Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 10:51
That in the end, science cannot answer the what/how-should-I kind of questions. Once it starts to it's no longer science (not meaning it's no good). If you agree with it than move on, what's the problem?
Chade on 11/4/2008 at 10:57
You can't scientifically prove that murder is wrong.
You can use science to clarify cause and effect, which could potentially aid you in the train of logic used to show that murder is wrong, but somewhere along the line you still need to introduce an "unscientific" value judgment.
The only way science could help you is by enabling you to make a value judgment that is even more irrefutable then "murder is wrong", and then use logic and science to show that the statement "murder is wrong" follows naturally.
Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 11:50
Quote Posted by Chade
You can't scientifically prove that murder is wrong.
Exactly.
I was only making a point- even if you
could prove it, there would still be people who will disobey the law dervied from it.
jay pettitt on 11/4/2008 at 12:46
Quote Posted by Chade
You can't scientifically prove that murder is wrong.
You can use science to clarify cause and effect, which could potentially aid you in the train of logic used to show that murder is wrong, but somewhere along the line you still need to introduce an "unscientific" value judgment.
The only way science could help you is by enabling you to make a value judgment that is even more irrefutable then "murder is wrong", and then use logic and science to show that the statement "murder is wrong" follows naturally.
Sure. Religion doesn't 'prove' murder is wrong. You make a judgement and then refer to science or religious teaching or whatever to qualify it. Question is, is there a remit where religion is [intrinsically?] better qualified than science? Is there any remit where religion is particularly qualified at all?
Epos Nix on 11/4/2008 at 14:32
Only if you have faith that religion's final outcome (heaven, enlightenment, 70 virgins, etc) is sound.
For most this isn't the case so living a perfectly perfect life, while admirable, is not absolutely necessary.
Personally though, I've taken the moral code very seriously and try extremely hard to abide by it every step of the way. This moral code in Buddhism is known as (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) The Eightfold Path and is comprised of pretty much what we've come to expect from morality, only Buddhism takes it to an extreme and insists that even very small evils are wholly detrimental to your being. If you follow such a path for some length of time, being wholly selfless, you come to realize just what effect being selfless has on others and how good things just tend to happen to such a person by virtue of their being.
catbarf on 11/4/2008 at 19:04
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Exactly.
I was only making a point- even if you
could prove it, there would still be people who will disobey the law dervied from it.
Really. I never could have guessed. Whoever was trying to state that science can be used to present a moral code for all of mankind, please raise your hand. Anyone? No?
Ben Gunn on 11/4/2008 at 19:33
Quote Posted by catbarf
Really. I never could have guessed. Whoever was trying to state that science can be used to present a moral code for all of mankind, please raise your hand. Anyone? No?
Good. I just had to make sure.
Btw, do you still think that art=science?
jay pettitt on 11/4/2008 at 20:41
Do you still think a straw man constitutes RaA? Moving on...
catbarf on 11/4/2008 at 20:46
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Good. I just had to make sure.
And yet, science has directly shown what morals are good and what are bad. Natural Selection has eliminated those cultures that had moral systems that hurt the society.
Nicker on 11/4/2008 at 21:00
While you can't directly equate art and science there are artists who bring a scientific approach to their work and scientists who seem to receive perspectives that go beyond the simple accumulation and refinement of knowledge (Nicola Tesla comes to mind). There is no absolute divide between the creative force that informs a truly daring artist and the one that informs a scientist on the cutting edge of a given discipline.
I see art in science. I see art in the natural world. I don't see human art as something outside the natural world so I assume describing it in scientific terms is as valid as doing so with terms of art's own creation.
That said, one can't dismiss science outright because it does not address the questions of romance and art in their own terms. It does not presume to, although, as others here have described, it does a pretty good job of shedding light on the biochemical and psychological mechanisms involved.
The creationists try and use this sort of argument to disqualify science in general, ignoring that their own explanations of the warm fuzzies and cold nasties of humanity and especially of the remaining hard mysteries of life, are simply opinions which largely appeal to the same black box thinking they employ to dismiss any ideas not fitting their prejudice.
