Why do people believe in NOMA?

[Humes fork]

Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA is the official position of at least the big American scientific societies.

NOMAists tend to maintain that religion deals with questions of "meaning" and "morality", whereas science deals with the empirical. But this seems to amount to merely a re-definition of religion to "moral philosophy" (what "meaning" is I don't know). Science can't answer moral dilemmas (though it can help us with moral judgements by providing facts), but religion can't either, it merely pretends to do so.

But more importantly, religion does not restrict itself to moral philosophy. "But God is metaphysical and ultimately untestable!" it is often claimed. And sure, a god who exists outside of time and space and never intervenes is beyond our purview. But this is not the god that religious believers believe in. Their god answers prayers, perform miracles, reveals holy books and so on. Surely the activities of such a god working in our universe would be detectable by empirical means. But so far not a trace.

Furthermore, their god intervenes in history, which are certainly testable claims. What are we to make of the fact that archeology shows much of the Old Testament is bogus (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128)? How would accommodationists resolve this? By prohibitting history books from mentioning it, lest the religious will reject science? It ultimately turns on the same stumbling block on history as it does on evolution.

By NOMA terminology, religion frequently oversteps its own magisteria.

[KoihimeNakamura]

When you say religion, you may want to replace it with philosophy. Regardless,


Furthermore, their god intervenes in history, which are certainly testable claims. What are we to make of the fact that archeology shows much of the Old Testament is bogus (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128)? How would accommodationists resolve this? By prohibitting history books from mentioning it, lest the religious will reject science? It ultimately turns on the same stumbling block on history as it does on evolution.
By telling them they're wrong. This is where NOMA says religion loses. Good strawman though.

[Wowbagger]

NOMA makes intuitive sense to a lot of people. That does NOT mean it's right. Only that it is easy to accept, whether right or wrong.

I like the idea of Overlapping Magisteria (OM?). Both religion and science can have the freedom to try to answer any questions they want. Science can answer moral questions, if it feels inclined to do so. Religion can try to answer questions of fact, if it wants to.

Success will be measured by other things, such as usefulness to society, etc.

And, in the long run, all of my bets are on science.

[Humes fork]

When you say religion, you may want to replace it with philosophy. Regardless,


By telling them they're wrong. This is where NOMA says religion loses. Good strawman though.

But then what use is NOMA? Science and religion then don't occupy non-overlapping magisteria.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm pretty sure you know the difference between pratice/idea and reality.

[HansMustermann]

In a nutshell, because it turns out in one study that people are good at coming up with NOMAs when science says something they don't want to hear. If they believe X and science tells them "not X", then they decide that science is inapplicable to the question of X. In fact, in the process they'll also become more inclined to lump a few more things in there with the stuff that science has no authority over.

It doesn't even have to be about religion. It can be about crystal power or about beating one's children, or whatever. If you go to someone and say that scientific data says corporal punishment doesn't actually show any long term benefits and often causes lasting damage, chances are some will conclude that science just isn't applicable to that domain and should stay the hell out of it.

It may not be as elaborately rationalized as THE NOMA about religion, but basically people seem to come up with dividing what stuff they don't want science into very naturally. Unless it says what they want to hear, that is.

[fls]

Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA is the official position of at least the big American scientific societies.

NOMAists tend to maintain that religion deals with questions of "meaning" and "morality", whereas science deals with the empirical. But this seems to amount to merely a re-definition of religion to "moral philosophy" (what "meaning" is I don't know). Science can't answer moral dilemmas (though it can help us with moral judgements by providing facts), but religion can't either, it merely pretends to do so.

But more importantly, religion does not restrict itself to moral philosophy. "But God is metaphysical and ultimately untestable!" it is often claimed. And sure, a god who exists outside of time and space and never intervenes is beyond our purview. But this is not the god that religious believers believe in. Their god answers prayers, perform miracles, reveals holy books and so on. Surely the activities of such a god working in our universe would be detectable by empirical means. But so far not a trace.

Furthermore, their god intervenes in history, which are certainly testable claims. What are we to make of the fact that archeology shows much of the Old Testament is bogus (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128)? How would accommodationists resolve this? By prohibitting history books from mentioning it, lest the religious will reject science? It ultimately turns on the same stumbling block on history as it does on evolution.

By NOMA terminology, religion frequently oversteps its own magisteria.

It's Apologetics. Sooner or later we may grow out of it.

Linda

[Hecubas]

It's funny because the concept of NOMA is itself an assertion. I'd like to see the evidence that supports the idea that there are some questions that only religion or science (but not both at once) can answer.

What's really annoying is how often the concept of NOMA is perpetuated in pop culture. Fictitious warm fuzzies.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You know, I remembered now why I prefer not to discuss NOMA on this forum..

[KoihimeNakamura]

In a nutshell, because it turns out in one study that people are good at coming up with NOMAs when science says something they don't want to hear. If they believe X and science tells them "not X", then they decide that science is inapplicable to the question of X. In fact, in the process they'll also become more inclined to lump a few more things in there with the stuff that science has no authority over.

It doesn't even have to be about religion. It can be about crystal power or about beating one's children, or whatever. If you go to someone and say that scientific data says corporal punishment doesn't actually show any long term benefits and often causes lasting damage, chances are some will conclude that science just isn't applicable to that domain and should stay the hell out of it.

It may not be as elaborately rationalized as THE NOMA about religion, but basically people seem to come up with dividing what stuff they don't want science into very naturally. Unless it says what they want to hear, that is.

OK. Your point in comparing apples and pianos is..?

It's Apologetics. Sooner or later we may grow out of it.

Linda

... It's apologetics to say that philosophy/religion and science do not mesh? OK!

It's funny because the concept of NOMA is itself an assertion. I'd like to see the evidence that supports the idea that there are some questions that only religion or science (but not both at once) can answer.

What's really annoying is how often the concept of NOMA is perpetuated in pop culture. Fictitious warm fuzzies.

T.. E.. OK. Why does this need evidence? (For that matter, I'd like to know of how to scientifically prove I should take money only when it hurts others is a moral way to live.)

[fls]

... It's apologetics to say that philosophy/religion and science do not mesh? OK!

It's Apologetics to give the appearance that there is some sort of rationalization for the usefulness of religion.

Linda

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's Apologetics to give the appearance that there is some sort of rationalization for the usefulness of religion.

Linda

Assuming I'm parsing this correctly, yes, there is some rationalization for the usefulness of religion. :<

[Hecubas]

If I say, "there are some questions that only religion can answer" and "there are some questions that only science can answer," I've made an assertion (or two). What is the basis for each of those claims?

[I Ratant]

There has been, in the social work side of religions. Feeding, sheltering, aiding the less fortunate.
But those aren't restricted to religion. Secular societies do those also.
There is no need for any religion to get these accomplished.
There is an overlap. :)
But that's the practical real side.
When it comes to the supernatural, science has no particular interest in that, except to poo-poo the advocate of such, when their advocacy begins to interfere with reality.
Then overlap the **** out of it!
Terminally!

[KoihimeNakamura]

If I say, "there are some questions that only religion can answer" and "there are some questions that only science can answer," I've made an assertion (or two). What is the basis for each of those claims?

I dunno. Maybe you should read Rocks of Ages where Gould discusses this.

[Ron_Tomkins]

NOMA basically says "Science shouldn't get outside of its field as much as Religion doesn't get out of its field"

The problem is, we disagree on what "its field" is.

So you have religious people and, overall, superstitious people who think they can get real answers about how the world actually works, through their superstitious beliefs.

You also have people who think they can rationalize anger or fear with mere scientific rationale. You can certainly study these emotions, but you can't rationalize yourself out of a strong emotion you're experiencing at the moment. At its most, you can try to "repress" it (though this term is debatable. But humans do practice something that acts as a form of emotion repression)

So NOMA is used interchangeably to define the limits of Science and of Pseudoscience. We can all agree that each one has its limits, but the hard part is agreeing on where the line is drawn.

[HansMustermann]

OK. Your point in comparing apples and pianos is..?

The point is that for people it comes naturally to go "science can't answer X" if they don't like science's answer to X. They in fact are even good at coming up with it on their own.

[Humes fork]

You know, I remembered now why I prefer not to discuss NOMA on this forum..

Science (in a broad sense) says that the exodus is mythical.

The three Abrahamic religions (which about half of the world's population believe in) say that it happened.

See? Religion and science both speak on the same subject, reaching completely different conclusions.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Science (in a broad sense) says that the exodus is mythical.

The three Abrahamic religions (which about half of the world's population believe in) say that it happened.

See? Religion and science both speak on the same subject, reaching completely different conclusions.

Great. Mind answering my question above?

The point is that for people it comes naturally to go "science can't answer X" if they don't like science's answer to X. They in fact are even good at coming up with it on their own.

Sure. This broad criticism needs some specifics to be more than a useful restatement of psychological effects.

[fls]

Assuming I'm parsing this correctly, yes, there is some rationalization for the usefulness of religion. :<

Exactly. We've had the Ontological Argument, Pacal's wager, NOMA, fine-tuning, etc. At some point we generally are no longer obliged to pretend that they aren't nonsense - I think we're there for the first two, maybe getting there for the third, eventually the fourth will go, as well. But by then there will probably be some new rationalization. As long as it gives the appearance of an excuse, it will do, until we get past the need to justify it at all (which I suspect depends upon whether we need it to justify something worse, like slavery or murder).

Linda

[KoihimeNakamura]

Exactly. We've had the Ontological Argument, Pacal's wager, NOMA, fine-tuning, etc. At some point we generally are no longer obliged to pretend that they aren't nonsense - I think we're there for the first two, maybe getting there for the third, eventually the fourth will go, as well. But by then there will probably be some new rationalization. As long as it gives the appearance of an excuse, it will do, until we get past the need to justify it at all (which I suspect depends upon whether we need it to justify something worse, like slavery or murder).

Linda

.. Hm.

I could respond to this, or I could just decide to get out of this before I start getting into an argument I can't win even if I could win it.

I think I'm going to walk away.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's Apologetics. Sooner or later we may grow out of it.

LindaI admire your concise answer here. I would have (and have in other threads) taken a couple paragraphs to say the same thing. :)

[Dani]

NOMA:

"the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

This begs the question, and fails.

The problem with this assertion is that religion bases its questions of ultimate meaning and moral value on facts. "God exists, etc.". Science covers facts. Therefore, science and religion overlap.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know, I remembered now why I prefer not to discuss NOMA on this forum..Why is that?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
T.. E.. OK. Why does this need evidence? (For that matter, I'd like to know of how to scientifically prove I should take money only when it hurts others is a moral way to live.)Moral decisions and beliefs are a nature/nurture phenomena, well within the purview of science (the field of biological evolution of morality has a wealth of evidence in this area).

Philosophy is simply one way to contemplate those morals, but personally, I find the biological contemplation much more successful in actually understanding the emotional basis associated with moral decisions and beliefs.

[TheAtheistBiker]

If only religion could stay out of the 'how'. Of course religion asks the big 'why' questions... but it has never and probably will never come up with anything that passes the most basic scrutiny. :cool:

[Humes fork]

Great. Mind answering my question above?

What question? The premise of NOMA is false.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If only religion could stay out of the 'how'. Of course religion asks the big 'why' questions... but it has never and probably will never come up with anything that passes the most basic scrutiny. :cool:Religion answering the 'why' is a contrived apology (to use Linda's reference). Science answers 'why' all the time. For example, why do we have morals? Nature and nurture: biology, culture and individual experience. We can see this when people with specific types of brain damage behave differently. We can see it when non-human primates and other animals behave in ways we define as morally based.

[KoihimeNakamura]

What question? The premise of NOMA is false.

:rolleyes:

Moral decisions and beliefs are a nature/nurture phenomena, well within the purview of science (the field of biological evolution of morality has a wealth of evidence in this area).

Philosophy is simply one way to contemplate those morals, but personally, I find the biological contemplation much more successful in actually understanding the emotional basis associated with moral decisions and beliefs.

Bwahahahaahahahahahahaha.

Why is that?

Because, like above, I hate discussing things with postivists. Or people who confuse how with why. (Or, for that matter, why I should do what my biology tells me when there may be countervailing factors.)

Religion answering the 'why' is a contrived apology (to use Linda's reference). Science answers 'why' all the time. For example, why do we have morals? Nature and nurture: biology, culture and individual experience. We can see this when people with specific types of brain damage behave differently. We can see it when non-human primates and other animals behave in ways we define as morally based.

Sure. But that doesn't .. you're confusing the how of someone acts with the why. But, you know, you do this -every time- NOMA comes up. It's why I hate discussing it here.

E: and now that I've answered the questions, I'm seriously not responding in here again. Because I said I would, and I should at least be consistant...

[Humes fork]

If only religion could stay out of the 'how'. Of course religion asks the big 'why' questions... but it has never and probably will never come up with anything that passes the most basic scrutiny. :cool:

The difference between "how" and "why" is an illusion.

"How did the earthquake take place?"

"Why did the earthquake take place?"

The answer to these two questions is the same.

[westprog]

It's amazing how people have such a deep (an unscientific) faith in science to do what it's never intended to do - provide moral guidance. It's not possible to decide on the basis of science what we ought to do. Science can provide the tools to either immunise children against smallpox or to kill them with poison gas. It will never provide any kind of scientific indication as to which one is better.

And yet whenever NOMA, or some similar thread comes up, there's a list of people confidently asserting that science can answer such questions - even though science never has, and was never intended to do so. With no evidence whatsoever, the ability of science to resolve moral questions is confidently put forward as if it were the most obvious thing in the world.

[Humes fork]

It's amazing how people have such a deep (an unscientific) faith in science to do what it's never intended to do - provide moral guidance. It's not possible to decide on the basis of science what we ought to do. Science can provide the tools to either immunise children against smallpox or to kill them with poison gas. It will never provide any kind of scientific indication as to which one is better.

And yet whenever NOMA, or some similar thread comes up, there's a list of people confidently asserting that science can answer such questions - even though science never has, and was never intended to do so. With no evidence whatsoever, the ability of science to resolve moral questions is confidently put forward as if it were the most obvious thing in the world.

Who says science can answer moral questions? I don't. Though I deny that religion can either.

[westprog]

Who says science can answer moral questions? I don't. Though I deny that religion can either.

And yet decisions have to be made.

[fls]

Yeah, that seems to be the unsupported justification which NOMA perpetuates...there are such things as "how" and "why" questions which can be distinguished a priori as to the nature of their answers. Again, it gives the appearance of an excuse, but maybe the time has come to stop pretending that it's not nonsense?

It would be interesting to discover to what extent the major scientific organizations maintain or drop the pretense, as mentioned in the OP. Is it a US phenomenon? Has anybody looked into this?

Linda

[Complexity]

NOMA was Gould's biggest mistake.

There is but one reality and it is entirely within the scope of science - there is no need for, and no place for, religion.

[Jake Dale]

It's Apologetics. Sooner or later we may grow out of it.

Lindahow's your a priori decimation of torture going?

[Jake Dale]

When it comes to the supernatural, science has no particular interest in that, except to poo-poo the advocate of such, when their advocacy begins to interfere with reality.
Then overlap the **** out of it!
Terminally!that's interesting. every ethical and political thread on this forum seems to turn into woo.

[RobDegraves]

But this is not the god that religious believers believe in.

The difference between "how" and "why" is an illusion.

By over-simplifying a subject, all that you manage to do is to obscure, and thus miss, the point.

1. What God do you refer to?

Christian God.. which version?
Buddhist God... and which version?
Etc.

And sure, a god who exists outside of time and space and never intervenes is beyond our purview

Even a God that does intervene can be beyond our purview.

1. God (s) intervenes but in such a way as to be unprovable.
2. God (s) intervenes but keeps us from proving it.
Etc.

Mind you... some of the answers would include a God that seems a bit capricious to say the least... but can anyone say that isn't so?



2. The difference between why and how is not an illusion... that is why we use two different words. One would think that obvious.

How is typically mechanistic.
Why often only relates to human values of intent.

You can occasionally use one for the other... but it's not the same thing.



This is all, of course, completely aside from the discussion of evidence for or against deities or whatever else you might imagine.

[Resume]

NOMA was Gould's biggest mistake.

There is but one reality and it is entirely within the scope of science - there is no need for, and no place for, religion.

Not only a mistake but a cop-out.

[fls]

how's your a priori decimation of torture going?

Huh?

Linda

[fls]

2. The difference between why and how is not an illusion... that is why we use two different words. One would think that obvious.

How is typically mechanistic.
Why often only relates to human values of intent.

You can occasionally use one for the other... but it's not the same thing.

I think that's why we treat them as though they are different (narcissistic bastards that we are :)). We treat why questions as though they relate to human values of intent when there really isn't any reason to do so.

Linda

[Humes fork]

And yet decisions have to be made.

This is correct. And science can certainly inform the decision-process, but it can't make it alone. Disagreement about, say, what degree of income inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) that is acceptable isn't akin to disagreement over life on Mars. The latter can (in principle) be settled by empirical evidence, the former can not.

[Jake Dale]

..

[Jake Dale]

Huh?

Lindalol, guess that answers the question.

[fls]

lol, guess that answers the question.

It seemed like a random question on your part...I wondered where it came from.

Linda

[fls]

This is correct. And science can certainly inform the decision-process, but it can't make it alone. Disagreement about, say, what degree of income inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) that is acceptable isn't akin to disagreement over life on Mars. The latter can (in principle) be settled by empirical evidence, the former can not.

Really? The effects of the degree of income inequality can be collected empirically, and we could certainly distinguish between a situation which shows relative stability and one which rapidly breaks down.

Linda

[Complexity]

Not only a mistake but a cop-out.


Agreed. NOMA was a cop-out by a guy that I otherwise like and respect.

I was really disappointed in Gould when I first encountered NOMA.

[Jake Dale]

It seemed like a random question on your part...I wondered where it came from.

Lindalet me get that for ya

[westprog]

Really? The effects of the degree of income inequality can be collected empirically, and we could certainly distinguish between a situation which shows relative stability and one which rapidly breaks down.

Linda

Then we have to choose to prefer a situation which shows relative stability.

[RobDegraves]

I think that's why we treat them as though they are different (narcissistic bastards that we are ). We treat why questions as though they relate to human values of intent when there really isn't any reason to do so.

However, they do relate based on the circumstances.

If I push someone over... the intent does in fact matter.

If a volcano erupts, there is no intent.

If there was a deity (or deities) involved, the volcano erupting might have some form of intent.

It's why we have two different words.

[Jake Dale]

there ya go linda

But this is what I am talking about. If torture is a questionable activity, there must be characteristics, in addition to whether or not it offers benefits, which are relevant to answering the question. Otherwise you would not see the need to offer snarky responses to my posts. All you are demonstrating is that there is more to the question than whether or not some benefit can be got - ETA: which is what I've said all along. It is also important to look at the harms and whether there are circumstances under which those harms would be obviated.
Linda

[Dr. Keith]

Then we have to choose to prefer a situation which shows relative stability.

Why? If we want a system that is unstable we can strive for that if we properly understand the consequences.

And how would religion provide any help in this regard?

[westprog]

Why? If we want a system that is unstable we can strive for that if we properly understand the consequences.

And how would religion provide any help in this regard?

