Empirical Religion: A Bridge Between Science and Spirituality

[The Great Zaganza]

Moral axioms are ultimately a matter of faith, is the point.

no, they are not.
They are calculations on what you think will work best in perpetuity, not just temporarily.
Moral Values of any kind are based on the Sliver Rule and the insight that, sooner or later, what I can do to others, they will be able to do to me.

Tit-for-tat in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is empirically the best strategy for everyone: punish defection, reward cooperation.

 

[theprestige]

no, they are not.
They are calculations on what you think will work best

For some arbitrary, axiomatic definition of "best". That's the faith-basis of morality I'm talking about.

Yes, of course, once you have your arbitrary, axiomatic definition of "best", you can use logic and reason to build from there. But the foundation, the cornerstone, is always outside of reason and logic.

There is no morality field or charge-carrying morality particle in the Standard Model. Theoretical mathematics does not produce a value for human life. These are things you have to make up yourself.

 

[JayUtah]

Can religion and science coexist without contradicting each other?

Yawn.

You're describing how many of the religious people I know personally (and in most cases, employ as scientists) already approach the question of science versus religion. The problem is not that there doesn't exist a reasonable approach to religion and science. The problem is that there exist so many unreasonable approaches. That comes down to human nature, not the lack of formalized reason.

The "sense of wonder" argument is pretty blatantly coded anti-atheism language, so be careful. I don't need to believe in God or anything "spiritual" to have a sense of wonder.

 

[catsmate]

Can religion and science coexist without contradicting each other? I

Oh good grief, more repetitive, puerile pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Again.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

And still no definition of "spiritual" nor "spirituality"?

No point in considering this latest attempt at the same old without that.

Please define "spiritual" and "spirituality"; please do not say gurgle it, as that produces more nonsense than I care to decipher, just define the terms...

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ditch religion and things get simpler quick.

 

[arthwollipot]

Get rid of whatever you like; you still have to get your morality from somewhere, and wherever you get it from won't be science.

Rubbish. We "get" our morality from our parents, our teachers, our peers, and the fact that we are biologically evolved as a social species.

Moral axioms are ultimately a matter of faith, is the point.

More rubbish. So-called "moral axioms" are a learned behaviour, the transgressions of which society has determined over thousands of years of history are enforceable by law. We know murder is wrong because we have been taught that murder is wrong, from childhood, and that murder is illegal and those who do it are subject to legal consequences. We are taught all of this so early that we grow up understanding it as a core of our existence, as a fundamental part of our personalities.

For some arbitrary, axiomatic definition of "best". That's the faith-basis of morality I'm talking about.

It's not arbitrary. It's the furthest thing from arbitrary. It is a set of learned behaviours that modern society has developed over thousands of years to ensure that people can live in large groups with relative safety and prosperity.

 

[Manopolus]

Moral axioms are ultimately a matter of faith, is the point. Philosophy provides no basis for them. Much like logic and science, philosophy operates entirely on the basis of if-then propositions: If you start with these axioms, then it follows that-

You believe on faith that human life has intrinsic moral value? Then it follows that you conceptualize a moral crime of murder. Etc. But we've had this debate before. My point here is that Gawdzilla Sama is wrong, and Gubiosak has never tried to claim that God explains everything. His claim is simply that neither science nor any other form of logic-based reasoning can explain moral axioms.

And I agree with that claim. Science can tell you how to kill someone, once you've decided that killing them is justified. But science can't tell you whether it's justified. That justification comes from your own value system, which is ultimately down to arbitrary moral axioms that you have largely internalized.

Sorry, but adding authority giving commands doesn't add a basis for morality. It just adds an authority figure. And I think most of us have at least some experience with authority figures not being particularly moral. I mean, power corrupts, after all. And no, the fact that something (or somebody) caused your existence doesn't convey moral authority, either. Some people were fathered by rapists and murderers.

So... that pretty much leaves religion in the same place as philosophy... except, with religion, you've got some uber-powerful imaginary being making threats and promises.

Faith? No. Mostly empathy and other social impulses. Doesn't require a sky-daddy. Morality doesn't depend upon religion any more than it does anything else. Among other things, when the religious pretend to know the mind of God, the argument becomes even weaker, since they have no real proof about what God thinks of the matter, even assuming that one exists.

Oh, you have a book? Okay, now prove that the book is any more "divinely inspired" than the Harry Potter series.

And yeah, if you ask me, it's more like religion uses morality that already exists within society to inspire belief rather than using beliefs to inspire morality. And then once you've got the belief rolling, the morality is no longer getting in the way of consolidating money and power. Now that you've handed your morals over to someone's description of an uber-authority, that deity also has a church hierarchy to keep you in line.

 

[theprestige]

Rubbish. We "get" our morality from our parents, our teachers, our peers, and the fact that we are biologically evolved as a social species.


More rubbish. So-called "moral axioms" are a learned behaviour, the transgressions of which society has determined over thousands of years of history are enforceable by law. We know murder is wrong because we have been taught that murder is wrong, from childhood, and that murder is illegal and those who do it are subject to legal consequences. We are taught all of this so early that we grow up understanding it as a core of our existence, as a fundamental part of our personalities.


It's not arbitrary. It's the furthest thing from arbitrary. It is a set of learned behaviours that modern society has developed over thousands of years to ensure that people can live in large groups with relative safety and prosperity.

We get our morality from the same place we get our religion? Yes, indeed.

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same everywhere. It doesn't matter what local opinion happens to be.

The value of human life varies from place to place. There is no empirical source. Different communities have different definitions of murder. Different communities reach different consensuses on how much jail time, or how much probation, is appropriate for a given crime. All those things are subjective. All of them are ultimately arbitrary, even if they are now a matter of longstanding tradition.

