God exists

[keelanz]

How can you say that science is amoral? Some scientists are amoral, those that choose to be, half the time because the religious go out of their way to stigmatize them just because ages ago somebody declared that all information is evil just because much of it regarded things like magic which had no scientific basis whatsoever? There is scripture in the Bible which supports science. l am not going to track it down, but it is there. The Pope has been very supportive of science in the past few decades, following advances in abiogenesis/biogenesis. There is nothing wrong with information or knowledge. If everybody just stuck their heads in the sand and reproduced like rabbits, then the world would end much sooner than the next asteroid to come along and kill everything off. You should be thanking scientists, of every different type, for so many different things. I could care less for living in a tent. (She is in pain, so give her a break.)

 

Science is Amoral because it has no effect on morality

 

what?

 

<^,^>

 

 

you could care less?? what??

Edited May 9, 2011 by keelanz

[mooeypoo]

Science is as moral as a knife. It really depends HOW you use it. A knife can be used for "good" and benevolent things like cutting food and building things. Or it can be used for "evil" such as killing another person slasher-style.

 

It's not quite about the tool, it's about how you use it. Same goes with the tools of science. The atomic bomb is probably immoral; but the theory of nuclear physics is amoral. The bomb required the theory, but that's not to say that the theory is therefore immoral just because it was abused to create something immoral.

 

 

 

 

 

For that matter, I could also build a trap that would make a piano fall on Capn's head when he walks into a room. I would use a piano for immoral action. Would that make pianos immoral?

[mississippichem]

For that matter, I could also build a trap that would make a piano fall on Capn's head when he walks into a room. I would use a piano for immoral action. Would that make pianos immoral?

 

It's worth adding that the next logical step is that all forces and matter are evil. Gravity for assisting you in smashing Cap'n, the normal force for assisting gravity in the smashing, and electromagnetism for supplying the repulsion that causes the normal force.

 

Science has no more caused the atrocities of war throughout history than anything else. Statistics on the other hand...well that's the cause for much of the evil the world today.

[Athena]

Is it possible we can come to an agreement about what amoral means? Mooeypoo gives a good explanation, and I like Mississippichem's follow up. Calling gravity an evil force, is right in line with believing in demons.

 

I think some jumped from the word "amoral" to the word "immoral". Amoral doesn't mean immoral. Amoral is like the knife that can be used for life saving surgery, or to kill. Science is amoral, and the need for a concept of God is humans must learn more than science. With discussion of God comes discussions of morals, and discussion of morals leads to improved moral judgment. That is, we have to think our way through morality, and when we do this we are contemplating God.

 

Now I am going to yell, because I know people tend to read a sentence or two and make an argument without reading the whole post. I am yelling because some people insist the word "God" can only mean the God of Abraham, and they are not getting God is an abstract, not a concrete reality. Religious people tend to make the mistake of interpreting their holy books concretely instead of abstractly, and this where the problem comes. The God of Abraham and stories of Jesus are mythology and there is also plenty of mythology associated with the US Democracy. Mythology is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should not be taken as literal truth.

 

The word "God" is the door way into discussion of morals. Read Cicero, a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. We are compelled to do the right thing, but we do not automatically know what is the right thing, or perhaps we have an emotional/mental problem that prevents us from thinking clearly. A moral is a matter of cause and effect, but why is a moral a matter of cause and effect? Because we can know, if we do this, that is what will happen. We can know this, because the operations of the universe are predictable. If we leap off a building, we will fall down, not fly like a bird. Talking about why this is so is talking about God. This is the talk that gives science morality, even if you do not use the word "God'. If you talk about morals, the cause and effect, you are talking of God, because that is what God is.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2011 by Athena

[Edtharan]

Is it possible we can come to an agreement about what amoral means? Mooeypoo gives a good explanation, and I like Mississippichem's follow up. Calling gravity an evil force, is right in line with believing in demons.

 

I think some jumped from the word "amoral" to the word "immoral". Amoral doesn't mean immoral. Amoral is like the knife that can be used for life saving surgery, or to kill. Science is amoral, and the need for a concept of God is humans must learn more than science. With discussion of God comes discussions of morals, and discussion of morals leads to improved moral judgment. That is, we have to think our way through morality, and when we do this we are contemplating God.

I agree. Amoral does not mean negative morals. It just means absence of morality in any direction (good or evil). Just like Atheist means no gods.

 

So, yes, science is amoral. But, I don't think this means it can't have something to say about them. Take for example game theory and Social sciences (anthropology, psychology, networking theory and such).

 

Game theory is a mathematical branch which deals with how decisions are made and the best decision to make in a particular circumstance. If you combine this with the social sciences like anthropology and psychology and networking theory, you can show that there exists certain behaviours that are detrimental (or even advantageous) to group survival and that humans, being a grouping species, have certain behaviours that are detrimental (or advantageous) to us.

 

In other words, based only on objective sources, we can show that there are morals, and more importantly what these morals are. What is interesting is that there is quite a lot of leeway about what these can be. There are bounds, but there is also a lot of subjectivity as to what ones a society call moral (even to the point where what is moral for one, is immoral for another).

 

So, although science is Amoral, this does not mean that it is in no position to cover morality, besides, don't we expect Judges to be impartial, and that this non-biased state is a requirement for them to be able to make a good judgement. Science is like the judge, in being amoral, it uniquely gives it the best qualification to be able to judge what is moral or not.

 

The word "God" is the door way into discussion of morals. Read Cicero, a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. We are compelled to do the right thing, but we do not automatically know what is the right thing, or perhaps we have an emotional/mental problem that prevents us from thinking clearly. A moral is a matter of cause and effect, but why is a moral a matter of cause and effect? Because we can know, if we do this, that is what will happen. We can know this, because the operations of the universe are predictable. If we leap off a building, we will fall down, not fly like a bird. Talking about why this is so is talking about God. This is the talk that gives science morality, even if you do not use the word "God'. If you talk about morals, the cause and effect, you are talking of God, because that is what God is.

As I said above, we explicitly require judges to be impartial. We accept that this is the most important quality to have in those we expect to make a judgement about something (and I am not just talking about court judges, but also judges of bake sales and all that).

 

This way science, being amoral has the qualities of a judge. It has no preconceived attitudes as to what is moral or immoral. It is impartial and form this position it uses objective based reasoning to reach a conclusion.

 

If you start with a "God", then you already have accepted some non-impartial preconceptions (because any concept of God comes with preconceptions of what that God is), and from this makes any attempt at discussion of morality already biased.