'moral' decision, you are not properly considering how unhappy such a decision would make me, regardless of whether I receive any of his money. Knowing that such injustice was perpetuated to make me happy, would make me unhappy. Thus, such actions would be immoral.

It is important to point out that Harris points out the difference between things which are knowable in theory and those things which are knowable in practice. This point may make a difference in how one perceives his argument.

[_Buffalo]

Good questions. I have my views on abortion and racism. They generally stem from the golden rule. But having spent very little time on the epistemology, I cannot give you a very good answer on the method.

Well this isn't really epistemology, it's about ethical judgements and how we decide if they can be "true" or "false" or whether or not it is important that we use those words.

The point is, that these are important issues to everyone which cannot be decided scientifically.

How do you know the golden rule is "good"? Scientifically?

I can't think of an important question that can't be answered scientifically.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I won't argue against him on this point, except to say I think it would be necessary to take it on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps either of you, Stak or mfbukowski, can provide an example of an important issue which you feel is beyond the purview of science?

Natural science is pretty limited in my opinion, and I’m always striving to meet higher standards than what is typically considered scientific. In areas of Math and Logic, the natural sciences have nothing to say, indeed, the natural sciences can’t even parse themselves very well without assistance from other disciplines. There are various logical problems in the Philosophy of Science that can grind science to a halt, but they get shelved by the people in the lab, because there is work to be done and science has utility.

Take for example, the detailed and complicated issues about speciation in the Biological sciences, that is purely a metaphysical issue, one that you can’t design an experiment around. The sciences tell me what is, metaphysics tells me what must be.

When it comes to Ethics, it’s a sticky subject. The first question you need to ask, in my opinion, can there be an objective morality? Does it exist? Do we have access to it? You are going to find a wide range of answers from all over the spectrum.

[_Chap]

Natural science is pretty limited in my opinion, and I’m always striving to meet higher standards than what is typically considered scientific. In areas of Math and Logic, the natural sciences have nothing to say, indeed, the natural sciences can’t even parse themselves very well without assistance from other disciplines. There are various logical problems in the Philosophy of Science that can grind science to a halt, but they get shelved by the people in the lab, because there is work to be done and science has utility.

Is it so straightforward?

Problems in the Philosophy of Science may grind Philosophy of Science to a halt, but as you point out they don't grind science to a halt, and I am not certain that it is enough to say that that is because "there is work to be done and science has utility", as if scientists were somehow at fault in not being sophisticated or observant enough to realize that We Have A Problem Here, Houston.

Maybe what worries philosophers of science has less relation to science than they like to think?

I am glad you are striving to meet higher standards than the natural sciences. That's really cool. However, it would be good if you could tell us in plain language in what way your standards will be 'higher' once you have achieved your aim.

[_Sethbag]

How is speciation a metaphysical issue? The categorizing of living things into discrete species is merely a useful fiction. What is the tie to metaphysics?

[_Nightlion]

So the argument is completely circular - the proof of God's existence only works if you believe that God exists.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be 'baffled by bull crap'?

I am less interesting in argumentation than I am in truth. God does exist. I am not the slightest bit concerned with IF he exists. I did not come to know God through argumentation.

[_Buffalo]

I haven't read this one, but it seems to apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_ ... man_Values

Worth a read?

[_Chap]

So the argument is completely circular - the proof of God's existence only works if you believe that God exists.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be 'baffled by bull crap'?

I am less interesting in argumentation than I am in truth. God does exist. I am not the slightest bit concerned with IF he exists. I did not come to know God through argumentation.

Well, I'd say you are certainly not likely to persuade many people to 'know God' through the kind of argumentation you have put forward in our exchanges. So maybe you need to interact in a more non-argumentative mode if you want to get your message across.

[_beefcalf]

How is speciation a metaphysical issue? The categorizing of living things into discrete species is merely a useful fiction. What is the tie to metaphysics?

Yeah, I'm with Seth. A 'Species' is a convenient label, much like 'planet'. The ability of organisms to interbreed is not a yes/no proposition; there is a wide gamut of interfertility.

I am confident in stating that no part of the processes of biology depend upon any metaphysical or supernatural prime-mover.

[_beefcalf]

So the argument is completely circular - the proof of God's existence only works if you believe that God exists.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be 'baffled by bull crap'?

I am less interesting in argumentation than I am in truth. God does exist. I am not the slightest bit concerned with IF he exists. I did not come to know God through argumentation.

Exactly which God are we talking about here, Nightlion? Is is safe to suppose that, of the ten-thousand gods variously attested to by the prophets and shaman of the ages, you only consider one of them to be real? And that the other nine-thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-nine of them are completely fictional?

I think it speaks well of you that you were able to sift through all the thousands of shams and fakes and frauds concocted by man and carefully select that one divine needle in the celestial haystack, the only real God. The fact that you were born amongst Mormons in the twentieth century certainly played no part in influencing your selection, I should be careful to add...