Like I said, there's no morality field in the Standard Model. There's no charge-carrying morality particle. There's no conservation law. All value systems are ultimately made up by someone.

 

[arthwollipot]

We get our morality from the same place we get our religion? Yes, indeed.

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same everywhere. It doesn't matter what local opinion happens to be.

The value of human life varies from place to place. There is no empirical source. Different communities have different definitions of murder. Different communities reach different consensuses on how much jail time, or how much probation, is appropriate for a given crime. All those things are subjective. All of them are ultimately arbitrary, even if they are now a matter of longstanding tradition.

Like I said, there's no morality field in the Standard Model. There's no charge-carrying morality particle. There's no conservation law. All value systems are ultimately made up by someone.

Okay, well if you're just going to post vacuous nonsense I'm not sure I should bother trying to explain.

Yes, different societies have developed different moralities. This is an argument for my position, not for yours.

 

[theprestige]

Sorry, but adding authority giving commands doesn't add a basis for morality. It just adds an authority figure.

I agree. I'm not talking about adding an authority figure. I'm talking about how your morality is ultimately axiomatic - faith-based - not empirical or scientific. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need any authority figure other than yourself, for this.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree. I'm not talking about adding an authority figure. I'm talking about how your morality is ultimately axiomatic - faith-based - not empirical or scientific. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need any authority figure other than yourself, for this.

Try to adopt a morality that is radically different from that of your family and peers and neighbours. See how well that goes for you.

 

[theprestige]

Okay, well if you're just going to post vacuous nonsense I'm not sure I should bother trying to explain.

Yes, different societies have developed different moralities. This is an argument for my position, not for yours.

How is it not an argument for my position? My position is that morality is subjective, axiomatic, and faith-based. That's why different societies can develop different moralities.

There is no empirical value for human life, the way there is for the speed of light. Each society, each individual can come up with their own arbitrary value for human life, whenever they want. A sociopath who refrains from killing not because he values other lives but because he only values his own isn't morally inferior to the abortion abolitionist who values human life even in zygote form isn't morally inferior to the pacifist who values human life so much that he'll let others commit mass murder rather than use even an infinitesimal amount of force to try to stop them. And none of those is morally inferior to you, because there is no absolute, objective morality.

Empiricism can't generate moral values. Only faith can do that. Whether it's faith in the traditions handed down by your ancestors, faith in your own personal authority to decide right and wrong for yourself, faith in something else, or some combination.

 

[theprestige]

Try to adopt a morality that is radically different from that of your family and peers and neighbours. See how well that goes for you.

I have done. What did you imagine might have gone wrong for me? It's not like I tried to violate a conservation law, or causality.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have done. What did you imagine might have gone wrong for me? It's not like I tried to violate a conservation law, or causality.

No you didn't. You adopted a morality that is broadly similar to that of everyone in your society. It's not radically different.

How is it not an argument for my position? My position is that morality is subjective, axiomatic, and faith-based. That's why different societies can develop different moralities.

There is no empirical value for human life, the way there is for the speed of light. Each society, each individual can come up with their own arbitrary value for human life, whenever they want. A sociopath who refrains from killing not because he values other lives but because he only values his own isn't morally inferior to the abortion abolitionist who values human life even in zygote form isn't morally inferior to the pacifist who values human life so much that he'll let others commit mass murder rather than use even an infinitesimal amount of force to try to stop them. And none of those is morally inferior to you, because there is no absolute, objective morality.

Empiricism can't generate moral values. Only faith can do that. Whether it's faith in the traditions handed down by your ancestors, faith in your own personal authority to decide right and wrong for yourself, faith in something else, or some combination.

Individuals do not determine morality arbitrarily. They follow social norms. I do, you do, and if you don't then society has the power to determine what to do with you (see the Christa Pike thread).

We've had this conversation before, you and I. You argue for the supremacy of the individual over society and culture, I argue that individuals are shaped by society and culture. We butt heads and go around in circles. Do we really want to do that again?

 

[Manopolus]

I agree. I'm not talking about adding an authority figure. I'm talking about how your morality is ultimately axiomatic - faith-based - not empirical or scientific. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need any authority figure other than yourself, for this.

Yeah... we seem to be having a disconnect with the word "faith." While it is true that some social norms do require trust (mostly just a word meaning the same thing, but with less religious baggage), others require only a sense of honor. There is no "faith" or trust required in honor. It's often just a matter of having standards.

Quite a lot of what people are willing or able to do (or not) from an ethical standpoint has to do with whether you've observed others behaving in the same way (tu quoque) and whether you have suffered the wrong side of the behavior (golden rule). Social norms do play a role, but it's not purely societal norms. And it has a lot more to do with being trustworthy than it does with trusting others.

So... anyway, I was probably talking past you.

A lot of it is purely innate human behavior, too. Quite a lot of our ethical forbidden territory comes in the form of being unable to pull it off if we for some reason tried. The resulting anxiety (cognitive dissonance provoking social anxiety) is what forbids it more than anything. And, of course, where it breaks down (predictably) is usually when someone is already under a great deal of pressure.

 

[arthwollipot]

And again I suggest that if you want to know whether morals are individual and arbitrary, try doing something that is blatantly immoral and see where that gets you.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Morality isn't faith-based. It's transactional.

"Do unto others" doesn't require a sky-daddy.

Morality is based on community, nothing to do with the supernatural.

 

[Helen]

Morality isn't faith-based. It's transactional.

"Do unto others" doesn't require a sky-daddy.

Morality is based on community, nothing to do with the supernatural.

Evolution at work, and something that can be observed, to some extent, in all herd/pack animals.

 

[arthwollipot]

Humans are a very social species. Without developing some moral rules, there would have been chaos.