|
Post by snow on Feb 18, 2015 20:42:28 GMT -5
From time to time on TMB we are told that the world is getting more and more immoral. That morality that we do have is because of religion and it is the divergence from religion that is making our world more immoral.
I am in the middle of reading 'The Moral Arc' by Michael Shermer. It is very well written with plenty of research to back up what he is saying. So I thought maybe I would share some of the points he makes and we could discuss them.
First of all I should define what he bases his premises on as far as morality being driven by science rather than religion. His definition of 'moral progress' is "the improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings". His definition of sentient beings is "by sentient I mean emotive, perceptive, sensitive, responsive, conscious and therefore able to feel and to suffer". So in other words, he includes animals when he talks about the improvement and survival and flourishing. He means specifically 'individual' beings not "the group, tribe, race, gender, state, nation, empire, society, or any other collective - because it is the individual who survives, flourishes, or who suffers and dies". So that is his definition and what he bases his book on.
Now I will quote a paragraph from his Prologue that I think gives a good understanding of what he goes on to outline in his book.
"One path (among many) to a more moral world is to get people to quit believing in absurdities. Science and reason are the best methods for doing that. As a methodology, science has no parallel; it is the ultimate means by which we can understand how the world works, including the moral world. Thus, employing science to determine the conditions that best expand the moral sphere is itself a moral act. The experimental methods and analytical reasoning of science -- when applied to the social world toward an end of solving social problems and the betterment of humanity in a civilized state -- created the modern world of liberal democracies, civil rights and civil liberties, equal justice under the law, open political and economic borders, free markets and free minds, and prosperity the likes of which no human society in history has ever enjoyed. More people in more places more of the time have more rights, freedoms, liberties, literacy, education, and prosperity than at any time in the past. We have many social and moral problems left to solve, to be sure, and the direction of the arc will hopefully continue upward long after our epoch so we are by no means at the apex, but there is much evidence of progress and many good reason for optimism."
Ok. What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 1:50:21 GMT -5
From time to time on TMB we are told that the world is getting more and more immoral. That morality that we do have is because of religion and it is the divergence from religion that is making our world more immoral. I am in the middle of reading 'The Moral Arc' by Michael Shermer. It is very well written with plenty of research to back up what he is saying. So I thought maybe I would share some of the points he makes and we could discuss them. First of all I should define what he bases his premises on as far as morality being driven by science rather than religion. His definition of 'moral progress' is "the improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings". His definition of sentient beings is "by sentient I mean emotive, perceptive, sensitive, responsive, conscious and therefore able to feel and to suffer". So in other words, he includes animals when he talks about the improvement and survival and flourishing. He means specifically 'individual' beings not "the group, tribe, race, gender, state, nation, empire, society, or any other collective - because it is the individual who survives, flourishes, or who suffers and dies". So that is his definition and what he bases his book on. Now I will quote a paragraph from his Prologue that I think gives a good understanding of what he goes on to outline in his book. "One path (among many) to a more moral world is to get people to quit believing in absurdities. Science and reason are the best methods for doing that. As a methodology, science has no parallel; it is the ultimate means by which we can understand how the world works, including the moral world. Thus, employing science to determine the conditions that best expand the moral sphere is itself a moral act. The experimental methods and analytical reasoning of science -- when applied to the social world toward an end of solving social problems and the betterment of humanity in a civilized state -- created the modern world of liberal democracies, civil rights and civil liberties, equal justice under the law, open political and economic borders, free markets and free minds, and prosperity the likes of which no human society in history has ever enjoyed. More people in more places more of the time have more rights, freedoms, liberties, literacy, education, and prosperity than at any time in the past. We have many social and moral problems left to solve, to be sure, and the direction of the arc will hopefully continue upward long after our epoch so we are by no means at the apex, but there is much evidence of progress and many good reason for optimism." Ok. What do you all think? The "quit believing in absurdities" sounds right to me!
The actual methodology, how we investigate & test what works to solve the social problems simply cannot be grounded in any absurd ideas that are opposed to any physical laws of science!
We can never build a moral system by following ancient documents of beliefs not grounded in reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 8:41:41 GMT -5
"Quit believing in absurdities" works both ways, like many things in life.