It doesn't have to be religion, but something other than science has to be used. If you use science alone, you never have any preference for anything. Science is always value-free. No outcome is preferred. It tells you that if you do A, you get B, if you do C, you get D. It never tells you that B is better than D.

[fls]

Then we have to choose to prefer a situation which shows relative stability.

Well, I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm not talking about choosing a situation on the basis of our preferences.

However, even if we wanted to use our preferences (which is how it tends to get framed anyway), this still offers no support for NOMA.

Linda

[Complexity]

It doesn't have to be religion, but something other than science has to be used. If you use science alone, you never have any preference for anything. Science is always value-free. No outcome is preferred. It tells you that if you do A, you get B, if you do C, you get D. It never tells you that B is better than D.


I wish you understood more about both science and values.

What you are saying makes no sense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

:rolleyes:



Bwahahahaahahahahahahaha.



Because, like above, I hate discussing things with postivists. Or people who confuse how with why. (Or, for that matter, why I should do what my biology tells me when there may be countervailing factors.)



Sure. But that doesn't .. you're confusing the how of someone acts with the why. But, you know, you do this -every time- NOMA comes up. It's why I hate discussing it here.

E: and now that I've answered the questions, I'm seriously not responding in here again. Because I said I would, and I should at least be consistant...So we have a different world view and we are both certain our view is correct. But I have evidence on my side and you have an imaginary source of morality on yours.

Or do you have a source for these unanswerable whys? Do you not think you are deriving said answer from your biological brain?

Have you not heard of competing biological drives? By what magic are you denying what your biology tells you as you've given as an example?

[fls]

However, they do relate based on the circumstances.

If I push someone over... the intent does in fact matter.

If a volcano erupts, there is no intent.

If there was a deity (or deities) involved, the volcano erupting might have some form of intent.

It's why we have two different words.

Many of our why questions are unrelated to human intentions - why does the universe exist, for example. Other than our tendency/desire to anthromorphize events, intent is a characteristic humans assign rather than a characteristic of the event. And when it comes to pushing someone over, intent is merely part of the mechanism. The how/why justification seems to be an artifact of what was talked about in the OP - some need to find an excuse for NOMA.

Linda

[fls]

there ya go linda

I see. I don't want to derail this thread with a different discussion. Maybe you could pick up the old thread (I'd have to go back and look at where it left off) if you have questions?

Linda

[Dr. Keith]

It doesn't have to be religion, but something other than science has to be used. If you use science alone, you never have any preference for anything. Science is always value-free. No outcome is preferred. It tells you that if you do A, you get B, if you do C, you get D. It never tells you that B is better than D.

Pick any religion and you will find support for B and D. Religion is just a framework for presenting our preferences. Murder, pillage, and rape. No problem, just find the right framework.

See: Biblical support and condemnation for just about every western atrocity of the last 200 years.

[Dr. Keith]

I wish you understood more about both science and values.

What you are saying makes no sense.

I like your response better than mine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's amazing how people have such a deep (an unscientific) faith in science to do what it's never intended to do - provide moral guidance......You are making the same mistake as Koi is making. And you've added a straw man.

"Science" does not provide the moral guidance you speak of. That is not what I've said so it is a straw man if this post applies to me. Rather, science can explore the mechanism by which we make moral decisions and as we better understand what goes into said decision making we are better able to make moral decisions which suit us.

One can illustrate the same thing with beauty only a little more concretely. One can use the scientific process to determine what the components are we are judging beauty by. In doing so, I can choose to apply make up, for example, (I don't use it but if I did), more efficiently if looking beautiful were my goal.


As for the mistake, I ask you the same question, where are you getting that moral guidance from if not your biological brain?

[Skeptic Ginger]

deleted, answered

[Complexity]

I like your response better than mine.


Thanks.

I don't know why I keep bothering, because he never listens or learns.

It must be because others will read these forums. One can dream...

[westprog]

Well, I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm not talking about choosing a situation on the basis of our preferences.

However, even if we wanted to use our preferences (which is how it tends to get framed anyway), this still offers no support for NOMA.

Linda

It certainly disposes of the claim that it can all be done with science.

[westprog]

You are making the same mistake as Koi is making. And you've added a straw man.

"Science" does not provide the moral guidance you speak of. That is not what I've said so it is a straw man if this post applies to me. Rather, science can explore the mechanism by which we make moral decisions and as we better understand what goes into said decision making we are better able to make moral decisions which suit us.

One can illustrate the same thing with beauty only a little more concretely. One can use the scientific process to determine what the components are we are judging beauty by. In doing so, I can choose to apply make up, for example, (I don't use it but if I did), more efficiently if looking beautiful were my goal.


As for the mistake, I ask you the same question, where are you getting that moral guidance from if not your biological brain?

Everything in the universe operates according to the laws of science (as far as we can determine). That doesn't mean that everything is "doing science".

If science does not provide the moral guidance, then something else does. That something else is in what Gould described as a magisterium.

The process of making moral decisions is something that is entirely separate from science. It has to be so.

[westprog]

Pick any religion and you will find support for B and D. Religion is just a framework for presenting our preferences. Murder, pillage, and rape. No problem, just find the right framework.

See: Biblical support and condemnation for just about every western atrocity of the last 200 years.

Nothing you're saying contradicts anything I've said.

[Complexity]

It certainly disposes of the claim that it can all be done with science.


Nonsense. You simply don't understand enough to explore the question properly.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Everything in the universe operates according to the laws of science (as far as we can determine). That doesn't mean that everything is "doing science".

If science does not provide the moral guidance, then something else does. That something else is in what Gould described as a magisterium.

The process of making moral decisions is something that is entirely separate from science. It has to be so.


There is nothing to suggest that the process of deciding, taking moral action, and the process of describing, the realm of science, are entirely separate, however. Take the simple example pointed out frequently -- science can describe the decision making process. It can actually test which decisions work best in certain situations, given a framework for evaluation. It can even provide a process for deciding on future frameworks for those evaluations.

Actually making the decisions is, of course, a different process than describing them; but that does not make them entirely separate, only different. But, we've covered this ad infinitum.

[Complexity]

Everything in the universe operates according to the laws of science (as far as we can determine). That doesn't mean that everything is "doing science".

If science does not provide the moral guidance, then something else does. That something else is in what Gould described as a magisterium.

The process of making moral decisions is something that is entirely separate from science. It has to be so.


There is no such thing as a 'morality' that is not physically caused.

'morals' and 'ethics' are merely constructs of biological creatures, at least in part shaped by evolution.

The moral system crafted by an individual is on an equal footing with the moral system of a religion or culture (pretending that either could have a single moral system). Both are made up.

A moral system is no more 'true' or significant than an aesthetic system is, or a preference for how one holds a fork. They all describe how people behave or, more accurately, think one ought to behave, not something that is decreed, or ordained, or is 'natural', or makes sense. They are contrived bits of fashion.

I have developed (and continue to fiddle with) a moral system according to which I try to live. It works fairly well for me - that is all I can claim.

All aspects of ethics and morality, of aesthetics and fork holding, are part of reality, are physically caused, and are subject to scientific inquiry.

There is no room for, and no need for, anything else.

[Irony]

Everything in the universe operates according to the laws of science (as far as we can determine). That doesn't mean that everything is "doing science".

If science does not provide the moral guidance, then something else does. That something else is in what Gould described as a magisterium.

The process of making moral decisions is something that is entirely separate from science. It has to be so.

The universe does not behave like a Venn diagram. That something might lay within the realm of human preference and not be entirely decidable based on purely scientific processes does not make it "entirely separate from science". Science can inform us as to why we have our preferences and give us guidance on how to better meet them, which is not something that an "entirely separate" concept could do.

[Jake Dale]

A moral system is no more 'true' or significant than an aesthetic system is, or a preference for how one holds a fork. .we have entered the enlightened age of the holy fork holders. jesus christ, you people are toasted.

[Resume]

. jesus christ, you people are toasted.

If you believe in JC, I'll bet you think we're toast. In fact, the dogma demands it.

[fls]

It certainly disposes of the claim that it can all be done with science.

No it doesn't. Unless you work with some bastardised version of science. Which again goes along with the OP, I suppose.

Linda

[Jake Dale]

..

[Jake Dale]

If you believe in JC, I'll bet you think we're toast. In fact, the dogma demands it.oh don't worry about that, the chastisement of fools is folly(toast)

[Resume]

oh don't worry about that, the chastisement of fools is folly(toast)

And the wise man makes his speech judicious.

So what?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Everything in the universe operates according to the laws of science (as far as we can determine). That doesn't mean that everything is "doing science".

If science does not provide the moral guidance, then something else does. That something else is in what Gould described as a magisterium.

The process of making moral decisions is something that is entirely separate from science. It has to be so.I'll ask again since you completely sidestepped the question. What is this "magisterium" if it is not simply a biological process within your brain?

[Jake Dale]

I see. I don't want to derail this thread with a different discussion. Maybe you could pick up the old thread (I'd have to go back and look at where it left off) if you have questions?

Lindawhenever you're ready

how's your a priori decimation of torture going?

[Jake Dale]

And the wise man makes his speech judicious.

So what?perhaps you can tell me how holding a fork translates to, "look, resume is judicious"

[westprog]

No it doesn't. Unless you work with some bastardised version of science. Which again goes along with the OP, I suppose.

Linda

If there's a version of unbastardised science which has an "ought" in it, I'd like to see it. Some example textbook would be interesting.

[Resume]

perhaps you can tell me how holding a fork translates to, "look, resume is judicious"

I'm not sure any of your analogies translate into anything.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ok, so I hate myself. I'll respond anyway. Maybe I can get around to confirming what I think through it being beat up...

There is no such thing as a 'morality' that is not physically caused.

'morals' and 'ethics' are merely constructs of biological creatures, at least in part shaped by evolution.

The moral system crafted by an individual is on an equal footing with the moral system of a religion or culture (pretending that either could have a single moral system). Both are made up.

A moral system is no more 'true' or significant than an aesthetic system is, or a preference for how one holds a fork. They all describe how people behave or, more accurately, think one ought to behave, not something that is decreed, or ordained, or is 'natural', or makes sense. They are contrived bits of fashion.

I have developed (and continue to fiddle with) a moral system according to which I try to live. It works fairly well for me - that is all I can claim.

All aspects of ethics and morality, of aesthetics and fork holding, are part of reality, are physically caused, and are subject to scientific inquiry.

There is no room for, and no need for, anything else.

Yes, moral systems are all made up. Your point is..?

I'll ask again since you completely sidestepped the question. What is this "magisterium" if it is not simply a biological process within your brain?

.. It's not biological by any means or purposes. Seriously, it's not. Unless you want to tell me that every philospher ever just wrote down what they thought based on their first impulse without reflection or without reading other work. Good luck with that.

[Craig B]

Agreed. NOMA was a cop-out by a guy that I otherwise like and respect. I was really disappointed in Gould when I first encountered NOMA.

My view too. Everybody seemed to like Stephen Gould, even when disagreeing with him. For a more negative view see
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html#2 Tooby & Cosmides 1997.

My objection to NOMA is this: religions may perform moral actions as part of their praxis, but when they are asked to define themselves, they produce factual (or "factoidal") declarations like the shaada, or the Nicene Creed. Christians may love their neighbours (moral) but that's not what makes them Christians. What does that is belief in the (factoidal) statement that Jesus is the Son of God.

[westprog]

I'll ask again since you completely sidestepped the question. What is this "magisterium" if it is not simply a biological process within your brain?

Religious belief is a biological process within the brain. Does that make religion science?

[benbradley]

Who says science can answer moral questions?
Sam Harris does:
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

[benbradley]

I recall reading his NOMA essay, it's online. I don't think he's hedging his bets, but it seems from the essay that the Vatican and Catholic priests were quite welcoming to him and many other big-name scientists, and NOMA seems to have been his way of trying to preserve that.

I must admit, I kind of like the concept of NOMA describing a plane, of science being the horizontal (real) axis and religion being orthogonal to science and thus being the vertical, or imaginary axis.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

.. It's not biological by any means or purposes. Seriously, it's not. Unless you want to tell me that every philospher ever just wrote down what they thought based on their first impulse without reflection or without reading other work. Good luck with that.I think you misunderstand what I mean by biological process. But even if you don't get it, you've only answered what the magisteria is not, not what it is.


But not expecting an answer since there is none, biological brain processes doesn't preclude careful refection, or extensive contemplation. Why would you think it doesn't include thinking? What do you think contemplating looks like in your brain? Do you think there are magic pixies sprinkling dust in your eyes that shapes your thoughts?

[Resume]

I recall reading his NOMA essay, it's online. I don't think he's hedging his bets, but it seems from the essay that the Vatican and Catholic priests were quite welcoming to him and many other big-name scientists, and NOMA seems to have been his way of trying to preserve that.

I must admit, I kind of like the concept of NOMA describing a plane, of science being the horizontal (real) axis and religion being orthogonal to science and thus being the vertical, or imaginary axis.

Yes, religion=imaginary.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Religious belief is a biological process within the brain. Does that make religion science?No, it makes religious beliefs a biological brain process. Why would it make religion a science?

[westprog]

No, it makes religious beliefs a biological brain process. Why would it make religion a science?

So when everything that we think or conceive is a biological brain process, how does this tell us how these thoughts and ideas should be divided?

[Craig B]

Sam Harris does:
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Sam Harris has all manner of strange ideas about science's answers to moral questions. The "truth pill", for example:Clearly, the consequences of one person's uncooperativeness can be made so grave, and his malevolence and culpability so transparent, as to stir even a self-hating moral relativist from his dogmatic slumbers. ... If our intuition about the wrongness of torture is born of an aversion to how people generally behave while being tortured, we should note that this particular infelicity could be circumvented pharmacologically, because paralytic drugs make it unnecessary for screaming ever to be heard or writhing seen. We could easily devise methods of torture that would render a torturer as blind to the plight of his victims as a bomber pilot is at thirty thousand feet. Consequently, our natural aversion to the sights and sounds of the dungeon provide no foothold for those who would argue against the use of torture. Yes, all that screaming and writhing is an "infelicity", but science has the answer: To demonstrate just how abstract the torments of the tortured can be made to seem, we need only imagine an ideal "torture pill"--a drug that would deliver both the instruments of torture and the instrument of their concealment. The action of the pill would be to produce transitory paralysis and transitory misery of a kind that no human being would willingly submit to a second time. Imagine how we torturers would feel if, after giving this pill to captive terrorists, each lay down for what appeared to be an hour's nap only to arise and immediately confess everything he knows about the workings of his organization. Might we not be tempted to call it a "truth pill" in the end? No, there is no ethical difference to be found in how the suffering of the tortured or the collaterally damaged appears. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html Sam needn't fret, however. We can always find people who ENJOY torturing others, so we don't need to waste money on the pill.

People opposed to torture are "self-hating moral relativists". All these statements by Sam Harris have horrified me more than anything else I have read since I can remember. That a citizen of a democratic country can so express himself is disgusting. We expect this from tyrants. As Chaucer wrote, If gold rust, what shall iron do?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So when everything that we think or conceive is a biological brain process, how does this tell us how these thoughts and ideas should be divided?Thoughts are evidence of brain function. Whatever the thoughts are of requires its own evidence to determine the validity of the thing said thoughts are of.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Thoughts are evidence of brain function. Whatever the thoughts are of requires its own evidence to determine the validity of the thing said thoughts are of.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by biological process. But even if you don't get it, you've only answered what the magisteria is not, not what it is.


But not expecting an answer since there is none, biological brain processes doesn't preclude careful refection, or extensive contemplation. Why would you think it doesn't include thinking? What do you think contemplating looks like in your brain? Do you think there are magic pixies sprinkling dust in your eyes that shapes your thoughts?

Congratulations, you've proven thought has a biological basis? I didn't know you could mind-read with an EEG.

Regardless...

[Dani]

Sam Harris does:
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Noooooooo!!!!!!! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170759) :eek:

:p

There is no such thing as a 'morality' that is not physically caused.

'morals' and 'ethics' are merely constructs of biological creatures, at least in part shaped by evolution.

The moral system crafted by an individual is on an equal footing with the moral system of a religion or culture (pretending that either could have a single moral system). Both are made up.

A moral system is no more 'true' or significant than an aesthetic system is, or a preference for how one holds a fork. They all describe how people behave or, more accurately, think one ought to behave, not something that is decreed, or ordained, or is 'natural', or makes sense. They are contrived bits of fashion.

I have developed (and continue to fiddle with) a moral system according to which I try to live. It works fairly well for me - that is all I can claim.

All aspects of ethics and morality, of aesthetics and fork holding, are part of reality, are physically caused, and are subject to scientific inquiry.

There is no room for, and no need for, anything else.

I agree.

You are making the same mistake as Koi is making. And you've added a straw man.

"Science" does not provide the moral guidance you speak of. That is not what I've said so it is a straw man if this post applies to me. Rather, science can explore the mechanism by which we make moral decisions and as we better understand what goes into said decision making we are better able to make moral decisions which suit us.

One can illustrate the same thing with beauty only a little more concretely. One can use the scientific process to determine what the components are we are judging beauty by. In doing so, I can choose to apply make up, for example, (I don't use it but if I did), more efficiently if looking beautiful were my goal.


As for the mistake, I ask you the same question, where are you getting that moral guidance from if not your biological brain?

Well, that's funny. From my experience, it seems there can easily be misunderstandings when people talk about this specific topic. I think most people would have agreed with this post in the Sam Harris thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Congratulations, you've proven thought has a biological basis? I didn't know you could mind-read with an EEG.

Regardless...So because an EEG does not spell out words that is your rationale that the mind is a magical thing?

[westprog]

This is correct. And science can certainly inform the decision-process, but it can't make it alone. Disagreement about, say, what degree of income inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) that is acceptable isn't akin to disagreement over life on Mars. The latter can (in principle) be settled by empirical evidence, the former can not.

And yet there's this conviction that if only we were really rational, then science could handle the whole thing. Scientific morality - just around the corner.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet there's this conviction that if only we were really rational, then science could handle the whole thing. Scientific morality - just around the corner.You just can't let go of this straw man, can you? That suggests you can't rebut the actual arguments so you have to make this one up and pretend you answered the the ones we actually made. :)

[HansMustermann]

Congratulations, you've proven thought has a biological basis? I didn't know you could mind-read with an EEG.

Err... so? We also can't see the 4 individual hydrogen atoms fusing in a helium atom in the Sun, but there is no reason to assume that anything else is powering the Sun than that.

And speaking of reading, we can't read the Voynich manuscript or the Rohonc codex, but there is no reason to assume any other source than some person writing them.

[Humes fork]

Sam Harris does:
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_...t_s_right.html

Sam Harris is a minority in this. He was roundly criticized by Carroll, Myers and others.

And most importantly, Harris is wrong. He has made a joke out of himself due to this, and how he "responded" to the criticism.

And yet there's this conviction that if only we were really rational, then science could handle the whole thing. Scientific morality - just around the corner.

No, there is no such conviction here. It's logically impossible to derive normative statements purely on the basis of how the world works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). Rationality doesn't come into it.


Still, no place for religion.

[Humes fork]

Curiously, I found a comic illustrating NOMA:

http://cdn.nearlyfreespeech.net/jandmstatic/strips/2011-08-17.png

[mutile]

Why can't intelligent design answer the big why questions it's a science.

