I agree with you Billy that it's not ideal to state strong opinion - eg in my post yesterday - and not immediately back it up. Two things. One, I'm human, and it's quite normal to want to express an inner reaction before going on to catalogue in detail why one thinks/feels that. Two, I've no shame in admitting at present I feel a bit like the tortoise in the hare and tortoise fable with you and Jonathan. I'm ok with that - hope you are. So I'll try and back up what I say, as you keep demanding; it's just going to take a bit longer, a series of posts.
Today I'm just going to consider one of Jonathan's comment:
From Mullen: "St Augustine and The Athanasian Creed did not use the phrase absolute presuppositions. They used the word faith. But they meant the same thing"
J: "Erm, no, they didn't. The "faith" of scientists and mathematicians is backed up by thousands upon thousands of experiments, backed up by day to day observation of the world around us.
What is scientists' faith in? In the scientific method, enabling experiment and progress in knowledge of the observable world. Science tells us increasingly more about physical processes, how things work, the 'how' qs; Billy you know a lot of the detail, as indicated by the plethora of long words on Tuesday. My question: is the scientific method adequately equipped to tackle issues and questions in the arenas of meaning, purpose, morals - the 'why' qs? Or is a different kind of faith needed to shed light on these?
Jonathan, I'll come back to your q about creatures in a parallel universe. Just now I feel like one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
19 comments:
Hi Bruce,
Does science answer questions of purpose?
Well, one problem with your question is the supposition that there is purpose? What is the purpose of a star 10 billion light years away that will never be observed? What is the purpose of a meteor hitting the moon? What is the "purpose" of a cat torturing a mouse to death? What is the purpose of cancer?
Cetainly, we can ask (and get answers) to questions like what is the "purpose" of a peacocks tail, what is the "purpose" of a stags antlers? What is the "purpose" of a snakes' venom? These however are more questions of function rather than purpose. If you want to claim a purpose, you have to show that one actually exists.
I presume you may be asking things like "what is the purpose of me" or what is the purpose of "suffering?", "What is the purpose of me being single". I'm affraid, you have to show that there is a purpose before you can ask these questions. Science does show that these things have no purpose. Suffering happens, because people are interested in themselves more than others, and that makes biological sence. Malaria exists because the human body is an ecological niche and the ancestral malaria parasites could exploit it. There is no purpose in the recurrent fevers it causes. It is merely a host response to the parasite.
By the way, if you use the HTML tags, it will make it easier to see where quotes begin/ end.
Billy
Bruce-
"faith" to me is a very loaded word. You use it today in the context of science and the scientific method, but the fact that the same word is used to describe religion suggests that the scientists' "beliefs" (another loaded word) are somehow similar. They are not. Faith in the scientific context is faith in the scientific method, with the possibility of change and revision that that entails. Faith in the religious context is very often faith despite the evidence, with little possibility for alteration. It's important to emphasise that.
As for morality, Billy and I have already provided many arguments for morality arising as an evolutionary process, the how and the why combined. This links into your belief that morality is somehow deeper and more complex than evolution would need it to be, but you have not yet said why you think that. Back up your assertion, Mr Tortoise!
Meaning and purpose- why assume that there is any? Life's "purpose" is survival, and the conception of the next generation. As I said yesterday, you no doubt imagine purpose to be more grandiose than that. My personal feeling is that humans should provide meaning and purpose to their own existences. We are not entirely slaves to our genes. Our lives can be what we make them.
You imply that a different kind of faith is needed to answer the why questions. But why? We have already answered so many of the how questions, surely we will be able to work out the whys, given time and thought? Do you consider that humans are incapable of finding these answers without the aid of a higher power?
"In the scientific method, enabling experiment and progress in knowledge of the observable world".
Implying that you believe that there is part of the world that cannot be observed. How do you know that? Where is the evidence?
Jonathan.
As ever, I'll let your comments 'marinate'.
I'd just have to say though that this one, J, definitely falls in the category of opinion:
'Faith in the religious context is very often faith despite the evidence, with little possibility for alteration. It's important to emphasise that.'
and wd need to be discussed.
I don't think you can get to morality through evolution. You can get to altruistic behaviour. You may even be able to get to self-sacrificial behaviour. But I don't think you can't get to the choosing between two behaviours on the basis of right and wrong.
Example. You are walking your grandmother home. A group of young hoodlums attempt to take her bag. Do you a) run away (self-preservation instinct)? b) try to help the little old lady (defend the family instinct)?