1- absurdity of a creator God = miracles, creation, purpose, meaning, covenanted living, everlasting life. 2 - absurdity of a science god = nihilism, magical act of a universe creating itself, moral relativity, better and better ways for well meaning moral people to kill each other, social experimentation.
Quote - "From time to time on TMB we are told that the world is getting more and more immoral. That morality that we do have is because of religion and it is the divergence from religion that is making our world more immoral."
My own viewpoint is there is "religion" and there is the God of truth. People cutting other people's throats or tossing dead bodies in the Ganges doesn't count with me. I have challenged people here over this moral or immoral world. Last week I asked can the world be moral when crime is down, but banks are more "hardened" and there are millions of cops, and billions of cameras and thousands of once criminal behaviors have now been decriminalized, legalized and even celebrated.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 19, 2015 11:19:32 GMT -5
From time to time on TMB we are told that the world is getting more and more immoral. That morality that we do have is because of religion and it is the divergence from religion that is making our world more immoral. I am in the middle of reading 'The Moral Arc' by Michael Shermer. It is very well written with plenty of research to back up what he is saying. So I thought maybe I would share some of the points he makes and we could discuss them. First of all I should define what he bases his premises on as far as morality being driven by science rather than religion. His definition of 'moral progress' is "the improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings". His definition of sentient beings is "by sentient I mean emotive, perceptive, sensitive, responsive, conscious and therefore able to feel and to suffer". So in other words, he includes animals when he talks about the improvement and survival and flourishing. He means specifically 'individual' beings not "the group, tribe, race, gender, state, nation, empire, society, or any other collective - because it is the individual who survives, flourishes, or who suffers and dies". So that is his definition and what he bases his book on. Now I will quote a paragraph from his Prologue that I think gives a good understanding of what he goes on to outline in his book. "One path (among many) to a more moral world is to get people to quit believing in absurdities. Science and reason are the best methods for doing that. As a methodology, science has no parallel; it is the ultimate means by which we can understand how the world works, including the moral world. Thus, employing science to determine the conditions that best expand the moral sphere is itself a moral act. The experimental methods and analytical reasoning of science -- when applied to the social world toward an end of solving social problems and the betterment of humanity in a civilized state -- created the modern world of liberal democracies, civil rights and civil liberties, equal justice under the law, open political and economic borders, free markets and free minds, and prosperity the likes of which no human society in history has ever enjoyed. More people in more places more of the time have more rights, freedoms, liberties, literacy, education, and prosperity than at any time in the past. We have many social and moral problems left to solve, to be sure, and the direction of the arc will hopefully continue upward long after our epoch so we are by no means at the apex, but there is much evidence of progress and many good reason for optimism." Ok. What do you all think? I see one of the drivers for helping to build more moral societies as being the flow of information, especially the internet. Today everyone can easily see how other people handle laws. Lawmakers can quickly check how other states and countries find solutions to the same issues. For example In 1895, the age of consent in the USA state of Delaware was 7 which probably would not have stood if they knew how far from normal that law was. We are slowly moving towards a best practices approach to morality. Increasingly we can measure the change in the common good. Sunshine is a great disinfectant as HLA Hart says; “Surely if we have learned anything from the history of morals it is that the thing to do with a moral quandary is not to hide it.” As the world GDP increases and India and China have more middle class, the world will move up Maslow's pyramid of hierarchy of needs. More and more the common man will focus on things past generations never considered. When you are focused solely on survival you don't have the luxury to ask why, if it does not meet an immediate need. Technology makes it easy to participate in social movement and facilitates self correction in absurd thoughts and laws. If you know only your own religion you don't see it's absurdities but if you learn about other religions you can see their absurdities more easily. Hopefully the light will go off in your head, and you will examine what you know and how you know it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 11:27:13 GMT -5