[linusrichard]

Based on reading this thread, I guess either I have a pretty poor understanding of what NOMA means, or the rest of you do ;)

But I believe in my NOMA, whether that's Gould's NOMA or your NOMA or the right NOMA.

I believe that science is not equipped to answer normative questions, including moral and ethical questions (although it certainly is equipped to give us the information we need to answer those questions).

I believe that religion is not equipped to answer descriptive questions--facts about the world.

What I don't believe:
- I don't believe that either scientists or religionists abide by this principle. I know there are scientists who tell us what is right and wrong or what we should do, and some of them even do so in the name of science. And of course, religion makes plenty of factual claims about the world.
- I don't necessarily believe that religion is well equipped to operate within its own magisterium. To me, NOMA doesn't answer that question. NOMA is a negative, not a positive. It doesn't say religion, or any particular religion, is good at answering moral questions. It only says that religion, by its very nature, cannot answer descriptive questions.
- I don't believe that (even if religion is well equipped to operate within its own magisterium) that it is the only thing that is qualified to answer normative questions.

[HansMustermann]

But from that it still doesn't follow that religion should get that magisterium at all. Saying that X isn't fully qualified to answer question Q, doesn't mean Y gets the domain automatically, when Y can be even less qualified to answer that. Not to mention that it may be that a third entity Z could be better qualified to answer that question than both X and Y combined.

E.g., if I believe that historians can't fully answer the question of whether Timaeus or Atlantis existed (both of Plato fame), it doesn't mean that BS-ers like Eric von Däniken get that magisterium by default.

Even if you believe that there is some gap that science can't bridge, it can still do a better job than religion of laying out the facts that even get us that far. Religion has a track record of just postulating retarded BS about human behaviour, that now we know just doesn't work that way. Be it Buddhist BS about it being somehow possible to discard hard-wired needs just by being enlightened, or Paul and the gang postulating that idolatry makes you gay, or stupid medieval ideas about diseases being caused by people's being evil, or whatever, religion has consistently made stupid and counter-productive assumptions that it based its norms on.

If neither X nor Y get me all the way to an answer, but X at least helps narrow the question and put it in context, while Y is a counter-productive smorgasbord of idiotic assumptions and postulates that don't even go in the wrong direction, then I still don't see why I should give Y the magisterium. In this case science at least gives us SOME data to base further thought on, while religion gives us complete garbage. Why should religion get that domain?

It's like saying that because science can't yet fully cure cancer, let's give the homeopaths that domain. Why? By what logic if one alternative isn't perfect, then it's ok to take the one that is completely crap?

Plus, as I've hinted in the first paragraph, sometimes it's not even a dichotomy. Sometimes there's a third alternative. E.g., if neither science nor religion gets us anywhere near the answer, why not use PHILOSOPHY instead of both? Or a combination of philosophy and hard data provided by science?

[Aepervius]

Religious belief is a biological process within the brain. Does that make religion science?

No but that potentially make the *feeling* of the believer/faithful when they think they see god or they think they hear it, and which part of the brain is mainly used while referring to gods (the ego) , well, science.

In the very end , science might be able to explain faith and religion as impact on the brain and why such impact happens that way. Whereas religion will never really be able to explain any **** whatsoever, just *assert* explanation.

[Jake Dale]

I'm not sure any of your analogies translate into anything.yes, i know you have no clue

[fls]

No, there is no such conviction here. It's logically impossible to derive normative statements purely on the basis of how the world works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). Rationality doesn't come into it.

That's why I think the discussion about understanding brain states is a bit of a red herring when it comes to issues we have labeled "morals". Certainly the idea that there are right and wrong actions comes from our aversions to particular acts and from the cognitive rewards from particular acts. But understanding this doesn't tell you whether the acts are desirable or undesirable with respect to useful outcomes. For example, there is much variety throughout the animal kingdom in the amount of attention paid to offspring - from destruction of offspring through to dedicated nurturing. In the end, organisms who are mortal and who reproduce through offspring all depend upon the presence of offspring. But pretending that understanding human aversions tells you what is right and wrong is the same as pretending that we can determine the extent to which organisms depend upon the presence of offspring for the continued presence of that species by looking at the extent to which offspring are nurtured. That is, we wouldn't try to claim that a species which ignores its offspring means that offspring are irrelevant to the continued presence of that species. Yet we do try to claim that our aversions to torture are what make torture wrong.

People who use this argument are then falling into the NOMA trap, because the NOMA supporters are correct to point out that human desires or norms are as arbitrary as the stuff religion pulls out of its ass. You are right that that doesn't actually give religion some special footing (other than its clear advantage when it comes to making up ********) with respect to NOMA. But all religion needs is the appearance of an equal footing in order to satisfy Apologetics, because (as has already been mentioned) the argument for NOMA takes the form of, "if fault can be found with X, then Y is valid".

Linda

[Beth]

But all religion needs is the appearance of an equal footing in order to satisfy Apologetics, because (as has already been mentioned) the argument for NOMA takes the form of, "if fault can be found with X, then Y is valid".

Linda

It's been quite a while since I read Gould's essay, but I don't recall this being any part of his argument. Could you tell me who and where this argument was made with regard to NOMA?

[Jake Dale]

It's been quite a while since I read Gould's essay, but I don't recall this being any part of his argument. Could you tell me who and where this argument was made with regard to NOMA?people in this thread who are imagining things, and ironically it's what they often do themselves.

[Humes fork]

Plus, as I've hinted in the first paragraph, sometimes it's not even a dichotomy. Sometimes there's a third alternative. E.g., if neither science nor religion gets us anywhere near the answer, why not use PHILOSOPHY instead of both? Or a combination of philosophy and hard data provided by science?

I'd be careful with moral philosophy though, as it has a tendency to either make up absurdly complicated metaphysical schemes (Plato), or retell just-so stories (Kant, Rawls, Nozick). The project is indeed worthwhile and important, but if we don't start by stop lying to ourselves about reality, then we won't do much better than religion.

[xjx388]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

"Causing harm to someone is wrong." Prove this scientifically. I don't think you can. Morality has no empirical basis in the real world. Animals other than humans engage in behaviors that humans would consider immoral. They rape each other, they kill each other, they kill their offspring, etc. So what makes humans different? What makes it empirically wrong to rape or kill another human being (or animal for that matter)?

Empathy? Compassion? What makes those emotions more right than greed and hate?

[Beth]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

"Causing harm to someone is wrong." Prove this scientifically. I don't think you can.
Probably because it's not true. Think about a surgeon. They cause harm to people (cutting them open) in order to hopefully improve their physical health. So it's not that harm per se can be considered wrong, but the intentions and expected outcome of a harmful act are part of what is taken into account in defining morality.

Morality has no empirical basis in the real world. Animals other than humans engage in behaviors that humans would consider immoral. They rape each other, they kill each other, they kill their offspring, etc. So what makes humans different? What makes it empirically wrong to rape or kill another human being (or animal for that matter)?

Empathy? Compassion? What makes those emotions more right than greed and hate?

Good questions all. Different people will have different answers to those questions. For example, some people consider the deliberate ending of another human's life to be always wrong, while others make allowances for self-defense, soldiers in military actions, abortion, etc.

[fls]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

"Causing harm to someone is wrong." Prove this scientifically. I don't think you can. Morality has no empirical basis in the real world. Animals other than humans engage in behaviors that humans would consider immoral. They rape each other, they kill each other, they kill their offspring, etc. So what makes humans different? What makes it empirically wrong to rape or kill another human being (or animal for that matter)?

Empathy? Compassion? What makes those emotions more right than greed and hate?

Regardless of whether you are correct, what does that have to do with NOMA?

Linda

[Dave Rogers]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

And circus clowns cannot answer the basic descriptive questions. Therefore, by the rationale for NOMA, we should rely on science to determine questions of fact, and circus clowns to determine questions of morality.

If you disagree with this logic, please explain how it is made valid by substituting the word "religion" for the term "circus clowns".

Dave

[HansMustermann]

I'd be careful with moral philosophy though, as it has a tendency to either make up absurdly complicated metaphysical schemes (Plato), or retell just-so stories (Kant, Rawls, Nozick). The project is indeed worthwhile and important, but if we don't start by stop lying to ourselves about reality, then we won't do much better than religion.

A good objection, to be sure. But that's why in the final sentence I propose to get the hard data from science, where such relevant data is available.

[xjx388]

Regardless of whether you are correct, what does that have to do with NOMA?

Linda

NOMA says that Religion and Science do not overlap. I think Science cannot answer moral questions, therefore, I tend to agree with the idea of NOMA. However, I would say that philosophy in general is a better word than Religion. We need both philosophy and science. Religion is just a subset of philosophy.

[fls]

NOMA says that Religion and Science do not overlap.

If that was all NOMA said, it would be a trivial observation. NOMA says that there is a domain for which Religion is able to offer valid and useful answers. Without mentioning your perception of what Science cannot do, please explain how we know that Religion offers valid and useful answers, and how the domain for these answers/questions was determined.

Linda

[xjx388]

And circus clowns cannot answer the basic descriptive questions. Therefore, by the rationale for NOMA, we should rely on science to determine questions of fact, and circus clowns to determine questions of morality.

If you disagree with this logic, please explain how it is made valid by substituting the word "religion" for the term "circus clowns".

Dave

Well, because circus clowns are not known for trying to answer those questions. . .

Philosophy (religion) tries to answer descriptive questions, but is not very good at it. Science tries to answer moral questions but is similarly ill-equipped. So let philosophy stick to the moral stuff and science to the empirical stuff.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, because circus clowns are not known for trying to answer those questions. . .

Which has no bearing on their ability to provide answers to those questions. Circus clowns are known for their attempts to carry and use stepladders and buckets of whitewash, but are hardly trustworthy authorities on how to do so.

Philosophy (religion) tries to answer descriptive questions, but is not very good at it. Science tries to answer moral questions but is similarly ill-equipped. So let philosophy stick to the moral stuff and science to the empirical stuff.

X cannot do A.
Y cannot do B.
Therefore, X can do B and Y can do A.

Is this affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or somewhere in between the two?

We can all agree that religion is not good at answering descriptive questions. What we'd like to see is evidence that religion (as opposed to philosophy, which is not the same thing however the religious may wish to assert otherwise) is good at answering moral questions. Please offer some evidence, consistent with - for example - the recent coverups of child abuse in the Catholic Church, or some of the more bizarre sexual recommendations in the Old Testament.

The argument against NOMA is not, particularly, that science is good at answering moral questions. It's that religion isn't.

Dave

[Dr. Keith]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

What can?

Really, the clown question above is a better response, so I hope you reply to it instead of mine, but I had to jump in.

Religion and philosophy have been horrible at answering basic moral questions, to the point where I now think philosophy is the study of how poorly religion and other beliefs apply to the real world.

If you want to know why society should not allow murder you are wasting your time talking to a philosopher, start with a scientist. You can begin in the biology department, maybe mosey on down to the anthropology department and even hang out with folks that study primate cultures.

Once you can see the comparative advantages of making murder very rare in a society you don't have to wade through why god said "thou shalt not kill" and then ordered his people into genocidal warfare.

To the extent Philosophy has any legs at all, it will be as a framework against which neuroscience will grow.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why can't intelligent design answer the big why questions it's a science.Are you joking or just blind to the arguments explaining why ID is not science?

Let me simplify it for you and move on since it is off topic: The 'science' that supposedly supported the 'theory' of ID was completely dependent upon Behe's actual science investigating the hypothesis that there was Irreducible Complexity in biological organisms that refuted the single common ancestor concept in evolution theory. Behe's hypothesis has failed. It's been disproved.

To claim ID is a science, you need scientific evidence to support it. There is none. You need a falsifiable question that supports ID. Without irreducible complexity, you have none.

Ergo, ID is not science.[/sidetrack]

[The Norseman]

Are you joking or just blind to the arguments explaining why ID is not science?

Let me simplify it for you and move on since it is off topic: The 'science' that supposedly supported the 'theory' of ID was completely dependent upon Behe's actual science investigating the hypothesis that there was Irreducible Complexity in biological organisms that refuted the single common ancestor concept in evolution theory. Behe's hypothesis has failed. It's been disproved.

To claim ID is a science, you need scientific evidence to support it. There is none. You need a falsifiable question that supports ID. Without irreducible complexity, you have none.

Ergo, ID is not science.[/sidetrack]

I read mutile's post as a jab at the IDers who claim it should be taught alongside science in the classroom, and not as a serious response.

[westprog]

Based on reading this thread, I guess either I have a pretty poor understanding of what NOMA means, or the rest of you do ;)

But I believe in my NOMA, whether that's Gould's NOMA or your NOMA or the right NOMA.

I believe that science is not equipped to answer normative questions, including moral and ethical questions (although it certainly is equipped to give us the information we need to answer those questions).

I believe that religion is not equipped to answer descriptive questions--facts about the world.

What I don't believe:
- I don't believe that either scientists or religionists abide by this principle. I know there are scientists who tell us what is right and wrong or what we should do, and some of them even do so in the name of science. And of course, religion makes plenty of factual claims about the world.
- I don't necessarily believe that religion is well equipped to operate within its own magisterium. To me, NOMA doesn't answer that question. NOMA is a negative, not a positive. It doesn't say religion, or any particular religion, is good at answering moral questions. It only says that religion, by its very nature, cannot answer descriptive questions.
- I don't believe that (even if religion is well equipped to operate within its own magisterium) that it is the only thing that is qualified to answer normative questions.

I think that's at least a start at framing the discussion in a way that doesn't involve talking past each other.

If we accept the above - that moral questions cannot be resolved by science, and hence the validity of the two magisteria - we can then consider whether in the moral sphere, there are better and worse ways to decide moral questions, and whether religious methods are always worse.

[Dr. Keith]

If we accept the above - that moral questions cannot be resolved by science, and hence the validity of the two magisteria - we can then consider whether in the moral sphere, there are better and worse ways to decide moral questions, and whether religious methods are always worse.

You want to analyze which system is the best at answering moral questions, but you are excluding science a priori and then using the scientific method to conduct your study.

Isn't that a bit like saying: Democracies don't work in reality so lets hold an election to pick the best dictator.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Based on reading this thread, I guess either I have a pretty poor understanding of what NOMA means, or the rest of you do ;)

But I believe in my NOMA, whether that's Gould's NOMA or your NOMA or the right NOMA.

I believe that science is not equipped to answer normative questions, including moral and ethical questions (although it certainly is equipped to give us the information we need to answer those questions).

I believe that religion is not equipped to answer descriptive questions--facts about the world.

What I don't believe:
- I don't believe that either scientists or religionists abide by this principle. I know there are scientists who tell us what is right and wrong or what we should do, and some of them even do so in the name of science. And of course, religion makes plenty of factual claims about the world.
- I don't necessarily believe that religion is well equipped to operate within its own magisterium. To me, NOMA doesn't answer that question. NOMA is a negative, not a positive. It doesn't say religion, or any particular religion, is good at answering moral questions. It only says that religion, by its very nature, cannot answer descriptive questions.
- I don't believe that (even if religion is well equipped to operate within its own magisterium) that it is the only thing that is qualified to answer normative questions.Sounds good until you address the straw man and unanswered question which I and others have pointed out.

The straw man:
Moral/ethical decisions are still a nature/nurture phenomena. One can investigate the processes involved and the scientific inquiry then gives us insight about our moral/ethical decisions which is the best way to make and understand moral/ethical questions.

That is how science addresses moral/ethical questions. To claim we are saying science can detect the answers without the context of the biological brain is a straw man. You must consider the context of the biological brain when using science to investigate morals/ethics, and once you recognize that, you can then see that science does indeed 'go there'.

The unanswered question:
If this magisteria is not gods or religion, what the bleep is it? Magical pixies whispering in your ear? Some brain quality or process that science can not investigate or draw conclusions about? Some magical thing 'humans' have that animals don't? So when we observe animals using morally directed behaviors we are just anthropomorphizing, no matter how clear the morally directed behavior appears? If I share it is a moral choice, if a non-human primate shares it must be related to some reward?


And let me throw some more wood on this fire. The more we learn about those biological brain processes, the more we find that what passes through our conscious awareness is but a tiny fraction of what brain activity actually goes into our behavior and decision making. In other words, we have a lot to learn about our brains. To think there is some magical NOMA (overlapping or not) one has to answer then, what is it and why are you singling that brain function out from all the other brain functions like hunger and sleep? Is there a sleep magisteria? A hunger magisteria? And if not, then what is different about values our brains prefer and say a preference for chocolate?

[xjx388]

If that was all NOMA said, it would be a trivial observation. NOMA says that there is a domain for which Religion is able to offer valid and useful answers. Without mentioning your perception of what Science cannot do, please explain how we know that Religion offers valid and useful answers, and how the domain for these answers/questions was determined.

Linda
But the very fact that empiricisim/science cannot answer moral/philosophical questions is the reason why I feel that there must be a separation between an empirical domain and a moral domain. That is the basis for establishing it. There's no scientific basis for making a judgement that causing harm is morally wrong. If a man slaughters another man and his children in order to take his wife and produce his own offspring with her, can you scientifically prove that such an act was "wrong"? If so, are chimps and apes immoral?

Religion provides valid and useful answers in the moral domain. "Don't steal," among others, is a useful religious answer which is reflected in the laws of the land.

Religion does not provide valid and useful answers in the empirical domain. "God created the world," is not a useful empirical answer.

So while religion itself may be based on pure empirical nonsense, the moral answers it provides are perfectly valid and useful and are, in fact, the basis of American jurisprudence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

"Causing harm to someone is wrong." Prove this scientifically. I don't think you can. Morality has no empirical basis in the real world. Animals other than humans engage in behaviors that humans would consider immoral. They rape each other, they kill each other, they kill their offspring, etc. So what makes humans different? What makes it empirically wrong to rape or kill another human being (or animal for that matter)?You can't prove it because you are asking the wrong question. Try adding, in the context of the human brain and human biology, explain why humans believe causing harm is wrong? And you can branch out from there: Why does the human brain then find causing harm for revenge or punishment right?

Empathy? Compassion? What makes those emotions more right than greed and hate?Biology.


One can ask, is there a benefit in contemplating moral/ethical dilemmas? What benefit is that? Are we supposed to find insight by simply thinking these questions through?

Or is it possible we could find much better insight by using the scientific process to understand the emotional brain?

[Skeptic Ginger]

NOMA says that Religion and Science do not overlap. I think Science cannot answer moral questions, therefore, I tend to agree with the idea of NOMA. However, I would say that philosophy in general is a better word than Religion. We need both philosophy and science. Religion is just a subset of philosophy.
Philosophy is simply contemplating without an effort to understand the thought processes one is using. Where does it lead? How does it provide any insight?

I'm not saying there is no benefit at all to contemplating. I contemplate the Universe quite often. I'm just saying we should understand that contemplating is an exercise. It is not a magisteria any more than Tai Chi is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I read mutile's post as a jab at the IDers who claim it should be taught alongside science in the classroom, and not as a serious response.My sarcasm detector is faulty. :)

[fls]

<snip perception of science>

I specifically asked you to forego offering your perception of science, since it wasn't relevant to NOMA.

Religion provides valid and useful answers in the moral domain.

I need you to be more specific. How did you go about establishing that:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

is a valid and useful answer? How did you establish that this answer falls in the domain of religion a priori?

