Many christians and some philosophers may think that morality needs metaphysical propositions or is in itself metaphysical, which may be right about christian morality which stands and falls with the existance of god. But evolutionary research clearly shows that morality is based in nature and does not need any superstitions.
The study of animal habits can give insight into the reasons why morals appeared during the evolution, that they are a benefit to the survival of animal groups and therefore reproduced successfully. Other fields of sience like sociology study the various human morals and standards in human societies. How they are taught, what differences there are between different subgroups and so on.
I think this video does not make a good point about morality in science, because the moral judgements mentioned are themselves not scientific, just because they apply to scientists. To find morality in science and reasons why a scientist could talk about morals as a scientist, one had to show, that morals could be a subject of scientific research in some way. That is for example what people like Dawkins do.
Thats not true at all. Science is 100% amoral. Morality is purely abstract and metaphysical proposition, which places it out the realm of scientific investigation (must be objective and quantifiable). The fact that there are restrictive guidelines placed on scientific practices, does not in any way mean that science recognizes morality on any level. Prove that those guidelines are based on anything remotely scientific before you make that claim please....
I'm saying,that any discussion of whether an action should or should not have happened has no meaning, if the law of electromagnetism is Absolutelly True in every situation, because charged Ions Dispersing in the brain could only Disperse in one way according to the law. So saying charged Ions should have dispersed in another way, thus producing a different behavior in the organism, is identical to saying the Law of electromagnetism should have been otherwise in a given situation
How can morality fit into the scientific worldview, if Physical Laws, such as the law of electromagnetism, is rigid in it's application?, which reduces the possibility of events happening or evolving otherwise, out of incidental starting conditions; Science Reduces the distinction. What sense does it make to say that human behavior is right or wrong, if the -ions in the brain can only disperse in one way? Whether -Ions Should have dispersed in this way rather than others has been reduced????
Well, Dawkins hasn't revealed any real science to the public. His writings are mere poetic popularizations of some ideas arising in science. Clearly, he thinks his popularizations have philosophic as well as moral import. Some of his conclusions seem unsupported. But, Dawkins aside, science does actually have a lot to say about morality.
What I find interesting is that you talk about applying morality into science, not getting morality from science. The morals that you speak of had to have come from somewhere. Not everyone is going to share you same ideas on morality. There are people in this world that find no problem killing people. Do we scientifically have a right to stop them? What if they are here to help the evolution of the human race?
Evolution is a blind force. It can't be "helped" because it has no goal.
I believe I clearly stated that morals are human inventions that serve people. We get together and decide, together, what our morals, laws, etc., are -- and all religious people do this, too.
I doubt that the questioner meant to ask whether people in scientific jobs have to deal with moral issues, but whether science can be a source or support for morality as religion is.
Of course it can be, because we can study morality amongst different people, what morality means psychologically, etc., etc. Science *is* capable of . . . not creating a morality, but of helping to guide us in what we decide morality is and how it works in human society.
Yes, science can study morality and help us understand it better, but can science put morality into action? I don't think so. I think science replaces morality with logic. Decisions are based upon reasoning and predetermined goals. There's no moral right and wrong in science.
I ask, "what does theism specifically the Bible have to do w/morality?" A strong case can be made that morality stems from social-evolution within the given environment people find themselves in. The Bible attempts to reflect the morality that was already at work. Nature informed religion and then religion claimed to be the source.
Some people hold onto this snapshot of what was "moral" for an ancient society. The ancients used the most current knowledge they had to create laws and rules to protect their society. If there had been refrigeration Orthodox Jews would be eating fried clams and pork chops today!
I don't much like evolutionary psychology arguments for morality, myself, but I think it's fairly incontestable that morality is independent of the Bible in most ways. Lying, murder, theft and the like are immoral regardless of religion or it's lack.
Irog hates Krog because he's always deficating in the cave. He'd like to kill him but Krog is a good hunter so he doesn't. If morality didn't evolve from our interactions with each other and the environment, where did it come from. I might be mis-using the term social/evolution. But that example is what I'm talking about. Morality evolving from pragmatic needs.
Some people argue so, including Richard Dawkins. I, myself, think that they are limited moral beings compared to humans based on the number of meaningful decisions that they can make but would have scant issue giving them the right to life in a limited sense.
Sure. Nazi scientists created the hypothermia charts that allow us to understand how long a human can survive in different degrees of water before dieing of hypothermia. There are still debates on if we should continue to use that information because of HOW the data was obtained.
Many christians and some philosophers may think that morality needs metaphysical propositions or is in itself metaphysical, which may be right about christian morality which stands and falls with the existance of god. But evolutionary research clearly shows that morality is based in nature and does not need any superstitions.
Amoebe667 2 years ago
The study of animal habits can give insight into the reasons why morals appeared during the evolution, that they are a benefit to the survival of animal groups and therefore reproduced successfully. Other fields of sience like sociology study the various human morals and standards in human societies. How they are taught, what differences there are between different subgroups and so on.
Amoebe667 2 years ago
I think this video does not make a good point about morality in science, because the moral judgements mentioned are themselves not scientific, just because they apply to scientists. To find morality in science and reasons why a scientist could talk about morals as a scientist, one had to show, that morals could be a subject of scientific research in some way. That is for example what people like Dawkins do.