"Quit believing in absurdities" works both ways, like many things in life. 1- absurdity of a creator God = miracles, creation, purpose, meaning, covenanted living, everlasting life. 2 - absurdity of a science god = nihilism, magical act of a universe creating itself, moral relativity, better and better ways for well meaning moral people to kill each other, social experimentation.Quote - "From time to time on TMB we are told that the world is getting more and more immoral. That morality that we do have is because of religion and it is the divergence from religion that is making our world more immoral." My own viewpoint is there is "religion" and there is the God of truth. People cutting other people's throats or tossing dead bodies in the Ganges doesn't count with me. I have challenged people here over this moral or immoral world. Last week I asked can the world be moral when crime is down, but banks are more "hardened" and there are millions of cops, and billions of cameras and thousands of once criminal behaviors have now been decriminalized, legalized and even celebrated.Give the book a read Bert. The statistics over time do not support the belief that we are less moral as far as the definition I give above from the book. Science does not say that the universe created itself, it says that we do not know what created the universe. I would rather not know the answers to some questions than have answers that cannot be questioned. That's exactly what religions do. They don't allow anyone to question the answer that God made the universe. You don't know that but you say that scientists saying they don't know is scientists saying the universe created itself? That makes no sense. They have not said that. You say it was created by God for which there is no proof and they say they don't know what created the universe. They can tell you what happened after the Big Bang, but they do not claim to know why it happened. Not that I'm aware of anyway.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 11:46:08 GMT -5
I think if people thought more about the morality issues in the bible they would understand that most of what was considered moral when it was being written would get you the death penalty or at least life in prison now if you followed it. We are horrified with what ISIS is doing for example and rightly so, but we also forget that the God of the OT condoned and instructed the Hebrew warlords to do these very things to their enemies. The instruction to 'love your neighbor' in the OT was directed at the Hebrew people so that they would get along and was by no means directed at the surrounding nations. That would make no sense when the surrounding nations were at war with them. We have come a very long way towards a more moral society/world but I don't think we can thank the bible for that.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 14:44:41 GMT -5
I think if people thought more about the morality issues in the bible they would understand that most of what was considered moral when it was being written would get you the death penalty or at least life in prison now if you followed it. We are horrified with what ISIS is doing for example and rightly so, but we also forget that the God of the OT condoned and instructed the Hebrew warlords to do these very things to their enemies. The instruction to 'love your neighbor' in the OT was directed at the Hebrew people so that they would get along and was by no means directed at the surrounding nations. That would make no sense when the surrounding nations were at war with them. We have come a very long way towards a more moral society/world but I don't think we can thank the bible for that. There were specific instructions to treat immigrants well:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 15:12:42 GMT -5
I think if people thought more about the morality issues in the bible they would understand that most of what was considered moral when it was being written would get you the death penalty or at least life in prison now if you followed it. We are horrified with what ISIS is doing for example and rightly so, but we also forget that the God of the OT condoned and instructed the Hebrew warlords to do these very things to their enemies. The instruction to 'love your neighbor' in the OT was directed at the Hebrew people so that they would get along and was by no means directed at the surrounding nations. That would make no sense when the surrounding nations were at war with them. We have come a very long way towards a more moral society/world but I don't think we can thank the bible for that. There were specific instructions to treat immigrants well: There are the odd verse in the OT that do seem to advocate some morality, but for the most part the OT is predominately about stories of murder, rape, torture, and all kinds of violence. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 specifies what Yahweh instructs them to do when conquering another nation. You no longer do many of the things the OT God demanded of people in ordinary life. Why? Because you have grown morally, not because God did.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 20, 2015 0:15:10 GMT -5
"Quit believing in absurdities" works both ways, like many things in life. 1- absurdity of a creator God = miracles, creation, purpose, meaning, covenanted living, everlasting life. 2 - absurdity of a science god = nihilism, magical act of a universe creating itself, moral relativity, better and better ways for well meaning moral people to kill each other, social experimentation.Quote - "From time to time on TMB we are told that the world is getting more and more immoral. That morality that we do have is because of religion and it is the divergence from religion that is making our world more immoral." My own viewpoint is there is "religion" and there is the God of truth. People cutting other people's throats or tossing dead bodies in the Ganges doesn't count with me. I have challenged people here over this moral or immoral world. Last week I asked can the world be moral when crime is down, but banks are more "hardened" and there are millions of cops, and billions of cameras and thousands of once criminal behaviors have now been decriminalized, legalized and even celebrated. Bert, it is obvious that you haven't any idea what science is about when you make such a statements about science as this: ''absurdity of a science god = nihilism, magical act of a universe creating itself, moral relativity, better and better ways for well meaning moral people to kill each other, social experimentation. LET'S TAKE THE MEANING OF:nihilism : the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value : the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed
Science doesn't address that subject of nihilism!