Linda

[xjx388]

You can't prove it because you are asking the wrong question. Try adding, in the context of the human brain and human biology, explain why humans believe causing harm is wrong? And you can branch out from there: Why does the human brain then find causing harm for revenge or punishment right? Those are good questions, but what are the answers in scientific terms? How would we experiment and observe in order to determine which behaviors are "right" and which ones are "wrong?"

Biology.How does biology determine something is right or wrong? For example, if one person wants as much money as possible for themselves in order to provide competitive advantages for themselves and their offspring, how can science prove that this behavior is wrong?

One can ask, is there a benefit in contemplating moral/ethical dilemmas? What benefit is that? Are we supposed to find insight by simply thinking these questions through?

Or is it possible we could find much better insight by using the scientific process to understand the emotional brain?We can understand emotions through science. But, how would this objectively determine if something is right or wrong?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Religion provides valid and useful answers in the moral domain. "Don't steal," among others, is a useful religious answer which is reflected in the laws of the land....And if one worshipped a god that said greed is good (see the Prosperity Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) version of Christianity) then that is a useful religious answer?

[fls]

Those are good questions, but what are the answers in scientific terms? How would we experiment and observe in order to determine which behaviors are "right" and which ones are "wrong?"

How does biology determine something is right or wrong? For example, if one person wants as much money as possible for themselves in order to provide competitive advantages for themselves and their offspring, how can science prove that this behavior is wrong?

We can understand emotions through science. But, how would this objectively determine if something is right or wrong?

None of that is relevant to NOMA. The question is, "how does religion serve to offer valid and useful answers to those question?"

Linda

[westprog]

The argument against NOMA is not, particularly, that science is good at answering moral questions. It's that religion isn't.

Dave

Nevertheless, moral questions have to be resolved, and science cannot do so.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those are good questions, but what are the answers in scientific terms? How would we experiment and observe in order to determine which behaviors are "right" and which ones are "wrong?"

How does biology determine something is right or wrong? For example, if one person wants as much money as possible for themselves in order to provide competitive advantages for themselves and their offspring, how can science prove that this behavior is wrong?

We can understand emotions through science. But, how would this objectively determine if something is right or wrong?Until you recognize what "in the context of the biological brain" means, you will keep asking the same straw man question. You need a paradigm shift away from, there is an answer to your questions without the context of the human brain.

[Resume]

Religion provides valid and useful answers in the moral domain. "Don't steal," among others, is a useful religious answer which is reflected in the laws of the land.



Do you mean to suggest this is purely a religious constraint?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nevertheless, moral questions have to be resolved, and science cannot do so.And you answer those questions, how?

Contemplating?

How's that going? What are the answers and are they universal?

No?

Why not?

Because one can only understand morality by understanding the biological process and how nature and nurture impact moral beliefs. Then it becomes obvious why there is not universal agreement on the answers to these moral questions.

[westprog]

Biology.


Since everything we do is as a result of biology, it doesn't form a very useful guide as to what we should do.

[westprog]

Do you mean to suggest this is purely a religious constraint?

It's certainly possible to have a non-religious moral code, but it will always be non-scientific.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since everything we do is as a result of biology, it doesn't form a very useful guide as to what we should do.You didn't answer the questions I asked. Why is that?

How do you answer those moral questions?
Contemplating?
How's that going? What are the answers and are they universal?
No?
Why not?


Once you answer those questions we can compare your method of answering moral/ethical questions and my method of studying the brain processes involved in order to gain insight first, before attempting to answer any moral/ethical questions.

[xjx388]

Do you mean to suggest this is purely a religious constraint?

No, it's a moral constraint. Religion is just one type of system of morals.

[westprog]

You didn't answer the questions I asked. Why is that?

How do you answer those moral questions?
Contemplating?
How's that going? What are the answers and are they universal?
No?
Why not?


Once you answer those questions we can compare your method of answering moral/ethical questions and my method of studying the brain processes involved in order to gain insight first, before attempting to answer any moral/ethical questions.

My method of dealing with moral questions starts with contemplation and introspection. I know what it feels like when something is done to me. I decide, on that basis, whether it is right to do that to someone else.

The idea that mankind should have put off making any decisions for several million years while waiting for the advent of neuroscience doesn't seem particularly practical.

In any case, how can neuroscience provide us with an "ought"? We can study the brain patterns of a murderer or a rape victim, but how does that lead us to a view as to what behaviours are to be avoided.

[Craig B]

If religion is defined as belief in statements of alleged (supernatural) fact, which it seems to be; then if we reject these statements as false, that would be a rejection of religion, but would have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting any moral code.

[xjx388]

I specifically asked you to forego offering your perception of science, since it wasn't relevant to NOMA. Of course it's relevant. I believe NOMA is a useful idea because science cannot answer moral questions.



I need you to be more specific. How did you go about establishing that:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

is a valid and useful answer? First of all, I didn't. But let's go with that. It's just as useful to make a rule that says you cannot worship anything but the true God as it is to say you must be loyal to the United States. It establishes the authority for all the rules that follow. Bogus authority, maybe, but the point remains.

How did you establish that this answer falls in the domain of religion a priori?

LindaI didn't. It's an a posteriori intellectual distinction. Since I don't think moral questions can be answered by science, where do I look to find the answers? Philosophy. It's the same kind of rationalization that led me to believe that religion did not have valid scientific answers. For the record, I don't think religion is the ultimate authority on morality either. Ultimately, the only authority for making moral judgements is human thinking. Religion just uses God as the authority, which is really just a figment of the imagination. One day, I think humans will largely dispense with religion and rely on secular philosophies to make moral decisions.

Now, we can understand the processes of human thinking scientifically. We can understand human emotion and the biological basis for things such as empathy, compassion, greed and gluttony. But this understanding does not automatically lead to answers to moral questions. Once again, how does understanding neurobiology help us understand that murder and theft are wrong? In fact, studying anthropology and primate populations, one might reasonably conclude that murder and theft are perfectly acceptable!

[Darat]

...snip...

Now, we can understand the processes of human thinking scientifically. We can understand human emotion and the biological basis for things such as empathy, compassion, greed and gluttony. But this understanding does not automatically lead to answers to moral questions. ...snip...

Unless you hold that there is an aspect of humans that cannot (in principle) be accurately described by using "science" where is this "right" and "wrong"?

[Beth]

One can ask, is there a benefit in contemplating moral/ethical dilemmas? What benefit is that? Are we supposed to find insight by simply thinking these questions through?
Or is it possible we could find much better insight by using the scientific process to understand the emotional brain?
The same questions could be asked about mathematics, another non-empirical domain. Personally, I think it unlikely that understanding the biological structures that allow us to contemplate dilemmas of an abstract nature will provide humans with better insight than the contemplation approach you are disparaging. After all, it's the only known method of arriving at answer to those sorts of questions.
None of that is relevant to NOMA. The question is, "how does religion serve to offer valid and useful answers to those question?"Linda
I think religion serves to offer valid and useful answers to those questions by providing a conceptual framework of values and an existing moral/ethical system that has, for most religions, been debated and discussed for many generations and evolved over time. It also provides a community of people who share those values, reinforcing them to other members and teaching them to new members.

Building a moral/ethical system is a time-consuming process requiring a great deal of effort in thinking things through. Not every human being wants to do the work of laying out an entire system of ethical and moral philosophy only to end up with a singular approach that no one else seems to share.

If you wish to claim that the answers religion provides are not consistent from one religion to another, I would agree. I don't think such questions have singular answers that are the same for all people, but instead are answered by consensus within a community but vary from one community to another. People who are in disagreement with the community consensus can either work to change it through debate and discussion, or try to find a community with values more in line with their own.

If you wish to claim that such approaches are not limited to religious communities, I would again agree. I think political systems of all types attempt to answer such questions, but that's not science either. Science can certainly help us find useful and valid answers to particular questions of implementation once we have determined a conceptual framework for our values, but science does not provide a conceptual framework of what is good and what is not. Religion, or more generally, philosophy does that.

Further, IMO, if science were to take on a particular set of values (other than those required by and limited to understanding of physical reality), then it would become another religion/philosophy, with no more claim on having the "right" conceptual framework than any other non-scientific approach.
Since everything we do is as a result of biology, it doesn't form a very useful guide as to what we should do. Agreed. Nor does it provide much insight IMO. I don't think finding out about the biological mechanisms that allow us to understand numbers and their properties would be useful in developing new answers to mathematical problems. I don't see why it would be any more useful in developing new answers to moral dilemmas either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My method of dealing with moral questions starts with contemplation and introspection. I know what it feels like when something is done to me. I decide, on that basis, whether it is right to do that to someone else.
OK. You have some sense that something feels right. Great.

With science I understand how that sense evolved, how it functions, how it is expressed in non-human animals, why it differs between individuals, what happens when the brain has damage that interferes or changes that sense, how different cultures and experiences affect that sense, which has more influence, parents or peers, nature or nurture, and when it is first apparent in young children and how it develops as they mature.

I think I have a better understanding of my moral sense than you can ever get from simply claiming "it feels right". I think I'm better equipped to deal with other individuals whose moral sense will of course differ from mine.



The idea that mankind should have put off making any decisions for several million years while waiting for the advent of neuroscience doesn't seem particularly practical.

In any case, how can neuroscience provide us with an "ought"? We can study the brain patterns of a murderer or a rape victim, but how does that lead us to a view as to what behaviours are to be avoided.Nothing in this part of your post but straw.

[westprog]

Unless you hold that there is an aspect of humans that cannot (in principle) be accurately described by using "science" where is this "right" and "wrong"?

Even if we can totally describe what human beings do, down to the last detail, that does nothing to tell us what they should do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The same questions could be asked about mathematics, another non-empirical domain. You tried this before and I, along with others, didn't buy your analogy.


Personally, I think it unlikely that understanding the biological structures that allow us to contemplate dilemmas of an abstract nature will provide humans with better insight than the contemplation approach you are disparaging. After all, it's the only known method of arriving at answer to those sorts of questions. I didn't disparage contemplating. As a matter of fact I posted that I frequently contemplate the Universe. I find contemplating to be a very useful exercise, like meditation, perhaps.

But simply seeking what feels right to an individual offers very little insight into moral dilemmas.

I think religion serves to offer valid and useful answers to those questions by providing a conceptual framework of values and an existing moral/ethical system that has, for most religions, been debated and discussed for many generations and evolved over time. It also provides a community of people who share those values, reinforcing them to other members and teaching them to new members. That is what religion is supposed to do, it is not what religion does. In fact, I'd even wager that people simply adapt their religious views to their nature/nurture derived moral sense, not the other way around.


Building a moral/ethical system is a time-consuming process requiring a great deal of effort in thinking things through. Not every human being wants to do the work of laying out an entire system of ethical and moral philosophy only to end up with a singular approach that no one else seems to share.

If you wish to claim that the answers religion provides are not consistent from one religion to another, I would agree. I don't think such questions have singular answers that are the same for all people, but instead are answered by consensus within a community but vary from one community to another. People who are in disagreement with the community consensus can either work to change it through debate and discussion, or try to find a community with values more in line with their own.

If you wish to claim that such approaches are not limited to religious communities, I would again agree. I think political systems of all types attempt to answer such questions, but that's not science either. Science can certainly help us find useful and valid answers to particular questions of implementation once we have determined a conceptual framework for our values, but science does not provide a conceptual framework of what is good and what is not. Religion, or more generally, philosophy does that.There is no evidence morality requires religious beliefs or that people even follow said religious convictions. Perhaps you are even confusing social influence with religious influence. People have several biological emotional influences on moral decisions. We can see that when brain damaged people demonstrate changed morality after the damage or consistent with the damage.

The point is, you are a moral person the same way you are natural parent when your children were born or the same way you fell in love with your husband when you did. There are biological processes involved and responsible for our emotions including the emotion of fairness, revenge, and empathy.


Further, IMO, if science were to take on a particular set of values (other than those required by and limited to understanding of physical reality), then it would become another religion/philosophy, with no more claim on having the "right" conceptual framework than any other non-scientific approach.
Agreed. Nor does it provide much insight IMO. I don't think finding out about the biological mechanisms that allow us to understand numbers and their properties would be useful in developing new answers to mathematical problems. I don't see why it would be any more useful in developing new answers to moral dilemmas either.See my answer to Westprog above in ost #146.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Even if we can totally describe what human beings do, down to the last detail, that does nothing to tell us what they should do.

Science itself may not be a tool for telling people what they "should" do, but the information and knowledge we gain through science about ourselves, about why things feel right and others don't, about why some things work better for a society and others don't, allow us to draw a better, more definite conclusion on what we should do.

[Darat]

Even if we can totally describe what human beings do, down to the last detail, that does nothing to tell us what they should do.

Where is this "should" then? To expand on that - "should" is something humans do so unless as I said you want to claim that there is some aspect of humans that science in principle cannot accurately describe.

[westprog]

OK. You have some sense that something feels right. Great.

With science I understand how that sense evolved, how it functions, how it is expressed in non-human animals, why it differs between individuals, what happens when the brain has damage that interferes or changes that sense, how different cultures and experiences affect that sense, which has more influence, parents or peers, nature or nurture, and when it is first apparent in young children and how it develops as they mature.

I think I have a better understanding of my moral sense than you can ever get from simply claiming "it feels right". I think I'm better equipped to deal with other individuals whose moral sense will of course differ from mine.



Nothing in this part of your post but straw.

You've said nothing in the above to show how your moral values can be derived from knowing about how moral values are derived. I don't see how having equal respect for other peoples' moral values is a better approach than having respect for other people. If that is what you're saying. I find the idea that people would actually derive their moral values from brain scans implausible in the extreme.

For example - I'd consider rape wrong, because I am able to consider the effect it would have on me, and hence derive from that the likely effect on someone else. There may be people out there who derive their views on rape from examining MRI readouts, but I'd imagine they are very few, and I think they are rather missing the point.

[Dr. Keith]

Nevertheless, moral questions have to be resolved,

Why?

We have made it a pretty long time without resolving any of them so far. That is not a flippant response, we wouldn't have a thousand religions and libraries of philosophical debate if those tools actually resolved moral questions. They are useful for exploring the edges of those questions, but not resolving them.


and science cannot do so.

Why not?

The more we know about ourselves the more we know about our motivations, our constructs, our framing, our preferences and their origins. Why we do something is a very scientific endeavor.

We have a pretty good understanding of why we create myths and what purpose they serve in society. Now you want us to rely on the myths we created and ignore the science that tells us where they came from?

[westprog]

Where is this "should" then? To expand on that - "should" is something humans do so unless as I said you want to claim that there is some aspect of humans that science in principle cannot accurately describe.

I don't know why there is such confusion about science describing how we act, and the need for us to make choices. We still need to make the choices. Whatever choice we make, it will be according to science, whether we are atheists or mormons. All our choices are bounded by science, which makes science as an arbiter entirely useless.

[fls]

Of course it's relevant. I believe NOMA is a useful idea because science cannot answer moral questions.

It's not relevant, because NOMA doesn't say that moral questions can't be answered. It says that religion answers moral questions. Regardless of whether science can or cannot answer moral questions, the claim which makes NOMA NOMA is that religion gives valid and useful answers to questions. It is a meaningless claim to make a list of things which you think cannot answer these questions. Whether or not science can answer moral questions has nothing to do with whether religion can.

First of all, I didn't. But let's go with that. It's just as useful to make a rule that says you cannot worship anything but the true God as it is to say you must be loyal to the United States. It establishes the authority for all the rules that follow. Bogus authority, maybe, but the point remains.

I need you to be more specific. You say that it is useful to make this rule. What do you mean when you say that it is useful?

I didn't. It's an a posteriori intellectual distinction.

Then you would have to say that there aren't two overlapping magisteria if it's an a posteriori distinction. Otherwise, all you are saying is that you get different answers if you ask the question of Science vs. asking the question of Religion. And the claim wasn't that you get different answers, it was that in one case you get a useful and valid answer, and in the other case you don't.

Since I don't think moral questions can be answered by science, where do I look to find the answers? Philosophy.

Okay. So how did you establish that Philosophy gives you useful and valid answers?

It's the same kind of rationalization that led me to believe that religion did not have valid scientific answers. For the record, I don't think religion is the ultimate authority on morality either. Ultimately, the only authority for making moral judgements is human thinking. Religion just uses God as the authority, which is really just a figment of the imagination. One day, I think humans will largely dispense with religion and rely on secular philosophies to make moral decisions.

Actually, I suspect that humans will continue to rely on science to make moral decisions, since we've been doing it for quite a while and apparently the philosophers haven't noticed.

Now, we can understand the processes of human thinking scientifically. We can understand human emotion and the biological basis for things such as empathy, compassion, greed and gluttony. But this understanding does not automatically lead to answers to moral questions. Once again, how does understanding neurobiology help us understand that murder and theft are wrong? In fact, studying anthropology and primate populations, one might reasonably conclude that murder and theft are perfectly acceptable!

I agree. I said the same thing above (post 106).

Linda

[Darat]

I don't know why there is such confusion about science describing how we act, and the need for us to make choices. We still need to make the choices. Whatever choice we make, it will be according to science, whether we are atheists or mormons. All our choices are bounded by science, which makes science as an arbiter entirely useless.

That does not answer the question I asked you. Where is this "should"?

[Humes fork]

A good objection, to be sure. But that's why in the final sentence I propose to get the hard data from science, where such relevant data is available.

Yes, science can provide us with the facts, but it can't make the decisions.

Science can't decide whether gay marriage is right or wrong. But neither can religion, and I suspect most people here disagree with the common religious answer to this question.

The reason is that notions of "right" and "wrong" aren't part of the fundamental description of the universe. These are things we decide ourselves. And we can do so even better once we stop paying lip-service to NOMA or pretend that moral disagreements are akin to scientific disagreements.

[Jake Dale]

Actually, I suspect that humans will continue to rely on science to make moral decisions, since we've been doing it for quite a while and apparently the philosophers haven't noticed.
Lindaexample

[xjx388]

That does not answer the question I asked you. Where is this "should"?

Apes don't ask "Should I or shouldn't I?" They just do what they are genetically programmed to do. Humans are genetically programmed to do a lot of stuff too. However, humans fight those urges and often act against them. Why do humans do this and not apes?

I may covet my neighbor's wife and I may want to eliminate my neighbor because he has exclusive sexual access to her. Should I off him or not?

I might need money in order to feed my family or else they will starve. Why shouldn't I just go take what I need from a bank or eliminate other rivals to the job I want to get?

"Should," is in these questions. How will science answer them?

[Darat]

Apes don't ask "Should I or shouldn't I?" They just do what they are genetically programmed to do. Humans are genetically programmed to do a lot of stuff too. However, humans fight those urges and often act against them. Why do humans do this and not apes?

I may covet my neighbor's wife and I may want to eliminate my neighbor because he has exclusive sexual access to her. Should I off him or not?

I might need money in order to feed my family or else they will starve. Why shouldn't I just go take what I need from a bank or eliminate other rivals to the job I want to get?

"Should," is in these questions. How will science answer them?

All you seem to be doing is describing behaviours? If that is the case why in principle would science not be able to accurately describe such behaviour?

[Darat]

Yes, science can provide us with the facts, but it can't make the decisions.

Science can't decide whether gay marriage is right or wrong. But neither can religion, and I suspect most people here disagree with the common religious answer to this question.