If your behaviour is determined by "doing what is best for the preservation of the genepool" then there is no right or wrong. There is simply a response to a set of circumstances that has been honed by millenia of evolution to optimise the genetic outcome. Whether that's run away or fight doesn't matter.
However, we all possess something that acts as an arbiter between vying instincts. It allows us to investigate whether action a is more "right" or moral than action b. And that would make (I hope you agree) option a) cowardly (and less right) and option b) brave (and more right).
Now you may argue that this "instinct umpire" is simply cultural conditioning - we learn it from our society. But we use exactly this process to judge between cultures and societies. How else do we know that the Nazis were bad? Or that invading small countries for oil is bad? Or that beating the French 1-0 away is good?
This is morality and only humans possess it. Chimps may self-sacrifice, but it's not the action but the motivation behind the action that differentiates us from chimps. We can choose to act against our instincts for a greater purpose in a way that is not just culturally determined.
We are not simply animals. Imago dei would be the techinical term...
Anonymous,
You seem to be arguing from a moral absolute position, that action A will always be considered more or less moral than action B. Can you demonstrate absolutes exist? To a nazi or a satanist, what you hold to be moral is not so to them. Do you not then think it is your cultural context or upbringing that gives you your moral sense?
What do you think of stoning homosexuals? what about making a victim marry her rapist? Are these pleasing to your sense of morality and ethics? They are biblical laws after all. What about Slavery? The bible promotes that, and certainly never condemns it. Why was that considerer OK then and not now. Where do the Westboro baptists get their disgusting beliefs from (other than the bible)?
Where do people who have never heard of god get their moral codes from?
Please provide evidence to back up your claim that chimps dont act in a moral way, or that morality is a human only quality. Do you know what motivates chimps.
Maybe I'm being cynical here, but I dont think there are too many people out there who are moral for what you may consider the right reason.
Your argument seems to be this: moral absolutes exist (no proof given that they do) Animals dont have true morality (not backed up by evidence) Only humans have morality (not demonstrated by you) God exists (not proven, and certainly not mutually accepted) Therefore, morality comes from god (a non sequitir).
If you have any evidence to back up these claims, I would be interested in discussing them. I would also like to hear your opinion of the moral codes of the OT and whether you think stoning homosexuals etc is good moral teaching or not
Billy
Hi Billy,
I believe, as you do, in some absolute standards of morality. Do you believe that the Nazis were not evil? On what grounds. And you've yet to explain how evolution provides a sence of right and wrnog?
I do not believe that eveything can be neatly categorised into "right and wrong" i.e. stem cell research, capital punishment. That is what ethics is - the application of universally held moral principles (it is wrong to take life without reason, it is wrong lie without sufficient cause, it is wrong to take what is not yours, it is wrong to have sex with someone against their will, etc) to specific situations which can become complex.
I suspect the onus is on you, having claimed chimps are moral beings to provide evidence for that! (Allowing for the fact that motivation not action per se is the essense of moral behaviour. I think it may be a while before we can confidently say what motivates chimps to do what they do...)
I belieive morality is a human quality because we are the only species where we can interrogate motives for action. We also have laws, courts, "rights" and conscience. Feel free to let me know of another species with these charactersitics. Until then I'll stick with the evidence being overwhelmingly that humans are the only species with a morality. ;)
I've made no arguments toward God being the source of morality. There's no point if don't accept there's such a thing as morality.
I don't think you are being cynical at all to suggest that there are too many people who are moral in the wrong way. I completely agree with you. The church likes, and has done great evil in, saying those in it are "good people" and everyone outside it are "bad people". This is religion of the worst kind - the kind Jesus told the Pharisees they would go to hell for.
There aren't good people and bad people. We're all inherently bad (as evidenced everyday on the news). I like to think of it as the law of moral entropy - left to one's own devices it always takes more effort to do what is right.
There are, however, bad people who know that Jesus has dealt with their badness, and those who don't.
Paul
Paul-
I know you're debating with Billy, but I'm going to butt in anyway!
"We're all inherently bad (as evidenced everyday on the news)".
This is a BIG statement to make, and demands clarification. So is it your assertion that we are all born bad, or is it something that we acquire later? If so, at what point? When we're old enough to know right from wrong, or before that? Why are we all born bad? Why are we not born good, then become bad? Are we bad from the moment of birth, or is it something that develops later? What is the mechanism for this development? How do we counter it? Is everyone born with the same degree of badness, or are there varying extents?