Science has said nothing of the Kind ! that the universe was "magical act of a universe creating itself,"
Science says nothing about " morals"
Science may well invent better ways to kill but don't blame "science, " blame your so-called well meaning moral people for that!
Science hasn't anything to do with social experimentation.
Bert, If you any evidence where science is involved in any of this please post it & quit just throwing out phrases that have nothing to back them up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 3:38:42 GMT -5
I didn't say science directly created a state of nihilism. Science tends to conclusions which engender nihilism.
Strangely, the bible isn't about using God to explain the world, but that is what people used the bible for. We know rain, for instance, comes from the condensation of water vapor. In the bible we are told that God brought the rain. But the two are not mutually incompatible. And thus it was hugely strange to hundreds of generations when it states in Genesis that "God commanded the seas to bring forth life." But when Darwin's "little warm pond" life origin thesis arrived people felt betrayed by the bible!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 20, 2015 18:03:15 GMT -5
A barn-burner!
Wow, snow, this IS a topic!
“Bait the hook” and I’ll come running in . . . . . hope you support catch and release!
Wading into this topic actually makes me break out in hives. Once again, I fear that I will find myself on the outside of the enclave of science “ueber alles” frequent posters, running, weaving and ducking so that I might survive and flourish, another day. But . . . . . here goes:
First, all of my comments (unless specifically and emphatically identified as being otherwise) will deal exclusively with the physical material world that is amenable to systematic observation, measurement, and experiment. No comment that I make is to be read or interpreted as referencing any phenomena frequently and quaintly referred to on this board as “paranormal”.
Next, I must make it clear that I have not read “The Moral Arc” by Michael Shermer. Until that deficiency is corrected all of my comments regarding the book will be based solely on the extracted comments transcribed to this thread.
Finally, my belief is that a thorough and sincere discourse about the premise of “morality being driven by science” has the potential to be a long and challenging path with many, many “non-productive” off-ramps. Accordingly, may I suggest frequent reference to established and agreed upon definitions, a precedent that snow has already established with the opening post.
To begin, I suggest an additional definition. It will be important to agree as to what science is. I offer:
SCIENCE - a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. (Oxford English Dictionary)
I understand Michael Shermer’s premise to be: “morality being (sic) driven by science”.
I reject this hypothesis. It will be my position in subsequent posts that; “’morality driven by science’ is a prime materialist’s conceit.”
There is no empirical evidence for any cognitive activity subsumed by any reasonable definition of science that precedes Thales (ca. 600 BCE). For context, early Upanishads have been dated to the 7th century BCE. The earliest life forms on earth date back 3.6 billion years. Although defined, I am unclear as to the first species to be considered “sentient” by Mr. Shermer. To bracket some possibilities fish are believed to have emerged 500 million years ago and the genus Homo (the anthropomorphic choice) emerged 2.5 million years ago. Based on these empirical observations, the premise asserts that 99.9% of evolution has proceeded amorally. The premise asserts that no more than 0,1% of evolution has progressed morally.
I reject this premise.
Must go. Very interested in alternative interpretations of premise. There are other issues in the OP that I hope to address later.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 20, 2015 19:14:02 GMT -5
Hello yknot, lol yes I do support 'catch and release'!
I am only half way through the book, so technically I haven't read it yet either, but I am a little further along than someone who hasn't started. I am finding it a very good read. In his opening chapter he explains the premise he is basing his book on and I have already given you some of that. In a very tiny nutshell, he is saying that the knowledge that scientific thought and process brought to our world allowed us to understand things that we once did pretty horrific things in response to, like superstitious beliefs. For example the witch hunts slowly gave way when people started to understand the scientific reasons why crops failed etc. They no longer believed a witch put a spell on their field and it slowly became not only immoral to burn and torture witches but almost irrelevant in the world today. Though there are still some countries where witchcraft and spells are still blaming the misfortunes, it's not the norm. Here is what he says about science and he gives this as an example.