The reason is that notions of "right" and "wrong" aren't part of the fundamental description of the universe. These are things we decide ourselves. And we can do so even better once we stop paying lip-service to NOMA or pretend that moral disagreements are akin to scientific disagreements.

Why aren't they? (I'm avoiding positive claims so I'm not going to say that they are I want to keep the focus on your argument if you don't mind.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've said nothing in the above to show how your moral values can be derived from knowing about how moral values are derived. I don't see how having equal respect for other peoples' moral values is a better approach than having respect for other people. If that is what you're saying. I find the idea that people would actually derive their moral values from brain scans implausible in the extreme.

For example - I'd consider rape wrong, because I am able to consider the effect it would have on me, and hence derive from that the likely effect on someone else. There may be people out there who derive their views on rape from examining MRI readouts, but I'd imagine they are very few, and I think they are rather missing the point.I can't help you Westprog until you understand some bigger things about biology.

[Humes fork]

Why aren't they? (I'm avoiding positive claims so I'm not going to say that they are I want to keep the focus on your argument if you don't mind.)

Maybe I was a bit sloppy, but I mean that there is no evidence that they are. Disagreement about gay marriage is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) like disagreements in science.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apes don't ask "Should I or shouldn't I?" They just do what they are genetically programmed to do. Humans are genetically programmed to do a lot of stuff too. However, humans fight those urges and often act against them. Why do humans do this and not apes?This is a false assumption.

Some Primates Share, Others (Hint, Hint) Are Stingy (http://www.livescience.com/6033-primates-share-hint-hint-stingy.html)No matter how enticing the toy, bonobo apes always share, according to two recently published studies. The reason for the kind behavior: The apes' living quarters in the Congo are chockfull of food, meaning the primates don't have to compete for provisions with gorillas (as chimps do) or with each other.

Other primates are not so good at sharing, as you might have noticed.

When young, bonobos and chimps are both likely to share with their pals. But chimpanzees — like many humans — grow out of such generosity, as they are notorious for hogging food to themselves, by physical aggression if necessary. Turns out, bonobos never grow out of it. And us humans may be hard-wired to help others, but the underlying reason for generosity is looking out for ourselves, according to past research.

Whether Westprog gets it or not, this is the kind of thing that gives me better insight into sharing than simply contemplating how sharing 'feels' to me.

[westprog]

That does not answer the question I asked you. Where is this "should"?

That's not a meaningful question. It doesn't have a where. Nevertheless, you still need to make choices.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe I was a bit sloppy, but I mean that there is no evidence that they are. Disagreement about gay marriage is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) like disagreements in science.And the fact that homosexual animals can be found helps us determine that homosexual behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'. Thus our moral dilemmas become more clear, the basis in this case is contrived, not real. We can dispense with it without peril.

[westprog]

I can't help you Westprog until you understand some bigger things about biology.

Oh, the big picture that's so big that it can't be just explained in a few words in a post.

Why not point me at a (very long) Wikipedia article and say it's not worth discussing things until I've absorbed it all? That's a popular technique.

For all the straw men allegations, you're very coy about exactly how we can use biological analysis of the brain to make moral choices.

[Dani]

Let me try:

All you seem to be doing is describing behaviours? If that is the case why in principle would science not be able to accurately describe such behaviour?

Science is able to accurately describe behaviors.

What science doesn't do, is prescribe behaviors.



Why aren't they? (I'm avoiding positive claims so I'm not going to say that they are I want to keep the focus on your argument if you don't mind.)

Because science is a method to describe the universe, not to decide how the universe should be.

[westprog]

And the fact that homosexual animals can be found helps us determine that homosexual behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'. Thus our moral dilemmas become more clear, the basis in this case is contrived, not real. We can dispense with it without peril.

Weasels rape their infants. Does that teach us that rape is biological and not 'sinful'? That concern about rape is contrived, not real?

Everything we do is biologically natural. Using examples from the vagaries of nature is invariably selective and designed to prove a moral point already decided.

There are no other examples in nature of vast realms of human sexual behaviour. Deciding that something is OK because educated fleas do it is a pointless exercise.

[westprog]

Let me try:



Science is able to accurately describe behaviors.

What science doesn't do, is prescribe behaviors.





Because science is a method to describe the universe, not to decide how the universe should be.

Exactly. The man who burns down the orphanage and the man who endows the orphanage both operate according to biological impulse.

What would be bad, from a scientific point of view, would be a corruption of biology to try to pretend that there's some kind of scientific basis for calling all the behaviour we don't like as being unnatural in some way.

[Beth]

You tried this before and I, along with others, didn't buy your analogy.
It's okay. You don't have to buy it. It merely makes an interesting contrast for contemplation. Can you give me a reason why different abstract domains would not be subject to the same line of reasoning?
But simply seeking what feels right to an individual offers very little insight into moral dilemmas. I think a great deal of insight into morality has resulted from knowledge about what 'feels right' both to oneself and to others. It seems to me to be the source of all that contemplation.
I think religion serves to offer valid and useful answers to those questions by providing a conceptual framework of values and an existing moral/ethical system that has, for most religions, been debated and discussed for many generations and evolved over time. It also provides a community of people who share those values, reinforcing them to other members and teaching them to new members.
That is what religion is supposed to do, it is not what religion does. Why do you feel that religion (in general) fails to accomplish those things?
In fact, I'd even wager that people simply adapt their religious views to their nature/nurture derived moral sense, not the other way around. I don't think you can separate out someone's religious upbringing form the "nurturing" they received that shaped their moral sense.
Perhaps you are even confusing social influence with religious influence. I would say that religious influence is a type of social influence. How are you delineating the two? Can you give an example of a religious influence that is not also a social influence?
People have several biological emotional influences on moral decisions. We can see that when brain damaged people demonstrate changed morality after the damage or consistent with the damage. Yes. How does this relate to your claim that understanding biology will lead to more insight about moral dilemmas? People with brain damage sometimes demonstrate changed musical abilities too. Do you think that understanding the biology of music will lead people to produce better symphonies? If not, why not?
The point is, you are a moral person the same way you are natural parent when your children were born or the same way you fell in love with your husband when you did. There are biological processes involved and responsible for our emotions including the emotion of fairness, revenge, and empathy. I'm not arguing against any of this. It's your claim that understanding the biology of our brain processes will lead to insight about moral dilemmas that I am skeptical about.
I don't expect understanding the biology of how humans do math to lead to insights that will help us solve mathematical problems. I don't expect understanding the biology of how humans make music to lead to insights that lead us to create new varieties of music. And I don't expect understanding the biology of human morality to lead to insight and/or solutions to moral dilemmas.
OK. You have some sense that something feels right. Great.

With science I understand how that sense evolved, how it functions, how it is expressed in non-human animals, why it differs between individuals, what happens when the brain has damage that interferes or changes that sense, how different cultures and experiences affect that sense, which has more influence, parents or peers, nature or nurture, and when it is first apparent in young children and how it develops as they mature. Yes. We understand a great deal about the biology of our other senses. I don't recall that our increased understanding of the biology of how we see has led to new insights and solutions about how to express ourselves artistically. I don't think it has affected what we choose to be the subjects of our artistic endeavors. These are the qualities that I think would be analogous to what you are claiming in the domain of ethics and morality.

[xjx388]

Science is able to accurately describe behaviors.

What science doesn't do, is prescribe behaviors.

Weasels rape their infants. Does that teach us that rape is biological and not 'sinful'? That concern about rape is contrived, not real?

Everything we do is biologically natural. Using examples from the vagaries of nature is invariably selective and designed to prove a moral point already decided.

Yes. We understand a great deal about the biology of our other senses. I don't recall that our increased understanding of the biology of how we see has led to new insights and solutions about how to express ourselves artistically. I don't think it has affected what we choose to be the subjects of our artistic endeavors. These are the qualities that I think would be analogous to what you are claiming in the domain of ethics and morality.

These.

If the animal kingdom is a good place to look for what behaviors are morally acceptable, then my neighbor better watch out. His wife should be in MY harem! ;)

[Beth]

Exactly. The man who burns down the orphanage and the man who endows the orphanage both operate according to biological impulse.

What would be bad, from a scientific point of view, would be a corruption of biology to try to pretend that there's some kind of scientific basis for calling all the behaviour we don't like as being unnatural in some way.

Calling behavior we don't like 'unnatural' falls into the magistrate of religion. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

These.

If the animal kingdom is a good place to look for what behaviors are morally acceptable, then my neighbor better watch out. His wife should be in MY harem! ;)Weasels rape their infants. Does that teach us that rape is biological and not 'sinful'? That concern about rape is contrived, not real?

Everything we do is biologically natural. Using examples from the vagaries of nature is invariably selective and designed to prove a moral point already decided.

There are no other examples in nature of vast realms of human sexual behaviour. Deciding that something is OK because educated fleas do it is a pointless exercise.Come on guys, another straw man? Really?

Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based.

I did not cite the animal behavior as evidence it was therefore 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HUMAN HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly. The man who burns down the orphanage and the man who endows the orphanage both operate according to biological impulse.

What would be bad, from a scientific point of view, would be a corruption of biology to try to pretend that there's some kind of scientific basis for calling all the behaviour we don't like as being unnatural in some way.It's not that I couldn't explain this to someone who had no background in biology, but explaining it to someone who is confirmationally biased to block out what is being said, and to distort things into straw man arguments makes explaining this difficult and probably a waste of time.

But I'll try one more time, since there may be others reading the thread who are on the verge of getting it.

Using your example, we can use science to understand the arsonist, understand why the normal moral emotional controls were not effective or why the urge to commit arson was so strong.

What have you gained by simply saying one person was moral and one wasn't? On what basis do you even make the claim who was moral and who wasn't? Suppose there were just the two people, the arsonist and the philanthropist? How would you determine whose morals were right and whose were wrong?

With science I can show that the arsonist had a brain abnormality, be it the result of nature or nurture, that led him to have immoral behavior. I could show the philanthropist had an intact, healthy brain.

[xjx388]

Come on guys, another straw man? Really?

Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based.

I did not cite the behavior as evidence it was 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE.

It's not a straw man. You have said that studying biology will lead to answers to moral questions. Biology tells us that homosexual behavior is natural. Thus the answer to the moral question of homosexuality is: It is acceptable.

By the same reasoning I can say that killing my neighbor and his children to make his wife sexually available to me is morally acceptable.

Clearly it is not. So biology doesn't really provide answers to moral questions. It merely documents behaviors and attempts to find a biological basis for them. But there is a biological basis for murder, rape, theft, etc. This doesn't mean that these things are morally acceptable, though. So if science cannot provide the means to determine what is morally acceptable, what can?

[Resume]

If the animal kingdom is a good place to look for what behaviors are morally acceptable, then my neighbor better watch out. His wife should be in MY harem! ;)

Is this why some muslims and mormons practice polygamy?

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's okay. You don't have to buy it. It merely makes an interesting contrast for contemplation. Can you give me a reason why different abstract domains would not be subject to the same line of reasoning?One concept is about relationships the other is dependent upon human context. And a reasonable argument against your analogy was made in the other thread. I suppose I'll have to hunt it down. It's unfortunate you should repeat this bad analogy without considering the legitimate objections that were made about it earlier.


I think a great deal of insight into morality has resulted from knowledge about what 'feels right' both to oneself and to others. It seems to me to be the source of all that contemplation.So what is this insight? Is it really more than careful observation or one's own moral emotion, and that of others' exhibited moral behavior, which amounts to scientific investigation?


Why do you feel that religion (in general) fails to accomplish those things?
I don't think you can separate out someone's religious upbringing form the "nurturing" they received that shaped their moral sense. I think you are assuming a variable not necessarily evidenced. Parental influence vs religious influence would need to be determined.


I would say that religious influence is a type of social influence.Of course, but is religious influence really a separate thing? Or is is simply a subset of social behavior? We know it is not a mandatory component of social behavior and that social behavior works equally well without a religious framework or influence.


How are you delineating the two? Can you give an example of a religious influence that is not also a social influence?It's the other way around. Religion is merely one kind of social behavior among many. Cultural influence can be said to be the same. Religion is going to be no different from the influence culture has or ethnicity or family or gender. These are all variables in nature and nurture, but religion is not 'special' in this aspect.


Yes. How does this relate to your claim that understanding biology will lead to more insight about moral dilemmas? People with brain damage sometimes demonstrate changed musical abilities too.Another bad analogy, sorry. Understanding moral decisions and behaviors does lead to better insight and therefore better decisions. Contemplating morality is all about insight and understanding. Music is all about physical talent and better understanding of musical abilities does not make your physical or artistic skills better.



Do you think that understanding the biology of music will lead people to produce better symphonies? If not, why not?It is possible that a talented person might learn about music and perform and or compose better.



I'm not arguing against any of this. It's your claim that understanding the biology of our brain processes will lead to insight about moral dilemmas that I am skeptical about. Perhaps you should contemplate it more. ;)


I don't expect understanding the biology of how humans do math to lead to insights that will help us solve mathematical problems. I don't expect understanding the biology of how humans make music to lead to insights that lead us to create new varieties of music. And I don't expect understanding the biology of human morality to lead to insight and/or solutions to moral dilemmas.Answered above.


Yes. We understand a great deal about the biology of our other senses. I don't recall that our increased understanding of the biology of how we see has led to new insights and solutions about how to express ourselves artistically. I don't think it has affected what we choose to be the subjects of our artistic endeavors. These are the qualities that I think would be analogous to what you are claiming in the domain of ethics and morality.I happen to think it would be worthwhile to investigate why certain melodies appeal to people, why some provoke emotion, like belting out certain crescendos for example:
IOfKAPGfd6k&feature=related
I think this field of study could be useful in composing new pieces.

But this is getting off topic.

[falkowsi]

Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based.

I did not cite the animal behavior as evidence it was therefore 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HUMAN HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE.

How do you know the animals didn't make a choice ?

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not a straw man. You have said that studying biology will lead to answers to moral questions. Biology tells us that homosexual behavior is natural. Thus the answer to the moral question of homosexuality is: It is acceptable.

By the same reasoning I can say that killing my neighbor and his children to make his wife sexually available to me is morally acceptable.

Clearly it is not. So biology doesn't really provide answers to moral questions. It merely documents behaviors and attempts to find a biological basis for them. But there is a biological basis for murder, rape, theft, etc. This doesn't mean that these things are morally acceptable, though. So if science cannot provide the means to determine what is morally acceptable, what can?Apparently you don't understand what a straw man is.

I did not make the argument you are making. You are making your own argument and arguing against yourself.

Straw man fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
[edit]


I made a different argument. The one you are not addressing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you know the animals didn't make a choice ?Because the same people that argue being gay is a choice also claim that only humans make such choices and animals do not.

You are welcome to consider the choice gay penguins may make, but then that negates the idea we are different from other animals (according to the god beliefs that also say being gay is immoral).

So either animals and humans both make choices, therefore the whole premise of special humans which is a main tenet of Christianity is flawed, therefore sin is a flawed concept altogether (which I agree is true, BTW) OR only humans make such choices in which case gay penguins are biologically gay suggesting homosexuality is biological.

Take your pick.

[xjx388]

Apparently you don't understand what a straw man is.

I did not make the argument you are making. You are making your own argument and arguing against yourself.

Straw man fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)


I made a different argument. The one you are not addressing.

Which part of You have said that studying biology will lead to answers to moral questions. Biology tells us that homosexual behavior is natural. Thus the answer to the moral question of homosexuality is: It is acceptable. is straw? Especially in light of these statements by you:

And the fact that homosexual animals can be found helps us determine that homosexual behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'. Thus our moral dilemmas become more clear, the basis in this case is contrived, not real. We can dispense with it without peril.
One can ask, is there a benefit in contemplating moral/ethical dilemmas? What benefit is that? Are we supposed to find insight by simply thinking these questions through?
Or is it possible we could find much better insight by using the scientific process to understand the emotional brain?
With science I understand how that sense evolved, how it functions, how it is expressed in non-human animals, why it differs between individuals, what happens when the brain has damage that interferes or changes that sense, how different cultures and experiences affect that sense, which has more influence, parents or peers, nature or nurture, and when it is first apparent in young children and how it develops as they mature.

I think I have a better understanding of my moral sense than you can ever get from simply claiming "it feels right". I think I'm better equipped to deal with other individuals whose moral sense will of course differ from mine.

From these posts, I infer that you are saying that there is a biological basis to morality and that studying biology is the best way to get insights as to what is morally right or wrong. How am I wrong?

[westprog]

Come on guys, another straw man? Really?

Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based.

I did not cite the animal behavior as evidence it was therefore 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HUMAN HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE.

So the point of the example was that we can examine nature to determine that examining nature is a poor way to derive behaviour? Well, I can accept that.

[westprog]

It's not that I couldn't explain this to someone who had no background in biology, but explaining it to someone who is confirmationally biased to block out what is being said, and to distort things into straw man arguments makes explaining this difficult and probably a waste of time.

But I'll try one more time, since there may be others reading the thread who are on the verge of getting it.

Using your example, we can use science to understand the arsonist, understand why the normal moral emotional controls were not effective or why the urge to commit arson was so strong.

What have you gained by simply saying one person was moral and one wasn't? On what basis do you even make the claim who was moral and who wasn't? Suppose there were just the two people, the arsonist and the philanthropist? How would you determine whose morals were right and whose were wrong?


If we don't start from the position that we don't want people to burn down buildings, then it doesn't matter how well we understand the arsonist.

With science I can show that the arsonist had a brain abnormality, be it the result of nature or nurture, that led him to have immoral behavior. I could show the philanthropist had an intact, healthy brain.

And this is where I find the subject gets into scientifically dubious territory. When you start off by assuming that the arsonist has a brain abnormality, and that the philanthropist's brain is normal - just because that's what you want to be true - that can lead to all kinds of problems.

What happens if you determine that the arsonist has a healthy brain and the philantropist doesn't? Do we redefine "healthy"? Do we release the arsonist who has a healthy brain? Do we decide that arson is ok if all the arsonists pass the healthy brain test?

In fact, we always start with the presumption that burning down the house is a bad thing to do. We don't need the brain scan to tell us that. That's why we expect the arsonist to be more likely than the philanthropist to have a brain abnormality - because we've already made the decision as to what is normal behaviour.

[Complexity]

I agree.


:wave1

[Complexity]

The same questions could be asked about mathematics, another non-empirical domain. Personally, I think it unlikely that understanding the biological structures that allow us to contemplate dilemmas of an abstract nature will provide humans with better insight than the contemplation approach you are disparaging. After all, it's the only known method of arriving at answer to those sorts of questions.


Nonsense.

Ouija board? Flipping coins? Asking your cat? Inspecting entrails? Rolling a D&D die?

These are all approaches on a par with contemplation (except for asking your cat - that is actually a decent approach) when it comes up with 'answering' moral questions.

Yes, you can come up with an answer. That answer, however, is determined biologically - nothing else is involved - and the only reason that you end up feeling comfortable with that answer is that 'you' 'participated' in arriving at it. It is no better than flipping a coin.

I think religion serves to offer valid and useful answers to those questions by providing a conceptual framework of values and an existing moral/ethical system that has, for most religions, been debated and discussed for many generations and evolved over time. It also provides a community of people who share those values, reinforcing them to other members and teaching them to new members.


Nonsense. Religious belief offers nothing but a shared delusion and institutionalized bigotry.

