Are you a secularist

[GDon]

I know that this is something Sam Harris and Richard Carrier has proposed, but I didn't know that they were considered established as scientifically answerable. Do you have any links that you could share?

Well, scientifically answerable in principle. Once you've defined all your terms, you've reduced your "What should I do?" question into some specific real-world optimisation problem - what is the most efficient way to achieve this outcome with these resources.

If you can't reduce your question to a real-world problem, then either you don't understand the question, or the question isn't about the real world.

What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.

 

[angrysoba]

What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

Science would probably say something along the lines that how wrong we consider the act of killing something/one is decided by a consensus process among the social group of the killer.

 

[tsig]

??? The Analogy of the Cave is not about a "simulated reality". Probably best to read it before criticizing it. It's about abstract ideas like the Good and Justice having a source outside our visible world, which is the Cave. The shadows on the Cave wall are the effect of these things in our world. The Cave dwellers give names to the shadows, but they are just part of their world -- they exist as subjective objects only.

Why should we accept this analogy as having anything to do with reality?

How's this:

Everybody is chained to the cave wall but one gets loose and falls in the fire and the sound of his screaming and the smell of his burning makes everyone love their chains.

Stories are easy to invent, why we should infer anything from them remains a question.

 

[tsig]

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

Why would you expect science to answer that question?

My bike only has ten speeds so I cannot shift to 11th gear, should I discard it?

 

[angrysoba]

Science would probably say something along the lines that how wrong we consider the act of killing something/one is decided by a consensus process among the social group of the killer.

Well, science could no doubt be employed then to say the same about FGM. But then what about those within the society who object? Are they scientifically wrong because they are outside the consensus?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well, science could no doubt be employed then to say the same about FGM. But then what about those within the society who object? Are they scientifically wrong because they are outside the consensus?

What? You do know how a consensus works right?
That's like asking if those claiming that they don't like eating clams are scientifically wrong because we do not die from eating normal clams.

What would be scientifically impossible (according to all we know) is a consensus of 100%.

Maybe, maybe, one day, we will understand the brain well enough to be able to fully comprehend the biochemistry behind decision making and the formation of a personality with opinions and hopes and dreams. But we are nowhere near that level of understanding.
That being said, social studies can give a nice insight in how we form social bonds and rules. But these rules are human constructs and subject to change on a rapid basis.

 

[angrysoba]

What? You do know how a consensus works right?

Sure. According to these statistics, Egypt, Guinea and Somalia have more than 90% FGM. I would say there's pretty much a consensus on those places that it is a good thing. And I would imagine that those arguing against it would find the idea of "consensus" to be a poor ethical standard to work with.

That's like asking if those claiming that they don't like eating clams are scientifically wrong because we do not die from eating normal clams.

I have no idea what you mean.

What would be scientifically impossible (according to all we know) is a consensus of 100%.

Maybe, maybe, one day, we will understand the brain well enough to be able to fully comprehend the biochemistry behind decision making and the formation of a personality with opinions and hopes and dreams. But we are nowhere near that level of understanding.

Yes, but what difference would that make towards ethical decision-making unless you are relying on the assumption that some decisions are good and others are bad?

That being said, social studies can give a nice insight in how we form social bonds and rules. But these rules are human constructs and subject to change on a rapid basis.

Yes, and moreover we can use reason as has been demonstrated by our bodies of literature on the law and philosophy.

 

[epepke]

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

Linguistics would say that if you want to kill somebody, you come up with a word for it that sounds better than "murder" and convince people to use it.

Which is actually the real problem with this stuff. Categories are nowhere near as fixed and meaningful as people assume they are. Fortunately, Cognitive Science can be used to study this pretty well. But you don't get answers that most people like.

 

[angrysoba]

Linguistics would say that if you want to kill somebody, you come up with a word for it that sounds better than "murder" and convince people to use it.

Yes, but don't rely on that strategy in court.

 

[godless dave]

Yes, but don't rely on that strategy in court.