Evidence-based reasoning is the hallmark of science today. It embodies the principles of objective data, theoretical explanation, experimental methodology, peer review, public transparency and open criticism and trial and error as the most reliable means of determining who is right--not only about the natural world, but about the social and moral worlds as well. In this sense many apparently immoral beliefs are actually factual errors based on incorrect causal theories. Today we hold that it is immoral to burn women as witches, but the reason our European ancestors in the Middle Ages strapped women on a pyre and torched them was because they believed that witches caused crop failure, weather anomalies, diseases, and various other maladies and misfortunes. Now that we have a scientific understanding of agriculture, climate, disease, and other causal vectors--including the role of chance--the witch theory of causality has fallen into disuse; what was a seemingly moral matter was actually a factual mistake."
I agree that a lot of things that we once did, that were highly immoral, were done because of mistaken understanding of our world. Science is the predominant reason why we do understand our world so much more than we did when we were burning witches, keeping slaves etc.
He also states "In short, we are living in the most moral period in our species' history." He has done a lot of research and supplies the reader with lots of graphs and data that does seem to support what he is saying in this regard.
He also states that there are "identifiable causal relationships among social, political and economic factors and moral outcomes". He quotes a paragraph out of Steven Pinkers book "The Better Angels of our Nature" giving this book as his inspiration for writing the Moral Arc.
"Man's inhumanity to man has long been a subject for moralization. With the knowledge that something has driven it down we can also treat it as a matter of cause and effect. Instead of asking "Why is there war?" we might ask "Why is there peace?" We can obsess not just over what we have been doing wrong but also what we have been doing right. Because we have been doing something right and it would be good to know what exactly it is."
He also doesn't just give all the credit to science and reason, and does acknowledge the things that religion has contributed, or 'got right'. But he makes a very good case for it being predominately knowledge which is the domain of science and reason that has been the biggest contributor towards a more moral world. Again, remember he says that is "the improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings". His definition that he uses for sentient beings: 'By sentient I mean emotive, perceptive, sensitive, responsive, conscious, and therefore able to feel and to suffer'. He also states: 'I am reaching deeper into our evolved brains toward more basic emotive capacities. Our moral consideration should be based not primarily on what sentient beings are thinking, but on what they are feeling. There is sound science behind this proposition.
This is why he has also included thinking, feeling, and the ability to suffer in the definition of morality and flourishing and included all creatures that have this ability, it seems. He refers to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness that was issued in 2012. Here is what a group of prominent cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists said about the definition of sentience: "There is a convergence of evidence to show the continuity between humans and nonhuman animals, and that sentience is the common characteristic across species."
So that gives you a little bit more to work with in the understanding of where he is coming from. Hope that helps a little?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 19:48:32 GMT -5
Quote - "I understand Michael Shermer’s premise to be: “morality being (sic) driven by science”. I reject this hypothesis.'
By way of example: I understand that Bonobos are our nearest "relative" on the evolutionary ladder. A group of church leaders were shown a film of Bonobos mating (plenty on the Internet, I just found out!) These church folk said afterward, to the effect, they "now see sex differently" as many sexual behaviors are apparently "natural."
In reading this I felt these church leaders were being blindsided by science. We are not Bonobos. DNA doesn't tell you the whole story.
That these people had a change in heart about sexual practices says a lot about the power of science over scripture. And furthermore, these church people clearly didn't understand scripture either because the bible clearly states we are akin to the animals, that we have an animal nature but we are asked to rise above this nature.