Building a moral/ethical system is a time-consuming process requiring a great deal of effort in thinking things through. Not every human being wants to do the work of laying out an entire system of ethical and moral philosophy only to end up with a singular approach that no one else seems to share.


In other words, let someone else do your thinking for you.

Far too many are happy to step in the vacuums left by lazy minds.

If you wish to claim that the answers religion provides are not consistent from one religion to another, I would agree. I don't think such questions have singular answers that are the same for all people, but instead are answered by consensus within a community but vary from one community to another. People who are in disagreement with the community consensus can either work to change it through debate and discussion, or try to find a community with values more in line with their own.


Or ignore, to the extent possible, the hordes of idiots and woo that surround you and want to shove their nonsense down your throat, dictate what you do, take your money for their ends, and kill your joy.

<snipped, just because>

[Beth]

One concept is about relationships the other is dependent upon human context. Both concepts are about relationships and both are dependent upon human context. And a reasonable argument against your analogy was made in the other thread. I suppose I'll have to hunt it down. It's unfortunate you should repeat this bad analogy without considering the legitimate objections that were made about it earlier. I recall that there were objections. My recollection of the validity of those objections differ from yours though. ;)


So what is this insight? Is it really more than careful observation or one's own moral emotion, and that of others' exhibited moral behavior, which amounts to scientific investigation? It's nothing more than that plus some thoughtful contemplation. I wouldn't term it science though. :)

Why do you feel that religion (in general) fails to accomplish those things?
You forgot to answer this question.

Of course, but is religious influence really a separate thing? Or is is simply a subset of social behavior? I don't think it's separate. I think it's simply a subset of social behavior.

It's the other way around. Religion is merely one kind of social behavior among many. Cultural influence can be said to be the same. Religion is going to be no different from the influence culture has or ethnicity or family or gender. These are all variables in nature and nurture, but religion is not 'special' in this aspect. I agree. You said I was confusing the two, so I asked you to provide examples that delineate the difference between them. This explanation does not help me understand why you felt that I was confusing the two.

Another bad analogy, sorry. Understanding moral decisions and behaviors does lead to better insight and therefore better decisions. Contemplating morality is all about insight and understanding. Why do you expect it to do so for morality and not mathematics? After all, mathematics is all about insight and understanding too.

Just saying it's a bad analogy is not enough. You need to identify the differences as they relate to humans making progress in each field as a result of understanding the underlying biological processes. I don't see it. Or rather I see it as attempting to understand the meaning, impact and beauty of "Moby Dick" from studying how paper and ink are made and used to print books. Seems futile to me.


Music is all about physical talent and better understanding of musical abilities does not make your physical or artistic skills better. That's fair, but I wasn't talking about the physical skills of performing music, but the mental skill of composing music.

It is possible that a talented person might learn about music and perform and or compose better. Sure, it's possible. It's possible a talented person might learn about math and be able to perform or create it better. I'm asking why we should believe that any such mental endeavor will be enhanced by understanding the biological processes associated with thinking about those things.

It occurs to me that there is certainly room for improving any field via improving the way our individual brains work. But I don't think that is what you are talking about. Is that correct?


I happen to think it would be worthwhile to investigate why certain melodies appeal to people, why some provoke emotion,
I think this field of study could be useful in composing new pieces.


A valid point. It might. Why are you so sure that it will for the field of morality and ethics? I'll grant you that it might. I'm not so sure that it will.

[Complexity]

Maybe I was a bit sloppy, but I mean that there is no evidence that they are. Disagreement about gay marriage is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) like disagreements in science.


Ah...

This goes to the heart of the problem.

Science inquiry can address how and why individuals arrive at the moral stances that they do.

Science can not address which moral stances a person should have, for there are no rights, there is no right and wrong, apart from what I as an individual assert for myself and grant to others.

I am a gay man who very much believes that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone, with all marriages being regarded as the same under law by government.

There is no 'natural' basis for my assertion that this is a right - it is a conclusion that I have come to, fully determined by my genes interacting with my environment.

There is also no 'natural' basis for people who assert a contradictory right (e.g. 'one man and one woman' cretins).

Can scientific inquiry determine what the 'correct' moral stance is in this question?

No.

Can anything determine what the 'correct' moral stance is in this question?

No.

Why not?

Because there is no such thing as a 'correct' moral stance.

You can build sand-castles of precedent, argument, fine philosophical or theological distinctions, reasoning from 'obvious' axioms, applications of 'common sense' - all you can do means nothing, for there are no 'correct' moral stances.

'Morals' and 'ethics' are merely games that some of you like to play, pretending that you have insight into some deep meaning in the universe.

For the rest of us, we piece together enough of a moral system to get through our lives, examining it and picking at it like a scab, hoping that we do more of what we regard as 'good' than what we regard as 'bad' in our lives.

In closing: Science is how we attempt to understand reality. Nothing answers moral questions because there are no answers to moral questions - some of us just like to pretend that there are.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which part of is straw? Especially in light of these statements by you:
From these posts, I infer that you are saying that there is a biological basis to morality and that studying biology is the best way to get insights as to what is morally right or wrong. How am I wrong?Straw men arguments do not become legit because you rationalize your misunderstanding: "Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based. I did not cite the behavior as evidence it was 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE."

That is the only argument you need address. If you want to of course, you can address the argument you made up, that is if you want to argue with yourself. Don't let me stop you.


As for the, "studying biology is the best way to get insights as to what is morally right or wrong", that is true but it has zero to do with your fabricated argument claiming, observed behaviors are moral because they are biologically based. You and Westprog created that straw man in lieu of addressing the actual arguments I posted.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the point of the example was that we can examine nature to determine that examining nature is a poor way to derive behaviour? Well, I can accept that.Straw men arguments suggest you cannot address the actual argument. Want to try again?

I said, "Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based. I did not cite the behavior as evidence it was 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE."

[Skeptic Ginger]

....When you start off by assuming that the arsonist has a brain abnormality, and that the philanthropist's brain is normal - just because that's what you want to be true - that can lead to all kinds of problems. This is a false assumption. Arson behavior has been studied and it has been frequently found to be associated with seriously abnormal behavior.

Looking for pyromania: Characteristics of a consecutive sample of Finnish male criminals with histories of recidivist fire-setting between 1973 and 1993 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325224/)Results
The most important diagnostic categories of arson recidivists were personality disorders, psychosis and mental retardation, often with comorbid alcoholism. In all, 68% of arsonists were under alcohol intoxication during the index crime. Psychotic as well as mentally retarded persons with repeated fire-setting behaviour were mostly "pure arsonists"- persons guilty only of arsons during their criminal careers. Arson recidivists with personality disorder, in contrast, often exhibited various types of criminal behaviour and arson appeared to be only one expression of a wide range of criminal activity. Comorbid alcoholism was apparently a more rarely observed phenomenon among pure arsonists than in "nonpure arsonists". We found only three subjects fulfilling the present diagnostic criteria for pyromania.The arsonist's mind : part 1 - psychopathology and firesetting (http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/bfab/1-20/bfab008.aspx)A number of studies have examined the frequency with which firesetting results from psychopathologic influences. Examining 153 arsonists referred for pre-trial psychiatric assessment, Rix (1994) found 54 per cent had a personality disorder and only 13 per cent did not quality for a psychiatric diagnosis of some kind. Rix also found a significant incidence of intellectual disability (10%) and schizophrenia (6%) in his sample. In a study of 283 arsonists, mostly sourced through FBI files, Ritchie and Huff (1999) found 90 per cent had recorded mental health histories. Thirty-six per cent had a major mental illness of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Three of the 283 arsonists (1%) were diagnosed with pyromania.

Studies such as these are not representative of all arsonists and firesetters. They may be drawing on samples that have been pre-selected for psychiatric assessment. They also only include subjects who have committed relatively serious offences and have been caught for them. In many cases it may be that the individual's psychiatric disorder has contributed to them being caught, particularly given the overall low rate of detection, arrest and conviction for arson offences. It is possible that a given subject may have an underlying disorder without this necessarily playing a part in their firesetting behaviour.

The prevalence of psychopathology in bushfire-specific arson is not clear. This is due to a lack of focused studies and relatively low rates of arrest and conviction. In many cases people will light bushfires for reasons that are illegal, yet essentially rational, such as fires lit for land management purposes. Teenagers lighting fires in a group, for instance, will usually be responding to peer pressure and boredom rather than a psychiatric disorder. In cases where an offender lights a series of fires with no apparent purpose other than to fulfil their own psychological needs, there is a likelihood of them displaying at least some psychopathological symptoms.I think this route of understanding the moral choice of arson provides a tad more insight than simply saying arson is wrong because I 'feel' that is true.

[Antiquehunter]

Doesn't NOMA make Christmas lights & decorations?

OK - Science may not be able to state empirically that something is 'right' or 'wrong'. However, religion doesn't have any specific claim to that right or wrong either.

Societal norms and laws grow, change & evolve as we as a species do. Science supports the development of these issues, by answering those questions that DO have specific answers.

For example, gay marriage - which wasn't even contemplated in the US 50 years ago, is now a reality in several states, and is under consideration in several others. Science has played a part in demonstrating that there is nothing 'wrong' in gay marriage, but it was a societal shift that made it possible. Science was merely an enabler in a larger debate.

As such - the whole construct of 'NOMA' is irrelevant to my thinking. Ethics and morality is a different set of issues, to which science can contribute. Religion may have an opinion, but examined scientifically, I don't think that religion actually offers any compelling insight into matters of ethics and religion. We had the 'Golden Rule' before we had the bible, as but one example. The bible, to my thinking, presents a pretty nasty view of ethics and morality - and certainly isn't a touchstone for determining what should be acceptable in a modern society.

In summary - while I like Gould's writings by and large, I dislike his NOMA concept.

[Aepervius]

This is a false assumption.

Some Primates Share, Others (Hint, Hint) Are Stingy (http://www.livescience.com/6033-primates-share-hint-hint-stingy.html)

Whether Westprog gets it or not, this is the kind of thing that gives me better insight into sharing than simply contemplating how sharing 'feels' to me.

The finding just adds another nicety to the repertoire of our close relatives, the bonobos, which are also known to resolve conflicts through sex not violence.

Geeeee. Why can't we be more , like, bonobo ?

[Aepervius]

It's not a straw man. You have said that studying biology will lead to answers to moral questions. Biology tells us that homosexual behavior is natural. Thus the answer to the moral question of homosexuality is: It is acceptable.

By the same reasoning I can say that killing my neighbor and his children to make his wife sexually available to me is morally acceptable.

Clearly it is not. So biology doesn't really provide answers to moral questions. It merely documents behaviors and attempts to find a biological basis for them. But there is a biological basis for murder, rape, theft, etc. This doesn't mean that these things are morally acceptable, though. So if science cannot provide the means to determine what is morally acceptable, what can?

Add mathematic , game theory, and population density to the mix, and the answer is : no you don't do that because *at the very least* the rest of us would beat the **** out of you to make sure we can keep our wives and GF to ourselves.

It may not be as simple as only biology, but science (all of them) can certainly point out and help choose the behavior which maximize something. In our case : population density, hability to live together, while the least physical harm is used between each others. Heck it help us also understand that our own empathy , seem to be actually more a desire to protect ourselves rather than a real sharing and peaceful desire.

It also helps us understand that there is no harm in homosexuality for parenting (adopted or artificially inseminated children of homosexual coupole are not worst off than children of hetero) no harm for others too. It helps us udnerstand that the "moral" (scary quote) aversion of some religion has no basis whatsoever in reality, except the fear of what's different than oneself. Religion *FAIL* uterly that moral test, whereas science significantely helps us take the good moral decision.

Same with racism actually, some religion saw no problem to declare some people having no soul and being animals. Science clearly say that beside a few gene and melanine sckin content yellow/white/brown/black/red are equals all things considered.

Finally, the pretense that religion for the moral argument, can easily be shown to have been OLDER than all religion in which it is found today. At the very least found in other religion, and almost certainly is actually coopted by religion and is independent of religion. The very fact that atheist are not amoral ******* demonstrate that moral exists independent of religion.

And then add the fact that religious people are seemingly no more no less likely to go against the local moral standard and murder , rape , abuse children, torture etc... Don't get me started on all what religion DID NOT attempt to correct and would have been the moral high ground to do (slavery, equality among gender, etc...).

Finally the moral "logic" in religion is more or less "because I told you so". Science can at least find justifications which make sense on rational grounds.

Once you add those fact together you quickly see that religion , whatever magistra it is, cannot pretend to be a source of moral direction or even help with morality at all. Once you get past that burden, what's left for religion is to consolate people in bad time. Oh wait, no, we have also doctors and counseilor for that.

So.... What's really left of that religion magister ? Wild assertion without evidence on life after death.


Huhu.

[westprog]

Straw men arguments suggest you cannot address the actual argument. Want to try again?

I said, "Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based. I did not cite the behavior as evidence it was 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE."

You're picking an example of a breach of NOMA. In fact, it might well be an example actually used by Gould. Using examples of the breach of NOMA is not a convincing way to disprove NOMA.

[westprog]

This is a false assumption. Arson behavior has been studied and it has been frequently found to be associated with seriously abnormal behavior.

Looking for pyromania: Characteristics of a consecutive sample of Finnish male criminals with histories of recidivist fire-setting between 1973 and 1993 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325224/)The arsonist's mind : part 1 - psychopathology and firesetting (http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/bfab/1-20/bfab008.aspx)I think this route of understanding the moral choice of arson provides a tad more insight than simply saying arson is wrong because I 'feel' that is true.

And yet people managed for thousands of years to know that arson was wrong without knowing anything about brain biology. They even managed to predict that an arsonist would be a bit odd in the head. This is the kind of insight which you are deprecating.

[Lowpro]

And yet people managed for thousands of years to know that arson was wrong without knowing anything about brain biology. They even managed to predict that an arsonist would be a bit odd in the head. This is the kind of insight which you are deprecating.

As a lurker for this thread don't you find this statement a bit...well dumb. Yes of course there's predictive power before neurology, but there was no explanation of it for them UNTIL neurology. If you can't demonstrate it you can't explain it.

Religion sought to demonstrate moral and ethical values by tying them to God's Will (this is a generalization but I think it's fair). This was quite literally the only explanation of ethics in its time, and a vestigial explanation now which the Magisteria of Religion grasps at with no plausible explanatory power (they can't demonstrate God's will and explain it). We now know that moral and ethical values are NOT part of God's will (and we do this through more than just biology) however when it comes down to "Okay how do we explain it then" neurology actually is capable of explainingit which is something Religion could only wish for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Geeeee. Why can't we be more , like, bonobo ?Except for the fact they have sex with the youngsters, I so wish we were closer to the Bonobos than to the Chimpanzees. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet people managed for thousands of years to know that arson was wrong without knowing anything about brain biology. They even managed to predict that an arsonist would be a bit odd in the head. This is the kind of insight which you are deprecating.They also managed for thousands of years to treat the mentally ill as witches and bleeding as a medical treatment for everything that ails one. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Both concepts are about relationships and both are dependent upon human context. I recall that there were objections. My recollection of the validity of those objections differ from yours though. ;) The relationship of the diameter of a circle to the circumference of the circle is a physical thing, it is not dependent on context. Math is simply a language that describes said relationships. Whether a human cares about that language or not, whether a human cares about pi or not does not change the relationship of the diameter and circumference of the circle.

Morality, OTOH is dependent upon the emotional brain and each individual has an independently emotional brain. Everything about morality is based on context. Nothing about pi is based on context except how it is expressed and/or described.

Previous objections to your analogy were Irony's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7474800#post7474800): That's a classic bait and switch.

Math isn't a "thing" in the sense that you can't give someone a kilo of math, but it clearly still exists as an idea. In the same sense God clearly exists as an idea. That's the bait, the switch is trying to go from something existing as an idea to existing as an independent entity without anyone noticing.

I noticed.

Similarly you're falsely equating spiritual and non-physical.Craig4's: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7475112#post7475112)Math is a set of tools we can use to make descriptions and predictions about the real world. In many cases we can compare the predictions made in math to observations. We cannot do so with religion or spiritualism.Though Darat pointed out: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7475125#post7475125)religion and spiritualism does make predictions and statements about the world is why we know they do not describe the world around us.Religion makes predictions which don't typically pan out. I don't think making fictional based predictions and evidence based predictions are the same.



I'll defer the rest until later.

[xjx388]

Straw men arguments do not become legit because you rationalize your misunderstanding: "Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological. I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based. I did not cite the behavior as evidence it was 'moral'. The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE."

That is the only argument you need address. If you want to of course, you can address the argument you made up, that is if you want to argue with yourself. Don't let me stop you.I'm looking, but I don't see an actual argument in that statement. But I'll address the statement bit by bit:

Homosexuality is claimed by the religious bigots to be a choice and not biological.You have this wrong. "The religious bigots," don't believe that homosexual inclinations are sinful, just the act of engaging in homosexual sex. The urges are biological but the act is a choice. According to their moral code, making the choice to engage in homosexual sex is morally wrong.

I cited the animal homosexuality as evidence the behavior was biologically based, not choice of behavior based. I did not cite the behavior as evidence it was 'moral'. Let's review what you said exactly:
And the fact that homosexual animals can be found helps us determine that homosexual behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'. "Not sinful," means not immoral.

Your backtracking is noted.

The moral argument is DEPENDENT UPON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A CHOICE.No. One moral argument is dependent on the idea that homosexual sex is an affront to God. Another is that it is not procreative. There are many moral arguments against it. There are many moral arguments for it. Science cannot help us determine which of them is correct. That's because the proper domain for these questions is philosophy. It is a change in philosophical outlook, not science, that is leading to increased acceptance of homosexuality.

As for the, "studying biology is the best way to get insights as to what is morally right or wrong", that is true
OK, then murdering my neighbor and his children is acceptable behavior if my goal is to take his wife. This behavior is documented in primates, therefore, it (as you said), "helps us determine that [murderous] behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'."

but it has zero to do with your fabricated argument claiming, observed behaviors are moral because they are biologically based. You and Westprog created that straw man in lieu of addressing the actual arguments I posted.I think I've shown that no straw man was created. You said it. Maybe you didn't mean to, but you should clarify what you meant rather than falsely accuse us of creating straw men.

[Lowpro]

OK, then murdering my neighbor and his children is acceptable behavior if my goal is to take his wife. This behavior is documented in primates, therefore, it (as you said), "helps us determine that [murderous] behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'."

Humans have done this. Now, try to explain why (A) they did this, and (B) why you think it's morally wrong. Do you think you will have a valid explanation through religion, or through biological concepts.

Here's a hint, the correct answer has access to fMRI's.

On a side note you said this:

"Not sinful," means not immoral.

And I have to ask, what do you mean by this? Is sin = moral concepts, because there are particular sins in the Bible that are ethically ambiguous now (I'm sure for their time there was no ambiguity, but Moses also stealth killed an Egyptian so morality was way off then compared to now) are we defining moral concepts that are synonymous with sin or do we recognize them differently. If we recognize them differently, then religion would be screwed because sin itself is only dictated through Scripture not through zeitgeist interactions (again, as an example slavery was not sinful, but now is morally reprehensible)

[xjx388]

Humans have done this. Now, try to explain why (A) they did this, and (B) why you think it's morally wrong. Do you think you will have a valid explanation through religion, or through biological concepts.