I appreciate that the above is a barrage of questions, but I want to make you think about the implications of what you said.
Jonathan.
PS- welcome to the debate!
Hi Paul (I accidentally posted this on the wrong thread earlier -doh!),
That was an interesting post
I believe, as you do, in some absolute standards of morality. Do you believe that the Nazis were not evil? On what grounds. And you've yet to explain how evolution provides a sence of right and wrnog?
I don’t actually believe in any moral absolutes as such – there has probably been some society at some time who have broken some aspect of our moral code and not thought they were being ommoral. Ritual human sacrifices were once commonplace for example. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then you will have a problem with the ancient greeks, if you think polygamy is wrong, then you may have a problem with pre Han Dynasty China, if you consider slavery to be wrong, then you may have a problem with Old Testament jews. I don’t believe in evil as such, and in a society of Nazi, Hitler was not “evil”. His actions do disgust me, but would they if I had been brought up in the Hitler youth? If you were brought up in a Taliban like culture, you may look on western women as whores for not covering up. I definitely believe that morality is relative, and it changes over time in a society: we no longer (in Britain) send children down mines, keep slaves, or wonder if black people are truly human for example.
The advantage of a sense of right and wrong is that it allows you to conform to the “normal” standards of society. If you couldn’t detect that stealing was bad, you would get a reputation and no one would trust you. This would be particularly bad for you in a small hunter gatherer society, where your survival chances are enhanced through interacting with those around you.
I do not believe that eveything can be neatly categorised into "right and wrong" i.e. stem cell research, capital punishment.
I agree, and it is interesting that we see degrees of right and wrong. From an absolutists point of view, it should either be right or wrong - full stop.
That is what ethics is - the application of universally held moral principles (it is wrong to take life without reason, it is wrong lie without sufficient cause, it is wrong to take what is not yours, it is wrong to have sex with someone against their will, etc) to specific situations which can become complex.
Yes, but not every one agrees on whether these are ethical or not. I imagine everyone in this discussion would be of the same opinion here, but what about a Mongolian herdsman or Polynesian cannibal?
I suspect the onus is on you, having claimed chimps are moral beings to provide evidence for that! (Allowing for the fact that motivation not action per se is the essense of moral behavior. I think it may be a while before we can confidently say what motivates chimps to do what they do...)
I never (I hope) said that chimps were moral in terms of thought. I was just pointing out they display behavioral traits that would be considered moral acts. One day we may know a chimps mind, but they certainly hold grudges an remember unfair treatment. They also remember their allies. This forms the basis for a lot of human-human interaction: “he never buys a round, so I’m not buying him one” or “he makes me feel happy, I’m going to cook him a meal”.
I believe morality is a human quality because we are the only species where we can interrogate motives for action. We also have laws, courts, "rights" and conscience. Feel free to let me know of another species with these charactersitics. Until then I'll stick with the evidence being overwhelmingly that humans are the only species with a morality. ;)
Depending on how we define morality, it may be possible that we are the only truly moral beings, but that does not mean god is the provide of moral standards (a few distasteful standards have already been mentioned – eg killing homosexuals). It would just make us unique – much in the same way the Hoatzin is unique amongst birds for having claws – or indeed every species is unique in its own way.
Animals are actually quite good at reading the motives of others. A stag can tell if another one wants to challenge him for example. A grouse that pretends to have a broken wing to lead a predator away from its nest is making a prediction about the intention of a potential predator. It can even learn to modify its behaviour to fine tune whether it should act or not. In much the same way, we learn how to trust or distrust others based on experience. You don’t even need to be aware of why you trust, but it becomes learned. This is called “adopting the intentional stance”.
I've made no arguments toward God being the source of morality. There's no point if don't accept there's such a thing as morality.
I believe in “morality”, but it is a relative thing that is fluid.
I don't think you are being cynical at all to suggest that there are too many people who are moral in the wrong way. I completely agree with you. The church likes, and has done great evil in, saying those in it are "good people" and everyone outside it are "bad people". This is religion of the worst kind - the kind Jesus told the Pharisees they would go to hell for.
Unfortunately all too often the bible teaches that you should behave or else (eg Deut 28). I think this shows that people will do what they want if left to their own devices. It is interesting that this chapter does not say be good for the sake of being good.