And to take it further. It is good sexual practice for an older male to mate with a very young female in the animal kingdom, and not be around to help raise the offspring. For obvious reasons. What is to stop men therefore doing the same? After all, doesn't science tell us it's "natural" and there is no such thing, really, as morality?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Feb 20, 2015 20:43:54 GMT -5
Morality? What about ethics and values? Or does morality stand alone? Just had to poke my sticky beak in. X
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 20, 2015 20:48:05 GMT -5
Bible morality:
There are chapters that no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There are chapters that no father would read to his child.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 20, 2015 20:52:32 GMT -5
Morality? What about ethics and values? Or does morality stand alone? Just had to poke my sticky beak in. X Yes, morality stands alone. Ethics and values are negotiable. Morality is a principle, and not subject to the dictates of other virtues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 20:53:21 GMT -5
Yes, you can read them (assuming you can compete against TV, the Internet, iPhones, iPads and the like) but you need to provide the subtle nuances and explanations for why things are what. And number one on this explanatory list is this - we don't live under the Old Testament.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 20, 2015 21:05:48 GMT -5
Yes, you can read them (assuming you can compete against TV, the Internet, iPhones, iPads and the like) but you need to provide the subtle nuances and explanations for why things are what. And number one on this explanatory list is this - we don't live under the Old Testament. Yes, and the subtle nuances and explanations combined with general ignorance of OT culture and theology will quite mask the meaning.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 20, 2015 21:40:50 GMT -5
Hello yknot, lol yes I do support 'catch and release'! Ah, thank goodness! I feel pretty strongly about this topic so I suspect I will end up way, way over my head! Thanks for the additional transcribed notes, I will refer back to them but decided not to copy your entire post over right at the moment. Hope I am not being hard headed or stubborn but the additional notes you provided have not swayed my opinion . . . . . yet! I have mentioned on another thread, I am a Steve Pinker fan. "The Blank Slate" was the last book of his that I read, I have not read "The Better Angels of Our Nature". So as not to raise the spectre of "no common ground", let me identify a couple of comments that I agree with: 1) His definition of 'moral progress' is "the improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings" - I accept and can agree with this definition. 2) He includes animals when he talks about the improvement and survival and flourishing - This conclusion is compatible with empirical observation in some societies. (I am unable, however, to make the conceptual leap to the assertion that this observation is a consequence of "science".) I am interested in feedback as to how "science" will be framed for this conversation. I am also interested if most concur with the conclusion that morality co-emerged with the emergence of "science" in the neural networks of the genus Homo? Rephrased, was all of evolution amoral up to 600 BCE? If this premise is accepted then it takes on an anthropomorphic flavor which runs counter to recent studies at Yale suggesting that species other than man manifest behavioral characteristics consistent with moral choice. I tend to be a proponent of the concept that, in some societies, the boundaries of moral behavior are being expanded and extended to other species. I do not subscribe to the hypothesis that this expansion of the "moral circle" is a consequence of "science". Although I subscribe to no specific mechanistic theory on this point, I generally believe that the behavior characterized as 'moral' in a society evolves (1) with the evolution of cognitive capacity of individuals in a species and (2) at a different rate with the the evolution of communal networks involving multiple individuals in the society. I speculate (no evidence, at present) that the evolutionary processes are both genetic and epi-genetic in nature. It is with deep regret that I also surmise that behavior that is characterized as 'moral' at any point in time (at least for humans) is probably multi-gened, is probably well downstream from master controlling genes and is probably very easily repressed. If this speculation were to prove to be true then the 'moral' behavior in any society at any time would be segregated from barbarism by a very thin membrane of circumstance completely independent of all previously accumulated scientific knowledge. (I absolutely hate to think along these lines, but the thought process does strike me as relevant to the conversation of the thread). Thoughts to the contrary? One example for discussion. Medical practice is an activity based on one of the most accomplished scientific disciplines in modern science. Agreed? Some of the earliest descriptions of medical practice are recorded as the practices of Hippocrates (400 BCE) and those practices bear the mark of "scientific discipline". The practices were immortalized in an oath, a part of which is: "With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so." Now consider modern medical practice based in the main on modern medical science. Consider cosmetic surgery. Consider liposuction. Consider botox (a poison) treatments to eliminate wrinkles. Consider surgical removal or reshaping of toes to permit wearing fashionable shoes. Consider anatomical augmentations. Consider use of cadaver collagen to plumb lips.
Then consider the 19th century adaptation of the Hippocratic oath . . . . . "first do no harm".
Does this isolated but specific example support the premise: "morality being (sic) driven by science"? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 20, 2015 22:26:33 GMT -5
Bible morality: There are chapters that no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There are chapters that no father would read to his child. I remember the first time I read the Songs of Solomon - pretty sure my face was red for a week! hahahaha Morning Bible study with your 13 year-ole son -- he'll never make it from one class to the next. HAHAHAHA I heard Carson Cowan speak about the Song of Solomon at a Special Meetings in Ripon. What a task he took on - spiritualizing that porn show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 23:50:49 GMT -5
If indeed it was church leaders in the Second Century (or whenever) who decided what books were to be incorporated into the Christian bible, and even what verses - then how did the Song of Solomon make it?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 20, 2015 23:56:23 GMT -5
While I think morality is evolving and is due to our ability to know more, it also means that there is definitely a fine line between whether a person will act in a moral manner just because they 'know better'. I think some things are a given. The reference to the burning of witches is an example. We did amoral things in the past due to ignorance. In that sense it is more likely we won't be doing that particular action anymore due to that reasoning anyway. So we really can thank science in that sense for our move up the morality scale.
