[ICTHUS]

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com

This should be an interesting one on a Christian forum.

Discuss.

[athanatos]

He assumes and adamantly affirms that happiness (and the elimination of pain) is the key to morality. That is the fatal flaw to the argument, IMO. When touching on the issue, he just uses emotional appeals to make us think that it is the most intuitive reduction of morality. He doesn't really evaluate for the audience anything that is wrong with that assumption or claim, but it is a huge problem with his entire argument; for while science is pretty good at telling us what causes "pain" for creatures who have c-fibers or not, and for cause-and-effect of those sensations, science ultimately does not make that assumption that he tries to sneak in.

Science, if we say science is basically a rigorous study of observation and hypothesis, interpretation and explanation, we must admit that in the end it is descriptive not prescriptive; it is declarative not normative. Science cannot tell us why doing something is wrong or what the world ought to be, it only can say what is happening/has happened.

[JerryLove]

Agreed.

Science can discuss the biological factors in us having morality: or the selective pressures that kept it around.

and, of course, it can provide data useful to making moral decisions ("will doing this cause that or not?"). But a discussion of what *should* be is part of philosophy.

[Kentl]

Without going in to much unless someone wants to hear it

I think science can tell us why something Is wrong

nor do i think philshophy can always tell us if something is worng\right
problem with most philosophy is almost evrey thing is either wrong or right there is no in betwen

dont get my wrong philosophy is good thing to use but it has it's flaw's

[Josey Wales]

SCIENCE!!! she blinded me with SCIENCE!!!!!...

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by josey wales

SCIENCE!!! she blinded me with SCIENCE!!!!!...

there will always be someone saying that everything can be proven with science. blah blah blah to me. yes everything can, but not the way they think.

may i ask what you mean by this?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Kentl

I think science can tell us why something Is wrong

You could test to see if something meets certain criteria: but science wouldn't touch inventing the criteria. That's philosophy.

nor do i think philshophy can always tell us if something is worng\right
problem with most philosophy is almost evrey thing is either wrong or right there is no in betwen

The mere definitions of "right" and "wrong" is a philosophical question. Whether you come to an answer depends on your philosopy.

Here's a good way to think of science:
Science is the process of building models which can make accurate predictions about testable things.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You could test to see if something meets certain criteria: but science wouldn't touch inventing the criteria. That's philosophy.

The mere definitions of "right" and "wrong" is a philosophical question. Whether you come to an answer depends on your philosopy.

Here's a good way to think of science:
Science is the process of building models which can make accurate predictions about testable things.

not true


by science i know that it would be "right"
to kill one guy to save two thousand
because by science we know (obviously) that one is less then 20202020445 and that the nuke this guy would use would kill every one
and Science is more then building

after all medicine is a science
and it dose more


right is not philosophical alone

which guitar is right for me?
i can judge by science

is it right that I take this toy with out asking

be science we know that (anthropology)
Humans have a nature for possessions and get up set when they lose them

And by science we also know there is a reaction that comes with it



philosophy manly deals with something being wrong

but dose not say why

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by athanatos

He assumes and adamantly affirms that happiness (and the elimination of pain) is the key to morality. That is the fatal flaw to the argument, IMO.

Right. Verbatim (I think it's around the 17 minute mark):

"It is possible for individuals and even for whole cultures to care about the wrong things. Which is to say, it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering."

There's no science there.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Right. Verbatim (I think it's around the 17 minute mark):

"It is possible for individuals and even for whole cultures to care about the wrong things. Which is to say, it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering."

There's no science there.

yes there is

christains belive non christains go to hell and sufring which is the same thing thats a culture
tha has needless sufring
is it right?
we belive so but if someone eles did it it would be wrong

i see his point

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Kentl

yes there is

He's merely asserting that beliefs that lead to needless human suffering are wrong. That's the hidden assumption.

christains belive non christains go to hell and sufring which is the same thing thats a culture
tha has needless sufring
is it right?
we belive so but if someone eles did it it would be wrong

You're misunderstanding him. He's talking about beliefs which lead to things such as genital mutilation, oppression of women, proliferation of disease, etc. Not divine punitive measures. That would have nothing to do with the consequence of belief in hell anyway. God metes out justice independently of our believing he can do so.

[ICTHUS]

For once, I think I understand what Kentl is saying:

Basically, it's questions like, "Does beating our kids, or teaching them that they will burn in everlasting Hellfire with worms gnawing on their flesh for all eternity if they don't trust in Jesus, lead to a more or less healthy psychological and general life outcome?"

Why does Christian culture care more about gay marriage than nuclear nonproliferation (unless somebody else is doing the proliferation) or global warming, for instance? This is the kind of question that science can and should answer - that it is wrong for any country to amass large amounts of weapons which have the potential to destroy the world, for example.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Basically, it's questions like, "Does beating our kids, or teaching them that they will burn in everlasting Hellfire with worms gnawing on their flesh for all eternity if they don't trust in Jesus, lead to a more or less healthy psychological and general life outcome?"

A legit question, once you've agreed on a definition of "healthy"... and we can use proper scientific methodology to answer that question.

That doesn't address the morality, or lack thereof of a "healthy psychology".

Why does Christian culture care more about gay marriage than nuclear nonproliferation (unless somebody else is doing the proliferation) or global warming, for instance? This is the kind of question that science can and should answer

Yes. The fields in question would include psychology and sociology... and there are quite a few studies which discuss why we have the priorities we have... I would not dream of summing them up in 2-3 sentences.

- that it is wrong for any country to amass large amounts of weapons which have the potential to destroy the world, for example.

Why is it "wrong"? Why is destroying the world "wrong"? Why is living preferred to dead (not why to organisms prefer it, we can see that as instinct: but why would an argument prefer it). These, and the related questions, are philosophy.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by slap_j

He's merely asserting that beliefs that lead to needless human suffering are wrong. That's the hidden assumption.

yes but is it okay if my belifes say i have to kill you and all christins?
no its wrong

Originally Posted by slap_j

You're misunderstanding him. He's talking about beliefs which lead to things such as genital mutilation, oppression of women, proliferation of disease, etc. Not divine punitive measures. That would have nothing to do with the consequence of belief in hell anyway. God metes out justice independently of our believing he can do so.

hell will have all of those and then some

diseas you bet ch
oppression of women?
i belive the bible puts women under men and they ahve to stay with them even if they man is abuvisive
disease? i belive god spreads disiease to prove his point (egypt)

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A legit question, once you've agreed on a definition of "healthy"... and we can use proper scientific methodology to answer that question.

agreed

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That doesn't address the morality, or lack thereof of a "healthy psychology".

i think it dose studys show more kids who are beat turn to a life of crime and end up in jail or what not
so it dose adresse it

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Yes. The fields in question would include psychology and sociology... and there are quite a few studies which discuss why we have the priorities we have... I would not dream of summing them up in 2-3 sentences.

I dont think you could if you tried either

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Why is it "wrong"? Why is destroying the world "wrong"? Why is living preferred to dead (not why to organisms prefer it, we can see that as instinct: but why would an argument prefer it). These, and the related questions, are philosophy.

an augrment dose not prefer it

you cant wrong a rock
it has no felaings it dose not care
only living things care
(proving by science)
so you have to use living things

and scince can eazyliy tell you that if you desytoy the world it will have huge problems on life
(depending if there are aleins in space or not)

you may ahve one or two bactira that survivces in space or gets balsrted to mars or the moon
that may be able to survive and in a million billion years have a new spieces but neddles to say it will slow down life big time