There aren't good people and bad people. We're all inherently bad (as evidenced everyday on the news). I like to think of it as the law of moral entropy - left to one's own devices it always takes more effort to do what is right.
Yes, and this selfishness is the raw material of evolution. It is probably also the product of evolution.
Cheers
Billy
PS, this blog is becoming messy, so if I miss a comment from you, just let me know on what ever thread I am currently on.
Well Jonathan, thanks for the welcome and here goes...
So is it your assertion that we are all born bad, or is it something that we acquire later?
We are all born with the inherent tendency to be bad. None of us get through life without being bad at some point. Most of us don't get through a day without doing/saying/thinking something we shouldn't (or not doing somthing we should). Do you disagree?
If so, at what point? When we're old enough to know right from wrong, or before that?
As soon as we are capable of acting on our tendency to be bad.
Why are we all born bad? Why are we not born good, then become bad? Are we bad from the moment of birth, or is it something that develops later? What is the mechanism for this development? How do we counter it?
We are good at birth simply because we've not had the chance to be bad. If you can't move or talk you have little capacity for "badness". For the why question, I'd refer you to Genesis 3.
Is everyone born with the same degree of badness, or are there varying extents?
Some people really excel at it. But we all do it. But the issue is not how or when we become bad, but the obvious truth that at some point in life it is inescapable. We sin and people sin against us.
And much of life is dealing with the consequences of those two realities.
Of course, if you don't believe in right or wrong (as neither you or Billy seem to...) then none of us are bad - just victims of our genes/environment (delete as applicable).
Paul
PS Just finished night shifts which allowed me some time to post (albeit in the middle of the night). I'm afraid once I get back to a daytime routine I'll only be able to dip in and out of the blog. Goodness knows how you guys keep this up daily!
Hi Paul,
This isn't directly relevant to your last post. You are right that we have the capability of doing bad - be it by our own standards, or the law of our society. I think we often forget that we are capable of "good" behaviour too. I think we are a complex mix of environmental and genetic factors, I'll keep that view until I'm shown some evidence to the contrary, which is why we keep asking for evidence.
I would like to pick up on this though
"We are good at birth simply because we've not had the chance to be bad. If you can't move or talk you have little capacity for "badness". For the why question, I'd refer you to Genesis 3..
This strikes me a an interesting point of view. Most christians would say that we have inherited sin through the actions of adam and eve. Psalm 51 also says we are sinful from conception. How do you reconcile these different views.
I understand you believe in evolution from your posts. How do you reconcile that with the idea of original sin?
Do you think it was right for god to punish man kind for the original sin when Adam and eve only knew right from wrong after they ate the fruiy of the knowledge of good and evil?
I suspect we may disagree, but if we do, then that further shows that we dont all make the same moral judgements.
Cheers
Billy
PS not believing in absolutes does not mean you are a "bad" person. There are plenty of moral Atheist, and plenty of immoral Christians - which I'm sure you and Bruce are aware of.
And no Jimmy, I'm not saying all Christians are immoral fundies as you have accused me of elswhere
Paul (just quickly)-
I do believe in right and wrong, but what they are is determined by my culture, my upbringing, family, friends, external influences and brain wiring. If I had been raised in a different part of the world, at a different period in history, it's likely that I would have different ideas of what right and wrong are.
The point is that there seems very little evidence for the existence of absolute, unflinching moral standards. Even the Bible does not demonstrate this.
Jonathan.
PS- I do a lot of blog posting while I'm at work- don't tell anyone!
Jonathan, you're not working on the Sabbath are you?
Ex 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."
Dont worry, because like you say, the bible does not seem to deal in immutable laws either:
matt 12 "1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests."
Billy
Well Billy, regardless of the point you're making, I can't complain about atheists sharing scripture together on the sabbath. I haven't even been to church yet.
NOT BEEN TO CHURCH!!!!!!! Evil wicked child. Get behind me Satan! Burn the Witch! burn the witch!
Witch Smeller Pursuivant
Billy-
no, I'm not at work. I meant posting during the week. I would NEVER work a weekend. The idea is horrendous.
Anonymous 1, just a tad harsh I feel.
OK, how about a wedgie and sent to bed early with out any supper instead :-)
Witch Smeller Pursuivant
"Does science have limits?"
Yes... If you cannot test it, it is not science.
I think I am late again..
Lee
worry ye not brother lee, Bruce will be back soon
Billy
Post a Comment