Someone mentioned that we no longer follow the OT, I think it was Bert. That is a good thing because it's a pretty good example of how you don't want to act if you are trying to be a moral person. But I would have to ask why you don't follow the OT anymore? After all you worship the God of the OT and this God was supposedly all knowing and doesn't change? I get the answer Jesus changed things. But did he really? He said he came to fulfill the law. In some cases he was more restrictive in the Jewish law than the rest of them. He added thought crimes for example. It wasn't good enough for him to agree with not committing adultery, but you in his interpretation, even thinking about it would be the same thing. And, the penalty for adultery is death. So was the NT God really any different from the OT God as far as the laws went?
Slavery is another example of the OT and NT God. You would think God would have told someone it was bad to own another human being. But not a word was said. In fact, the bible was used to justify why slavery was 'Godly' when it was being debated in America. So we can't really credit religion with making our world more moral in many areas.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 0:14:57 GMT -5
Hello yknot, lol yes I do support 'catch and release'! Ah, thank goodness! I feel pretty strongly about this topic so I suspect I will end up way, way over my head! Thanks for the additional transcribed notes, I will refer back to them but decided not to copy your entire post over right at the moment. Hope I am not being hard headed or stubborn but the additional notes you provided have not swayed my opinion . . . . . yet! I have mentioned on another thread, I am a Steve Pinker fan. "The Blank Slate" was the last book of his that I read, I have not read "The Better Angels of Our Nature". So as not to raise the spectre of "no common ground", let me identify a couple of comments that I agree with: 1) His definition of 'moral progress' is "the improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings" - I accept and can agree with this definition. 2) He includes animals when he talks about the improvement and survival and flourishing - This conclusion is compatible with empirical observation in some societies. (I am unable, however, to make the conceptual leap to the assertion that this observation is a consequence of "science".) I am interested in feedback as to how "science" will be framed for this conversation. I am also interested if most concur with the conclusion that morality co-emerged with the emergence of "science" in the neural networks of the genus Homo? Rephrased, was all of evolution amoral up to 600 BCE? If this premise is accepted then it takes on an anthropomorphic flavor which runs counter to recent studies at Yale suggesting that species other than man manifest behavioral characteristics consistent with moral choice. I tend to be a proponent of the concept that, in some societies, the boundaries of moral behavior are being expanded and extended to other species. I do not subscribe to the hypothesis that this expansion of the "moral circle" is a consequence of "science". Although I subscribe to no specific mechanistic theory on this point, I generally believe that the behavior characterized as 'moral' in a society evolves (1) with the evolution of cognitive capacity of individuals in a species and (2) at a different rate with the the evolution of communal networks involving multiple individuals in the society. I speculate (no evidence, at present) that the evolutionary processes are both genetic and epi-genetic in nature. It is with deep regret that I also surmise that behavior that is characterized as 'moral' at any point in time (at least for humans) is probably multi-gened, is probably well downstream from master controlling genes and is probably very easily repressed. If this speculation were to prove to be true then the 'moral' behavior in any society at any time would be segregated from barbarism by a very thin membrane of circumstance completely independent of all previously accumulated scientific knowledge. (I absolutely hate to think along these lines, but the thought process does strike me as relevant to the conversation of the thread). Thoughts to the contrary? One example for discussion. Medical practice is an activity based on one of the most accomplished scientific disciplines in modern science. Agreed? Some of the earliest descriptions of medical practice are recorded as the practices of Hippocrates (400 BCE) and those practices bear the mark of "scientific discipline". The practices were immortalized in an oath, a part of which is: "With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so." Now consider modern medical practice based in the main on modern medical science. Consider cosmetic surgery. Consider liposuction. Consider botox (a poison) treatments to eliminate wrinkles. Consider surgical removal or reshaping of toes to permit wearing fashionable shoes. Consider anatomical augmentations. Consider use of cadaver collagen to plumb lips.
Then consider the 19th century adaptation of the Hippocratic oath . . . . . "first do no harm".