But we do rely on that strategy when making the laws that courts use.

 

[godless dave]

Show me the science and logic behind a good piece of art and a bad one

There isn't any. That's a subjective judgement.

The work of art itself exists though.

 

[godless dave]

But that isn't it at all. It staggers my mind that Gould has been criticized as an "accommodationist" on his idea of NOMA, as though he was trying to protect religion. Gould defines NOMA as "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."

I criticize him for being dishonest about what the magisterium of religion claims to extend over.

 

[Craig B]

I criticize him for being dishonest about what the magisterium of religion claims to extend over.

The thing that baffles me about Gould is that he really didn't seem to be being dishonest about this; it's almost as if he didn't know what religion is all about. Like other secularists he attached importance only to the moral and not the factual statements made by religious teachers, so he seems in practice to have behaved as if they promoted no factual doctrines at all. It really is very odd.

If he had been dishonest that would have been deplorable, but it would have been easy enough to understand what he was doing.

 

[GDon]

But that isn't it at all. It staggers my mind that Gould has been criticized as an "accommodationist" on his idea of NOMA, as though he was trying to protect religion. Gould defines NOMA as "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."

I criticize him for being dishonest about what the magisterium of religion claims to extend over.

The "magisterium of religion" doesn't claim anything, if I understand your sentence correctly. Religions make claims about the empirical realm -- for Gould, such claims are the province of science, and are fair game for criticism by science.

That's why I am staggered that scientists like Jerry Coyne are so against NOMA. NOMA is a good razor that slices off the (pseudo-)sciency bits from religion. But it has been framed as "protecting religion", so Coyne and others seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against it. They don't want any kind of recognition for religion at all.

 

[angrysoba]

But we do rely on that strategy when making the laws that courts use.

Maybe in the US, but in the UK there is no death penalty.

 

[GDon]

The thing that baffles me about Gould is that he really didn't seem to be being dishonest about this; it's almost as if he didn't know what religion is all about.

But Gould's NOMA doesn't use religion as it is now, it describes how religion should be. NOMA doesn't describe how science and 'religion' (which for Gould included philosophy and ethics) interact now, it describes how they should interact. I think a lot of the criticisms of Gould and NOMA is the belief that Gould was making a claim of how things were now.

 

[Craig B]

The "magisterium of religion" doesn't claim anything, if I understand your sentence correctly. Religions make claims about the empirical realm -- for Gould, such claims are the province of science, and are fair game for criticism by science.

That's why I am staggered that scientists like Jerry Coyne are so against NOMA. NOMA is a good razor that slices off the (pseudo-)sciency bits from religion. But it has been framed as "protecting religion", so Coyne and others seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against it. They don't want any kind of recognition for religion at all.

No. I think you're missing an important point here. The "Magisterium" of religion as defined by religion is the fact of the divine authority which gives validity to the powers it claims, including the power to make moral judgements. Absent that, religions have no moral authority, and claim none. But that claim of divine guidance is a factual one.

It God didn't compose the Quran, then Islam according to Muslims themselves possesses no authority in any domain whatsoever. So too with Christianity. 1 Corinthians 15

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

Paul means, each and every part of it, because

15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised

The whole thing collapses, moral magisterium and all.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There's a massive difference between simply being wrong about something (which yes everyone is occassionally) and being proudly, smugly, and pretentiously wrong on purpose and treating the method via which you came to be wrong as noble and positive and therefore making no effort to identify or correct the things you are wrong about.

Damn it Man! You've been reading my posts.

 

[GDon]

No. I think you're missing an important point here. The "Magisterium" of religion as defined by religion is the fact of the divine authority which gives validity to the powers it claims, including the power to make moral judgements. Absent that, religions have no moral authority, and claim none. But that claim of divine guidance is a factual one.

It God didn't compose the Quran, then Islam according to Muslims themselves possesses no authority in any domain whatsoever. So too with Christianity.

Sure, I agree. But so what? I don't see how this affects NOMA.