Amoebe667 2 years ago
Thats not true at all. Science is 100% amoral. Morality is purely abstract and metaphysical proposition, which places it out the realm of scientific investigation (must be objective and quantifiable). The fact that there are restrictive guidelines placed on scientific practices, does not in any way mean that science recognizes morality on any level. Prove that those guidelines are based on anything remotely scientific before you make that claim please....
borntokill 3 years ago
I'm saying,that any discussion of whether an action should or should not have happened has no meaning, if the law of electromagnetism is Absolutelly True in every situation, because charged Ions Dispersing in the brain could only Disperse in one way according to the law. So saying charged Ions should have dispersed in another way, thus producing a different behavior in the organism, is identical to saying the Law of electromagnetism should have been otherwise in a given situation
GodMechanism 3 years ago
I think you replied to me by mistake. What you wrote is completely irrelevant to my post.
borntokill 3 years ago
How can morality fit into the scientific worldview, if Physical Laws, such as the law of electromagnetism, is rigid in it's application?, which reduces the possibility of events happening or evolving otherwise, out of incidental starting conditions; Science Reduces the distinction. What sense does it make to say that human behavior is right or wrong, if the -ions in the brain can only disperse in one way? Whether -Ions Should have dispersed in this way rather than others has been reduced????
GodMechanism 3 years ago
I see you have the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf. Nice!
jrlaker 4 years ago
I see that you have the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf. Nice!
jrlaker 4 years ago
Well, Dawkins hasn't revealed any real science to the public. His writings are mere poetic popularizations of some ideas arising in science. Clearly, he thinks his popularizations have philosophic as well as moral import. Some of his conclusions seem unsupported. But, Dawkins aside, science does actually have a lot to say about morality.
DarwinsGarden 4 years ago
Great video, keep up the good work.
DCResearch 4 years ago
You need to make more videos. I love to hear you talk!
someweirdgayguy 4 years ago
you make a few interesting points. Morales I think are what people in a particular society develop. Such as laws and rules.
dragoonthief 4 years ago
What I find interesting is that you talk about applying morality into science, not getting morality from science. The morals that you speak of had to have come from somewhere. Not everyone is going to share you same ideas on morality. There are people in this world that find no problem killing people. Do we scientifically have a right to stop them? What if they are here to help the evolution of the human race?
xspartacus78x 4 years ago
Evolution is a blind force. It can't be "helped" because it has no goal.
I believe I clearly stated that morals are human inventions that serve people. We get together and decide, together, what our morals, laws, etc., are -- and all religious people do this, too.
CPXB 4 years ago
This is very good explanation of moral and science.
saigokun 4 years ago
Great points.
Rhonda9 4 years ago
I doubt that the questioner meant to ask whether people in scientific jobs have to deal with moral issues, but whether science can be a source or support for morality as religion is.
theCommenteer 4 years ago
Of course it can be, because we can study morality amongst different people, what morality means psychologically, etc., etc. Science *is* capable of . . . not creating a morality, but of helping to guide us in what we decide morality is and how it works in human society.
CPXB 4 years ago
Yes, science can study morality and help us understand it better, but can science put morality into action? I don't think so. I think science replaces morality with logic. Decisions are based upon reasoning and predetermined goals. There's no moral right and wrong in science.
theCommenteer 4 years ago
Wow, that was a really, really, and i hate to say it, but "stupid" question!
againstthehumanrace 4 years ago
I was trying to be polite, hehe. Then I realized the guy who asked the original question was a troll. ;)
CPXB 4 years ago
darcytirsia is worse than a troll
retne0 4 years ago
I ask, "what does theism specifically the Bible have to do w/morality?" A strong case can be made that morality stems from social-evolution within the given environment people find themselves in. The Bible attempts to reflect the morality that was already at work. Nature informed religion and then religion claimed to be the source.
owheydusoapsk 4 years ago
Some people hold onto this snapshot of what was "moral" for an ancient society. The ancients used the most current knowledge they had to create laws and rules to protect their society. If there had been refrigeration Orthodox Jews would be eating fried clams and pork chops today!
owheydusoapsk 4 years ago
I don't much like evolutionary psychology arguments for morality, myself, but I think it's fairly incontestable that morality is independent of the Bible in most ways. Lying, murder, theft and the like are immoral regardless of religion or it's lack.
CPXB 4 years ago
Irog hates Krog because he's always deficating in the cave. He'd like to kill him but Krog is a good hunter so he doesn't. If morality didn't evolve from our interactions with each other and the environment, where did it come from. I might be mis-using the term social/evolution. But that example is what I'm talking about. Morality evolving from pragmatic needs.
owheydusoapsk 4 years ago
I fully agree that morality developed from pragmatic needs, yes!
CPXB 4 years ago
Apes & monkeys have social structures similar to humans.
Almost seems that they have their own moral code.
Would that make them a moral being?
KingLoser66 4 years ago
Some people argue so, including Richard Dawkins. I, myself, think that they are limited moral beings compared to humans based on the number of meaningful decisions that they can make but would have scant issue giving them the right to life in a limited sense.
CPXB 4 years ago
Sure. Nazi scientists created the hypothermia charts that allow us to understand how long a human can survive in different degrees of water before dieing of hypothermia. There are still debates on if we should continue to use that information because of HOW the data was obtained.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Very much so. Science is FULL of moral implications. I suspect that darcytirsia doesn't know that much about science.
CPXB 4 years ago