Does this isolated but specific example support the premise: "morality being (sic) driven by science"? I think not.
I may have missed it, but have you stated what you feel drives morality?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 0:20:44 GMT -5
Snow, re slavery. This was a given in the ancient world. The bible took various positions on this - 1 - whosoever leads into slavery will be led into slavery 2 - what slavery there is must be ameliorated 3 - those who disobey God will go into slavery
Morals change - they don't get better. We don't burn witches or keep slaves - but any witch or slave from "back then" would be shocked at our immoral behavior today, and our abject lack of standards.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 21, 2015 1:44:18 GMT -5
Snow, re slavery. This was a given in the ancient world. The bible took various positions on this - 1 - whosoever leads into slavery will be led into slavery 2 - what slavery there is must be ameliorated 3 - those who disobey God will go into slavery Morals change - they don't get better. We don't burn witches or keep slaves - but any witch or slave from "back then" would be shocked at our immoral behavior today, and our abject lack of standards. You have to be joking!
What kind of "immoral behavior" going on today is worse than making another human being a slave or burning a woman (most all were women) as a witch?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 1:53:38 GMT -5
There are considered to be more slaves today than at any time in history. And we have a new category of slave - sex slaves. These days we don't burn witches, but apparently we do burn races of people, and we wage war by the mass immolation of civilians.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 21, 2015 2:13:29 GMT -5
There are considered to be more slaves today than at any time in history. And we have a new category of slave - sex slaves. These days we don't burn witches, but apparently we do burn races of people, and we wage war by the mass immolation of civilians. Yes, I'm aware of the sex slave trade and it is illegal!
You said "our" immoral behavior today, and "our" lack of standards.
Slavery isn't a "standard" of our times .
I am quite sure that you were really referring to a different type of what you call "immoral behavior."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 11:26:27 GMT -5
Snow, re slavery. This was a given in the ancient world. The bible took various positions on this - 1 - whosoever leads into slavery will be led into slavery 2 - what slavery there is must be ameliorated 3 - those who disobey God will go into slavery Morals change - they don't get better. We don't burn witches or keep slaves - but any witch or slave from "back then" would be shocked at our immoral behavior today, and our abject lack of standards. I think that the point is this. God's book doesn't tell us not to enslave each other. Religious beliefs were the biggest obstacle to outlawing slavery, equality for women, and the burning of witches. You would think that God would have had something to say about the equality of women, the immorality of owning another human or the murder of thousands of people because the good book says suffer not a witch to live. Surely this all knowing being knew that there was no such thing as witches? If people believe that the bible is God's word and is literally inspired totally by him, then why is there nothing in the bible about any of this? Why weren't God's chosen people, the Hebrews, showing the world how they should live in a moral fashion? You say it was just the way it was back then. Yes, you're right. Why was it 'just the way it was back then' if these people had access to the word of God? Shouldn't their God, if he was a moral God, have given them a superior set of rules to live by? But somehow he was silent about how immoral it was to own another human, or to own women as chattel. As far as you thinking the behavior today is a lack of standards, I don't think its as much a lack of standards as it is a transition into a reevaluation of standards. It is a time of change. Michael Shermer clearly shows in his book that we are getting more moral. Maybe not in the areas you seem to think are important, but we are getting better at recognizing a wider range of people and animals as having rights, and trying to make a world that has less suffering for all, more rights, and more opportunity. Divorce seems to be an issue that you think is worse morality. I think that defining divorce and finding it immoral to live with someone that is beating you, or that you do not love is far more important than staying with someone till death do you part. Some things that were considered to be immoral back then, clearly were not. And, things that were considered moral, clearly were not. Our challenge is to redefine what is moral and what is not. It has been an ongoing challenge since the beginning of humanity living in groups. Religion has contributed in good ways and bad ways. They have slowed the process down by some of their beliefs. Homosexuality, divorce, slavery, inequality between women and men, are all areas that religions have fought tooth and nail to prevent from changing. They still exist in some parts of the world. Interestingly Iceland was the first to abolish slavery in 1117. The United States which was considered to be a Christian country didn't abolish slavery until 1865. Women had equal rights, the right to vote in Europe before they did in the United States. Don't you think it was the Bible that held these areas of immoral treatment back? The belief that women were chattel and the God given right to own a slave?
|
|