Here's a hint, the correct answer has access to fMRI's.

I don't need an fMRI (ETA: I don't need religion either) to tell me (A)why people murder each other and (B) why it's morally wrong.

But if you have used an fMRI to determine this, I'd be interested in hearing how.

[Lowpro]

I don't need an fMRI (ETA: I don't need religion either) to tell me (A)why people murder each other and (B) why it's morally wrong.

But if you have used an fMRI to determine this, I'd be interested in hearing how.

ETA: I should preface. I don't need you to tell me why it's wrong so much as I need you to actually explain why it's wrong. If you "tell" me why it's wrong you actually need to be able to demonstrably explain your answer. Religion has tried, but in the end it gives up the ghost and says "god did it" which is an inexplicable indemonstrable answer. It's not a valid answer. What we need is a means to actually EXPLAIN it, which is where the field of biology (A massive field which I feel you give too little consideration towards..) comes into play.

Would you believe me if I told you your brain actually controls everything about you, and that an fMRI can detect all changes in your brain. You can actually detect jealousy, rage, emotions within the brain and that's a startling realization. You really are completely determined through your brain interactions which includes your actions such as murder.

To be sure, the act of murdering involves a LOT of brain interactions; as far as I can imagine there is not a pure "murder" site in the brain and there's no claims as such, but I want to be sure that you understand that too, just in case.

An fMRI can determine what is going on in your brain for everything (not that we can lock people in fMRI's 24/7) but literally we can extrapolate from that even without fMRI scans we are sure as all getout that everything about you, INCLUDING moral philosophies, resides within your brain.

That means MANY things. The largest of which is that morality then becomes a biological study (Psychological too, neurology and psychology often bicker) and not an issue of Religion (religion claims an outside source of morals which all men inherently understand, which isn't true because brain DAMAGE can actually remove morality. Psychopaths are interesting if you want to read up on em, you should)

What I'm trying to say is that there is no other domain or magisteria that morality can be a part of because morality is actually localized to the brain (but projected through society; to be sure however it's origins especially are biological. It's like looking at the Grand Canyon and denying that it formed by countless millenia of river erosion).

You also need to understand that MANY fields of biology will answer parts of the whole; psychology, neurology, evolution and development, embryology, molecular genetics. You'd be surprised at what it takes to explain what makes you "you".

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm looking, but I don't see an actual argument in that statement. [snipped a repeat of the straw man and same rationalization covering how you created it]

xjx I am not going to go round the mulberry bush with you on this one. Believe what you want. Others can read the posts for themselves.

[westprog]

They also managed for thousands of years to treat the mentally ill as witches and bleeding as a medical treatment for everything that ails one. :rolleyes:

So what should they have done? Let people carry on burning down houses until the state of the art allowed them to examine their state of mind?

[westprog]

I think I've shown that no straw man was created. You said it. Maybe you didn't mean to, but you should clarify what you meant rather than falsely accuse us of creating straw men.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one with this problem.

[westprog]

ETA: I should preface. I don't need you to tell me why it's wrong so much as I need you to actually explain why it's wrong. If you "tell" me why it's wrong you actually need to be able to demonstrably explain your answer. Religion has tried, but in the end it gives up the ghost and says "god did it" which is an inexplicable indemonstrable answer. It's not a valid answer. What we need is a means to actually EXPLAIN it, which is where the field of biology (A massive field which I feel you give too little consideration towards..) comes into play.

EXPLAINing it is the realm of biology. The question still remains - should we do it or not - which is an entirely different question.

[Lowpro]

EXPLAINing it is the realm of biology. The question still remains - should we do it or not - which is an entirely different question.

Well first off, "should we do it or not" is superficially a zeitgeist problem. It's subjective. And to a cherry on top of that you have to explain why we should do it (classically a philosophical problem, one Sam Harris has addressed without the need to invoke God, which is a huge step).

How can the "why should we do/not do _____" be answered if it's subjective, and why wouldn't that be an answer biology (small name for a massive field) can determine?

Biology can determine the mechanism for why you feel (neurology/psychology) why you think like you do now (evo devo/Neurology/Psychology/embryology) how can you make steps to determine the "should we" without stepping into biology.

[OMGturt1es]

My understanding of NOMA:

1. Religion deals with questions that science cannot answer, e.g., is it morally right to murder a stranger to save a friend?

2. Religion that attempts to answer questions that science can answer is bad theology.

NOMA limits religion to questions that can't be answered or don't have answers anyway. And NOMA doesn't comment on religion's ability to answer these questions. NOMA does not inherently indicate that religion has any real worth; NOMA simply acknowledges religion's use.

So think about this.

Religion isn't going anywhere. Most people are, and will continue to be, religious. NOMA extends an olive branch while restricting religion to questions that can't be properly answered anyway. NOMA provides religion a role, so as science expands, religion doesn't have to feel threatened. And science will expand. And religion isn't going anywhere, and it's not going to respond well if it feels threatened. And the religious out number the non-religious.

If you think the way to foster science is to be brutally honest about it's uselessness or to run head first into its historical territory, you're as deluded as the religious themselves. Religious folks will take these actions as offenses against the very nature of their perception of existence. Anti-science sentiments are already growing in some religious circles. If you've ever monitored conservative boards, you're well aware that many now see science as a tool to attack religion. This view appears to be growing. These sentiments lead to attacks on science. Intelligent designers continue to try to slime their way into the class rooms, and conservatives have been targeting for massive cuts anything relating to climate change.

It seems to me that those who reject NOMA do so because they want to go to battle. They want to replace NOMA with something brutally literate; while religion does deal with questions that science can't answer, these folks need to also express that religion does so with no authority and is completely useless. As accurate as that may be, it's a rather pointless point, as it only encourages religious folk to verge away from science. And it's not a wise battle. We will lose.

NOMA is a tool. It's a strategy. If embraced, it can help to manage religion's role. In my eyes, NOMA is the best case scenario. Anything better is a pipe dream.

[Craig B]

OMGturt1es

According to you NOMA is a benign fraud intended to bamboozle religious dimwits so they won't interfere with scientific activities. Maybe Sam Harris could cook up something like that (he's done much worse with his "truth pill"), but the noble Steve Gould? ... Surely we must boldly speak the truth to religious people, as to everyone else.

[xjx388]

ETA: I should preface. I don't need you to tell me why it's wrong so much as I need you to actually explain why it's wrong. If you "tell" me why it's wrong you actually need to be able to demonstrably explain your answer. Religion has tried, but in the end it gives up the ghost and says "god did it" which is an inexplicable indemonstrable answer. It's not a valid answer. What we need is a means to actually EXPLAIN it, which is where the field of biology (A massive field which I feel you give too little consideration towards..) comes into play.I can explain it without resorting to biology or religion. I'll use philosophy instead.

All people have the right to their life and the freedom to pursue their goals. Whether these rights are inherent in people or they are granted by our society upon birth is irrelevant. The fact remains that these rights exist. If I kill someone without justification (self-defense), then I am arbitrarily taking away the rights that are his. Individuals do not have the right to take away another's given rights, therefore the act is immoral.

Would you believe me if I told you your brain actually controls everything about you, and that an fMRI can detect all changes in your brain. You can actually detect jealousy, rage, emotions within the brain and that's a startling realization. You really are completely determined through your brain interactions which includes your actions such as murder. . Ok, but EVERY action that humans perform is determined through brain interactions. How is this helpful in determining their morality? If I stipulate thatMurder is biologically based, can you explain how it's immoral?

To be sure, the act of murdering involves a LOT of brain interactions; as far as I can imagine there is not a pure "murder" site in the brain and there's no claims as such, but I want to be sure that you understand that too, just in case.Fine. The decision to murder is the result of brain processes. Got it.

An fMRI can determine what is going on in your brain for everything (not that we can lock people in fMRI's 24/7) but literally we can extrapolate from that even without fMRI scans we are sure as all getout that everything about you, INCLUDING moral philosophies, resides within your brain.Sort of. I agree that everything is in the brain. fMRIs can measure blood flow in the brain and see which regions of the brain are activated when subjects think of certain things. But it can't determine "everything" that is going on in your brain. It can't figure out what you are thinking. But yes, philosophy is the result of the workings of the human brain.

That means MANY things. The largest of which is that morality then becomes a biological study (Psychological too, neurology and psychology often bicker). How exactly does biology study morality? Can you point to any biological research which concluded that x behavior was moral/immoral? and not an issue of Religion (religion claims an outside source of morals which all men inherently understand, which isn't true because brain DAMAGE can actually remove morality. Psychopaths are interesting if you want to read up on em, you should). No. Psychopaths might lack the ability to empathize or might be sadistic, to simplify. This does not stop us from punishing them when they murder someone. So, while an individual may be impaired enough to lack the ability to make moral decisions, an external morality still exists that is enforced, whether by society (jail) or by a religion (Sharia Law for a modern example). And we've "known" that murder is immoral long before we even understood what magnets were, much less fMRIs. Where did this knowledge come from if not from scientific inquiry? Philosophical inquiry.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no other domain or magisteria that morality can be a part of because morality is actually localized to the brain (but projected through society; to be sure however it's origins especially are biological. It's like looking at the Grand Canyon and denying that it formed by countless millenia of river erosion).But again, every aspect of human behavior has biological origins, just like every other animal. How is this helpful? "It's biological," is not sufficient grounds to justify/condemn certain behaviors. But we can construct rational arguments, without the need to consult biologists, that justify/condemn certain behaviors. Our entire code of laws is based on philosophical arguments.

You also need to understand that MANY fields of biology will answer parts of the whole; psychology, neurology, evolution and development, embryology, molecular genetics. You'd be surprised at what it takes to explain what makes you "you".Ok then, use any and all of the above fields to explain why murder is wrong.

[OMGturt1es]

OMGturt1es

According to you NOMA is a benign fraud intended to bamboozle religious dimwits so they won't interfere with scientific activities. Maybe Sam Harris could cook up something like that (he's done much worse with his "truth pill"), but the noble Steve Gould? ... Surely we must boldly speak the truth to religious people, as to everyone else.

I don't think it's a fraud at all, and I don't know what Gould's intentions were. I can't crawl in his head. He's dead. And I wouldn't fit. And if I could, it would kill him.

I do think NOMA provides simple boundaries that allow both science and religion to flourish without meddling in one another's affairs. Given the size of our science/atheist team, I think this is in our best interest. We aren't ready for the big game. We'll get slaughtered. And no one likes us. And we don't have 100% control on when the big game is scheduled.

I also think NOMA comes at a very low cost. As an atheist geologist, all I have to do is not tell religious people that I think they are delusional. If I can refrain from that, I've done my part. And it can have real consequence on how religious people perceive science, and therefore, how they respond to science. And that's the most important factor anyway.

I'd prefer an informed, NOMA-respecting religious population than an ill-informed atheist population. Our very real problems don't concern the existence of a fabricated being. Our very real problems concern economic woes, international conflict, and environmental doom. None of these problems will be solved with a population that views scientists as godless, elite, liberal snobs who are out to destroy religion and steal rifles. It doesn't matter how crazy these perceptions may be; they exist.

So I can very honestly say that I think NOMA is a fine way to look at the world. If religious folk feel comfortable enough to not meddle in science, I really have no problem with how they try to answer the unanswerable. What I care far more about is that religious people generally respond to evidence and science when dealing with answerable, pragmatic problems. To me, this is NOMA. To me, it's not at all a fraud. And, to me, it's absolutely in everybody's best interest.

[falkowsi]

If I kill someone without justification (self-defense), then I am arbitrarily taking away the rights that are his. Individuals do not have the right to take away another's given rights, therefore the act is immoral.

If the rights are given from one person to another, why is it immoral to take them away ?

[Craig B]

OMG

I also think NOMA comes at a very low cost. As an atheist geologist, all I have to do is not tell religious people that I think they are delusional. If I can refrain from that, I've done my part. And it can have real consequence on how religious people perceive science, and therefore, how they respond to science. And that's the most important factor anyway.

Exactly. It's not about telling them what you believe to be true, but making them respond in a certain convenient way to science. And "very low-cost" to boot. We obviously disagree as to the meaning of fraud. Saying things you don't believe in order to achieve a desired effect will do for me.

Was that what Gould was really doing? Doesn't do much for his reputation. Maybe Tooby and Cosmides were right in their 1997 crit of Gould after all.:)

[punshhh]

I don't think it's a fraud at all, and I don't know what Gould's intentions were. I can't crawl in his head. He's dead. And I wouldn't fit. And if I could, it would kill him.

I do think NOMA provides simple boundaries that allow both science and religion to flourish without meddling in one another's affairs. Given the size of our science/atheist team, I think this is in our best interest. We aren't ready for the big game. We'll get slaughtered. And no one likes us. And we don't have 100% control on when the big game is scheduled.

I also think NOMA comes at a very low cost. As an atheist geologist, all I have to do is not tell religious people that I think they are delusional. If I can refrain from that, I've done my part. And it can have real consequence on how religious people perceive science, and therefore, how they respond to science. And that's the most important factor anyway.

I'd prefer an informed, NOMA-respecting religious population than an ill-informed atheist population. Our very real problems don't concern the existence of a fabricated being. Our very real problems concern economic woes, international conflict, and environmental doom. None of these problems will be solved with a population that views scientists as godless, elite, liberal snobs who are out to destroy religion and steal rifles. It doesn't matter how crazy these perceptions may be; they exist.

So I can very honestly say that I think NOMA is a fine way to look at the world. If religious folk feel comfortable enough to not meddle in science, I really have no problem with how they try to answer the unanswerable. What I care far more about is that religious people generally respond to evidence and science when dealing with answerable, pragmatic problems. To me, this is NOMA. To me, it's not at all a fraud. And, to me, it's absolutely in everybody's best interest.

Well said,

Living in Europe I am unfamiliar with this battle between science and religion, it seems to be an American phenomenon and as such a regional issue.
I have spent many years studying science and spirituality with no sign of a conflict or disagreement on anything. From my perspective this battle is a squabble, perhaps symptomatic of social unrest.

The issue of morality is simply understood by a consideration of the issues involved in the transition from a society of hunter gatherers to living in cities and using mass communication and the like.

Now biology would dictate that following a population explosion, there would be an implosion due to disease, pollution or ecological imbalance restoring the human primate to its natural niche in the ecology of the planet.

It is up to the ingenuity and intellectual capacity which humanity has inherited to try somehow to survive this potential implosion and find some way to develop a new alternative niche in the ecology of the planet. I see no other way in which civilisation can persist beyond a few thousand years at any one time.

[OMGturt1es]

OMG
Exactly. It's not about telling them what you believe to be true, but making them respond in a certain convenient way to science. And "very low-cost" to boot. We obviously disagree as to the meaning of fraud. Saying things you don't believe in order to achieve a desired effect will do for me.


I'm not saying anything I don't believe. I'm simply refraining from being a dick. If I want to generally get along with people, I'm not going to tell them that I think they're delusional. Moreover, I really don't care what they about things that aren't answerable. I care about what they think about things that are. So I can be very sincere when I say that science and religion occupy separate realms.


Was that what Gould was really doing? Doesn't do much for his reputation. Maybe Tooby and Cosmides were right in their 1997 crit of Gould after all.:)

I have no idea if that's what Gould was really doing with NOMA. It's my interpretation of NOMA. And it may be completely bunk. I don't spend much time worrying about religion. It's really of little practical consequence. I'd rather try to change perceptions of pragmatic, reality-based issues.

No matter, I don't think that would be a stain on Gould's reputation. Just as I don't think my interpretation is a stain on my (non-existent) reputation. My interpretation is perfectly honest, respectful, realistic, and beneficial.

[Craig B]

I hope the liberal believers, for whose benefit Gould proposed NOMA, aren't reading this. They'll go tonto.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Science cannot answer the basic moral questions.

"Causing harm to someone is wrong." Prove this scientifically. I don't think you can. Morality has no empirical basis in the real world. Animals other than humans engage in behaviors that humans would consider immoral. They rape each other, they kill each other, they kill their offspring, etc. So what makes humans different? What makes it empirically wrong to rape or kill another human being (or animal for that matter)?

Empathy? Compassion? What makes those emotions more right than greed and hate?

You are right. I cannot prove 'causing harm to someone is wrong' scientifically. So now you can show me how to prove it non-scientifically.

Science is the tool we have to understand reality. If morals and right and wrong and their implications are real things then science is the tool we have to understand them. There are no other tools in the box.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Nevertheless, moral questions have to be resolved, and science cannot do so.

Can you tell me what moral questions have been finally resolved? What tools were used to do this?

You may be mixing up deciding to do something with resolving whether its moral or not. If all we want is a way to decide to do something then we can flip a coin. In reality, our decision to do something is a biological process - the outcome of that is what we decide is moral.

I don't see where this 'resolution' you speak of is coming from, nor how anything other than science is going to help us.

The only benefit of other systems seems to be that they do away with the need to support decisions with logic, evidence and 'proof' and allow us a way to claim our personal assumptions are true in the absence of these things.

If you call that resolution then its not something I can agree with.

Since everything we do is as a result of biology, it doesn't form a very useful guide as to what we should do.

And what does? In fact, how do you know there is something which is what we 'should' do? Maybe there are just a bunch of options with no right answer?

It's certainly possible to have a non-religious moral code, but it will always be non-scientific.

And it won't resolve whether something is right or wrong, merely provide an internal justification for the option you choose. Flipping a coin would be a non-scientific moral code, I don't think I would argue that it's a good one.

My method of dealing with moral questions starts with contemplation and introspection. I know what it feels like when something is done to me. I decide, on that basis, whether it is right to do that to someone else.

So what? Why does your personal feeling dictate what is right or wrong? If I feel like its OK to kill someone then is that a good resolution to a moral question?

The idea that mankind should have put off making any decisions for several million years while waiting for the advent of neuroscience doesn't seem particularly practical.

And yet we also made decisions before we had philosophy and religion and probably even a concept of morals. What now?

In any case, how can neuroscience provide us with an "ought"? We can study the brain patterns of a murderer or a rape victim, but how does that lead us to a view as to what behaviours are to be avoided.

How does anything else? In fact, how do you know there even is an 'ought'?

Even if we can totally describe what human beings do, down to the last detail, that does nothing to tell us what they should do.

And you have yet to show that there is an answer to the question of what we should do, let alone that we have any better tools than science to discover what it is.

So what should they have done? Let people carry on burning down houses until the state of the art allowed them to examine their state of mind?

You seem confused here as you are mixing up making decisions with determining whether those decisions are right or wrong. If someone tries to burn down my house I will try to stop them regardless of whether I am right or wrong to do so. I don't need religion or philosophy to inform that decision I merely need to know that if my house burns down I will have nowhere to sleep tonight.

EXPLAINing it is the realm of biology. The question still remains - should we do it or not - which is an entirely different question.

An one which you have yet to show has an answer and that you have yet to propose a suitable tool for finding any answer which exists.

[Darat]

That's not a meaningful question. It doesn't have a where. Nevertheless, you still need to make choices.

It is a very meaningful question since you are claiming that "should" cannot be described by science, the question demonstrates the mistake you make because you start with the assumption that there is something about humans that cannot in principle be described by science.

[Humes fork]

It is a very meaningful question since you are claiming that "should" cannot be described by science, the question demonstrates the mistake you make because you start with the assumption that there is something about humans that cannot in principle be described by science.

Right and wrong can't be determined by science because they are not part of the fundamental description of reality.

[Darat]

Maybe I was a bit sloppy, but I mean that there is no evidence that they are. Disagreement about gay marriage is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) like disagreements in science.

We need to be careful with the word "science" here but I think I know how you are using it.

Science (in principle of course as all these things have to be) is meant to be able to describe the world around us accurately, now it may be that it is incapable of doing so but I think that will lead us into a quite a different discussion so I'll leave it at that, but remember I am not making a claim that science can accurately describe reality. (I'm a pragmatist.)

All the examples people have given in this thread for the "should questions" are simply describing human behaviours. I've not seen anyone in this thread able to demonstrate that a "should" is any different to a "run".

[Darat]

Right and wrong can't be determined by science because they are not part of the fundamental description of reality.

Only if you start with the assumption that there is something about humans that cannot be accessed/described/modelled by science.

[falkowsi]

Right and wrong can't be determined by science because they are not part of the fundamental description of reality.

"right" behavior is simply behavior that benefits the genes of the person doing it. Based on that, you can use science to fill in the rest.

[Craig B]

"right" behavior is simply behavior that benefits the genes of the person doing it. Based on that, you can use science to fill in the rest.

Then all organisms EXCEPT human beings invariably engage in right behaviour; and as science is a possession uniquely of human beings, not merely can it not fill in the rest, the very existence of the intelligent free will on which science is founded can only make us indulge in "wrong" behaviour, eg the intentional practice of genetically-unrewarded altruism.

I prefer Dawkins, who reminds us that lions eating all the cubs in a pride they take over, to replace them with ones they've fathered, makes genetic sense - but is it right? he asks rhetorically. For you, the lions' behaviour is the DEFINITION of "right".

[Last of the Fraggles]

Only if you start with the assumption that there is something about humans that cannot be accessed/described/modelled by science.

Surely, 'God' is something about humans that cannot be accessed/described/modelled by science? For me 'right' and 'wrong' fall pretty close to 'God' in terms of being able to understand them.

"right" behavior is simply behavior that benefits the genes of the person doing it. Based on that, you can use science to fill in the rest.

That's one definition of 'right' but I doubt you'd get everyone to agree on that.

[Humes fork]

We need to be careful with the word "science" here but I think I know how you are using it.

Science (in principle of course as all these things have to be) is meant to be able to describe the world around us accurately, now it may be that it is incapable of doing so but I think that will lead us into a quite a different discussion so I'll leave it at that, but remember I am not making a claim that science can accurately describe reality. (I'm a pragmatist.)

All the examples people have given in this thread for the "should questions" are simply describing human behaviours. I've not seen anyone in this thread able to demonstrate that a "should" is any different to a "run".

"Shoulds" are not part of the fundamental description of reality. "You should not murder" is not a statement of fact, it's an expression of an emotion. Science can describe behaviors, but it can't decide what behaviors are preferable unless you have a value premise.

[falkowsi]

Then all organisms EXCEPT human beings invariably engage in right behaviour

I agree that this is the goal of every organism. Whether they actually succeed is another question. They could be defective and actually engage in wrong behavior (perhaps like the arsonist with the abnormal brain mentioned earlier). ETA: Why do you think human beings are an exception ?

I prefer Dawkins, who reminds us that lions eating all the cubs in a pride they take over, to replace them with ones they've fathered, makes genetic sense - but is it right? he asks rhetorically. For you, the lions' behaviour is the DEFINITION of "right".

Seems right to me, from the perspective of the lion, of course.

[fls]

Actually, I suspect that humans will continue to rely on science to make moral decisions, since we've been doing it for quite a while and apparently the philosophers haven't noticed.
Lindaexample

For example, if we want to know whether or not we should spank our kids, rather than holding a consortium on introspection and contemplation, we perform studies looking at whether it is effectively alters behaviour.

Linda

[Humes fork]

For example, if we want to know whether or not we should spank our kids, rather than holding a consortium on introspection and contemplation, we perform studies looking at whether it is effectively alters behaviour.

Linda

But the decision as to what behavior we desire is not a scientific decision.

[falkowsi]

For example, if we want to know whether or not we should spank our kids, rather than holding a consortium on introspection and contemplation, we perform studies looking at whether it is effectively alters behaviour.


Actually, in the case of spanking, it appears most people reach a conclusion based on contemplation. I'm not aware of any controlled experiments where we spank children, and evaluate the results later in their life.

Many people would consider that immoral, I'm afraid.

[Last of the Fraggles]

For example, if we want to know whether or not we should spank our kids, rather than holding a consortium on introspection and contemplation, we perform studies looking at whether it is effectively alters behaviour.

Linda

Well I think that could get us to whether it's effective or not but the question of whether it's right or wrong (if that's a valid question) isn't resolved by answering whether it works.

If smacking was proven to be effective in altering a child's behaviour then many would still say it's wrong to do so.

Showing that it's ineffective doesn't quite make the jump to 'wrong' either - though its probably less of a leap.

[HansMustermann]

Which has no bearing on their ability to provide answers to those questions. Circus clowns are known for their attempts to carry and use stepladders and buckets of whitewash, but are hardly trustworthy authorities on how to do so.



X cannot do A.
Y cannot do B.
Therefore, X can do B and Y can do A.

Is this affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or somewhere in between the two?

Actually it's a simple case of four terms and two relationships, which is fundamentally unable to reach any conclusion. Sometimes this kind of having too many terms is packed to at least look like it really involves 3 terms, with the fourth being just implied or disguised, in which case we talk about the Fallacy Of Four Terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms), or its special case of sneaking in an extra term by Equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).

Well, technicallly this IS a fallacy of four terms, by very definition, but it's such a retarded form of it, that I feel like I'm being too charitable to even call it a fallacy. I mean, it's not like it even pretends to make logical sense or have less terms. Proposition 1 connects only entities A and B, while proposition 2 connects only C and D, so really, there it's not like it's even pretending to have some way of fitting together in some valid syllogism.

I feel it's really best described as the Failing Logic Foreverever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever) trope, or possibly Insane Troll Logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic). Again, on account of not even trying to look like a valid form of inference, but just being two completely disjunct statements and two conclusions that don't even make any attempt to follow from the actual premises.

[fls]

So the explanation of the process of decision-making doesn't actually describe two NOMA, but simply a variation in what ideas are tested against. Westprog describes the time-honoured process of testing ideas against her/his intuitions as to what feels right or wrong. Others point out that there is nothing special about these intuitions; they are simply brain processes which are input into the decision-making process, and at the very least, ideas can be tested against a fuller understanding of those processes. And that is reasonable and may be insightful, but ultimately it is of limited usefulness. Since these intuitions are merely imperfectly picking up on characteristics which may or may not be valid or useful, the most straightforward approach is to test the ideas directly against valid and useful outcomes. Which seems to be how we generally approach decisions now.

NOMA simply distinguishes between testing ideas in a way which has poor reliability and validity and a way which has demonstrably good reliability and validity. It's just that the former is more accessible.

Linda

[Antiquehunter]

If religious folk feel comfortable enough to not meddle in science, I really have no problem with how they try to answer the unanswerable. What I care far more about is that religious people generally respond to evidence and science when dealing with answerable, pragmatic problems. To me, this is NOMA. To me, it's not at all a fraud. And, to me, it's absolutely in everybody's best interest.

Ay, there's the rub.

Show me a passionate believer of mainstream religion, and you have an inveterate meddler in science. Probably a young-earth creationist of some description, likely an evolution denier or at least someone with a messed-up view of how evolution operates. Probably against a number of ideals that most logic-based people accept, or at least are ambivalent towards (reproductive rights, peccadilloes about sexual orientation etc...)

NOMA simply permits a weird wishy-washy version of religion to flourish, making excuses for the likes of those who think that both science and creation theory deserve a place in the classroom. Apologetic pablum. And not Gould's finest hour.

[fls]

My understanding of NOMA:

1. Religion deals with questions that science cannot answer, e.g., is it morally right to murder a stranger to save a friend?

2. Religion that attempts to answer questions that science can answer is bad theology.

NOMA limits religion to questions that can't be answered or don't have answers anyway. And NOMA doesn't comment on religion's ability to answer these questions. NOMA does not inherently indicate that religion has any real worth; NOMA simply acknowledges religion's use.

So think about this.

Religion isn't going anywhere. Most people are, and will continue to be, religious. NOMA extends an olive branch while restricting religion to questions that can't be properly answered anyway. NOMA provides religion a role, so as science expands, religion doesn't have to feel threatened. And science will expand. And religion isn't going anywhere, and it's not going to respond well if it feels threatened. And the religious out number the non-religious.

If you think the way to foster science is to be brutally honest about it's uselessness or to run head first into its historical territory, you're as deluded as the religious themselves. Religious folks will take these actions as offenses against the very nature of their perception of existence. Anti-science sentiments are already growing in some religious circles. If you've ever monitored conservative boards, you're well aware that many now see science as a tool to attack religion. This view appears to be growing. These sentiments lead to attacks on science. Intelligent designers continue to try to slime their way into the class rooms, and conservatives have been targeting for massive cuts anything relating to climate change.

It seems to me that those who reject NOMA do so because they want to go to battle. They want to replace NOMA with something brutally literate; while religion does deal with questions that science can't answer, these folks need to also express that religion does so with no authority and is completely useless. As accurate as that may be, it's a rather pointless point, as it only encourages religious folk to verge away from science. And it's not a wise battle. We will lose.

NOMA is a tool. It's a strategy. If embraced, it can help to manage religion's role. In my eyes, NOMA is the best case scenario. Anything better is a pipe dream.

I.e. what I said in my first post:

"It's Apologetics. Sooner or later we may grow out of it."

Linda

[fls]

But the decision as to what behavior we desire is not a scientific decision.

How so? What characteristic makes an outcome "scientific" vs. "not scientific"?

Linda

[Darat]

"Shoulds" are not part of the fundamental description of reality. "You should not murder" is not a statement of fact, it's an expression of an emotion. Science can describe behaviors, but it can't decide what behaviors are preferable unless you have a value premise.

I'm not following what you mean by "fundamental description of reality", science deals all the time with stuff that aren't what it currently considers to be "fundamental" descriptors of reality, for example how effective a given medicine it.

[fls]

Actually, in the case of spanking, it appears most people reach a conclusion based on contemplation. I'm not aware of any controlled experiments where we spank children, and evaluate the results later in their life.

Many people would consider that immoral, I'm afraid.

Now you are just distinguishing between research methods, rather than NOMA (observational studies are "religion" and interventional studies are " science"?).

Linda

[Craig B]

I agree that this is the goal of every organism. Whether they actually succeed is another question. They could be defective and actually engage in wrong behavior (perhaps like the arsonist with the abnormal brain mentioned earlier). ETA: Why do you think human beings are an exception?

Because our thinking has liberated itself from the mechanistic genetic processes you confuse with "right". There REALLY IS another dimension to human activity. And of course evolution is a bloody and mindless process; nobody would design such a thing.

Consider the penguin, which will feed only its own chick, and contribute nothing to any other, so if its chick dies the product of its hunting is lost to the colony. Its genes can't think. We can, and we make more efficient arrangements; people are encouraged to treat society with some degree of non-genetic collective responsibility, albeit of course that they still tend to favour their own children. It's a level of efficient sociality to which no other creature can attain.

[falkowsi]

Now you are just distinguishing between research methods, rather than NOMA (observational studies are "religion" and interventional studies are " science"?).


Yes, I don't disagree with the overall point, I just commented on the particular example you used.

[falkowsi]

Because our thinking has liberated itself from the mechanistic genetic processes you confuse with "right". There REALLY IS another dimension to human activity. And of course evolution is a bloody and mindless process; nobody would design such a thing.

Humans are just more complicated animals. Making choices is just a mechanistic process, caused by a brain that is determine by the same genetic processes. We are different in the fact that are choice making process is much more powerful and elaborate, so we are better at incorporating more inputs, and are more accurate a predicting the results.


We can, and we make more efficient arrangements; people are encouraged to treat society with some degree of non-genetic collective responsibility, albeit of course that they still tend to favour their own children. It's a level of efficient sociality to which no other creature can attain.

People treat society with responsibility because their actions towards society determine the action from the society towards them, and as a result, their genes. Killing another human, and getting punished for it is usually not the best way to take care of your children.

Lots of animals live in societies too, by the way. They may be primitive according to our standards, but they're still societies.

[fls]

Well I think that could get us to whether it's effective or not but the question of whether it's right or wrong (if that's a valid question) isn't resolved by answering whether it works.

Well, "right" and "wrong" are merely descriptors for the results of brain processes...whether a particular action triggers a response from the reward centre or disgust, for example.

If smacking was proven to be effective in altering a child's behaviour then many would still say it's wrong to do so.

Right, we'd make the observation that it still triggers a particular brain process (disgust) in some.

Showing that it's ineffective doesn't quite make the jump to 'wrong' either - though its probably less of a leap.

"Ineffective" doesn't make it "wrong". Lots of stuff is ineffective without triggering disgust. I suspect that what distinguishes "moral" questions is when there is a disconnect between the science and the feeling. For example, since protecting property rights results in a more stable society and "thou shalt not steal" feels intuitively "right", it's not really an area of contention. On the other hand, since a failure to exclude same-sex marriages also maintains a stable society but male-male sex triggers in disgust in some, it is seen as a contentious moral issue.

Linda

[HansMustermann]

Ok, it seems to me like by now at least one side the discussion has revolved around some assumption that religion is good at giving some answers, just because it does give answers. Which I'll go ahead and proclaim as silly and missing the point. What makes it weird is that FLS and a couple of others have been giving the relevant objection repeatedly, but it seems to go completely over some people's heads.

Giving answers is easy. Anyone can give answers. A die can give answers.

Q: Should I spank my children?
*rolls two dice*
A: 7.

A deck of tarot cards can give answers.

Q: Should I rape my classmate? What would be the outcome?
*pulls random card*
A: Lovers. (Well, that sounds good.)

A hat full of words cut out from a dictionary can give answers.

Q: Is it ok to kill my son for giving me lip?
*pulls a scrap of paper out of the hat*
A: Banana.

An eight-ball can give answers. The insane hobo living under the bridge can give answers. Playing music backwards can give answers. Etc.

Being able to give answers is so trivial, that it's hardly just a domain of religion. In fact it's not the relevant qualification.

What actually matters is being able to give GOOD answers or USEFUL answers. Just being able to give stupid answers like "don't wear mixed fiber jeans" doesn't mean those answers are even correct. Before giving religion that domain, as opposed to, say, giving the domain to a random word generator, someone would have to show that the answers given by religion are the best or most useful, out of all possible things which could also give us answers.

[fls]

Ok, it seems to me like by now at least one side the discussion has revolved around some assumption that religion is good at giving some answers, just because it does give answers. Which I'll go ahead and proclaim as silly and missing the point. What makes it weird is that FLS and a couple of others have been giving the relevant objection repeatedly, but it seems to go completely over some people's heads.

Giving answers is easy. Anyone can give answers. A die can give answers.

Q: Should I spank my children?
*rolls two dice*
A: 7.

A deck of tarot cards can give answers.

Q: Should I rape my classmate? What would be the outcome?
*pulls random card*
A: Lovers. (Well, that sounds good.)

A hat full of words cut out from a dictionary can give answers.

Q: Is it ok to kill my son for giving me lip?
*pulls a scrap of paper out of the hat*
A: Banana.

An eight-ball can give answers. The insane hobo living under the bridge can give answers. Playing music backwards can give answers. Etc.

Being able to give answers is so trivial, that it's hardly just a domain of religion. In fact it's not the relevant qualification.

What actually matters is being able to give GOOD answers or USEFUL answers. Just being able to give stupid answers like "don't wear mixed fiber jeans" doesn't mean those answers are even correct. Before giving religion that domain, as opposed to, say, giving the domain to a random word generator, someone would have to show that the answers given by religion are the best or most useful, out of all possible things which could also give us answers.

There are situations where a random input maximises the outcome. I've long been suspicious that rolling a die would be an improvement upon looking to religion. At least it can lower the chance that the answer won't be one of intolerance.

Linda

[HansMustermann]

True enough.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Well, "right" and "wrong" are merely descriptors for the results of brain processes...whether a particular action triggers a response from the reward centre or disgust, for example.

Pretty much agree with that, although I wouldn't say its as simple as disgust = wrong but close enough for argument sake. Given that they are results of individual brain processes though I'd more or less argue that the descriptors have no meaning separate from the individual who arrived at the result.

There is no real sense in which right and wrong exist outside of the brain that created that judgement - so any attempt to start to determine a universal morality is going to fail regardless of whether we use science or religion or reading belly button fluff.

Where science maybe falls down is that it is willing to acknowledge the possibility that it can't determine right and wrong whereas Madame Fluff Mystical Princess of the Belly Button will assure you she has the answers and they are correct.

Given the choice people seem to prefer an uninformed certain answer to a well-informed don't know.

[xjx388]

What actually matters is being able to give GOOD answers or USEFUL answers. Just being able to give stupid answers like "don't wear mixed fiber jeans" doesn't mean those answers are even correct. Before giving religion that domain, as opposed to, say, giving the domain to a random word generator, someone would have to show that the answers given by religion are the best or most useful, out of all possible things which could also give us answers.
Similarly, someone would have to demonstrate that science gives us the best or most useful moral answers out of all possible things which could also give us moral answers.

I don't think you would argue that your absurd constructs give better answers than religion. It has provided decent moral answers for as long as humans have been human. Not perfect answers though. We need a better system.

So will science provide us such a system? I don't believe it can. Science is a poor moral compass. Science can tell us that the man who raped a child has a brain abnormality and could not control his actions. Science can tell us that rape of children occurs in animals. Does this mean he shouldn't be punished?

All moral questions are subjective. Science cannot answer subjective questions. Philosophy can. Whether it's a religious philosophy or a secular one, it provides practical answers. We may never have a perfect philosophy, but we can have a workable one.

[fls]

Given the choice people seem to prefer an uninformed certain answer to a well-informed don't know.

I think it has to do with a tendency to feel like our intuitions are something we can trust, and that it is something which is accessible to everyone, whereas good information is somewhat removed from immediate access.

Linda

[xjx388]

xjx I am not going to go round the mulberry bush with you on this one. Believe what you want. Others can read the posts for themselves.

Convenient.

You accuse me of straw-manning. I directly quote you making the argument you say is a straw man. You say "Believe what you want." :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not going to let this one go. You said: And the fact that homosexual animals can be found helps us determine that homosexual behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'. Thus our moral dilemmas become more clear, the basis in this case is contrived, not real. We can dispense with it without peril.

I summarized what you said thusly: You have said that studying biology will lead to answers to moral questions. Biology tells us that homosexual behavior is natural. Thus the answer to the moral question of homosexuality is: It is acceptable. Where is the straw man?

I then extended your argument to make this statement: By the same reasoning I can say that killing my neighbor and his children to make his wife sexually available to me is morally acceptable. Where is the straw man?

Using your exact wording, your argument is:

And the fact that [X] animals can be found helps us determine that [X] behavior is biologic and not 'sinful'. Thus our moral dilemmas become more clear, the basis in this case is contrived, not real. We can dispense with it without peril.

If X = "Murderous" is the argument still true?
If X = "Child Rapist" is the argument still true?