Can science answer moral questions?

[Lyte]

This is one of the TED talks which gave me a pause. I tend to believe what Sam Harris is saying here, that science not only can but it should start to answer these questions. Difficult questions of right and wrong can be examined scientifically and we can find a scientific answer to these questions which are hard to contest.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww[/ame]

 

[del]

dipshit

 

[editec]

Sure it can, in some cases and it often has, too.

Very few of us imagine that a mental illness is the result of demons.

We have science to thank for that.

When your appendix bursts, few of you are likely to appeal to a shamen to petition some spirit for relief.

You can thank science for that.

People do not often throw Virgins into volcanos to appease the volcano god.

You have science to thank for that change in morals, too.

Understanding the world (science of all kinds, including social sciences) helps mankind find new moral paths to creating better societies.

Science is never, however, going to replace humanism as the ultimate souce of morality.

All it can do is give us clues about how the world works, and we'll adjust out Moral POVs based on that.

Science and religion are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Some religious people might want to make the case that they are, but those people are mistaken.

 

[Newby]

Sure it can, in some cases and it often has, too.

Very few of us imagine that a mental illness is the result of demons.

We have science to thank for that.

When your appendix bursts, few of you are likely to appeal to a shamen to petition some spirit for relief.

You can thank science for that.

People do not often throw Virgins into volcanos to appease the volcano god.

You have science to thank for that change in morals, too.

Understanding the world (science of all kinds, including social sciences) helps mankind find new moral paths to creating better societies.

Science is never, however, going to replace humanism as the ultimate souce of morality.

All it can do is give us clues about how the world works, and we'll adjust out Moral POVs based on that.

Science and religion are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Some religious people might want to make the case that they are, but those people are mistaken.

Actually, in my experience, it's been just the opposite. It's atheists who like to claim that science disproves religion, and that there isn't any synergy between the two.

 

[Lyte]

Sure it can, in some cases and it often has, too.

Very few of us imagine that a mental illness is the result of demons.

We have science to thank for that.

When your appendix bursts, few of you are likely to appeal to a shamen to petition some spirit for relief.

You can thank science for that.

People do not often throw Virgins into volcanos to appease the volcano god.

You have science to thank for that change in morals, too.

Understanding the world (science of all kinds, including social sciences) helps mankind find new moral paths to creating better societies.

Science is never, however, going to replace humanism as the ultimate souce of morality.

All it can do is give us clues about how the world works, and we'll adjust out Moral POVs based on that.

Science and religion are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Some religious people might want to make the case that they are, but those people are mistaken.

Actually Sam is making a case here that science can tell us what we ought to value not just help us understand the world better so we can make better judgement on the right course of action based on our religious or philosophical views. So he is making a case that science is the ultimate source of morality.

Actually, in my experience, it's been just the opposite. It's atheists who like to claim that science disproves religion, and that there isn't any synergy between the two.

Yes, even Sam Harris himself thinks that Science disproves religion, but this thread is not about the conflict between Atheists and Believers. I wan't to know what people think about the points Sam makes about how science can tell us what we ought to value.

 

[Gadawg73]

Morals vary.
Science doesn't.

 

[Lyte]

Morals vary.
Science doesn't.

Yes, that is his point.

 

[godspeaker]

This is one of the TED talks which gave me a pause. I tend to believe what Sam Harris is saying here, that science not only can but it should start to answer these questions. Difficult questions of right and wrong can be examined scientifically and we can find a scientific answer to these questions which are hard to contest.

All things were created by God so good and evil came from God. God is the truth so he's all things but he's planning on destroying everything on this earth to get rid of good and evil. We will live according to the truth in the next age.

 

[Anachronism]

Actually Sam is making a case here that science can tell us what we ought to value not just help us understand the world better so we can make better judgement on the right course of action based on our religious or philosophical views. So he is making a case that science is the ultimate source of morality.

In that he is totally WRONG. Morality cannot be defined or codified by science because Morality is a mental/emotional/spiritual matter more than anything else.

Now, what RESEARCH (not science) can do is to show us which cultures, societies, nations, and spiritual movements have been highly successful through the course of history and what morals, values, and ideals those groups all held in common. There is a lot more commonality of ideals than one might expect if one looks at the historical record. That commonality is what I refer to as Universal Morality, and while some of it has its roots in genetics and basic psychology/sociology, most of it is not something that science can derive in test tubes or beakers of boiling liquid over bunson burners.

 

[dilloduck]

"Green" now equals good--along with numerous other secular messages. If you are not green you are evil and judged to be a sinner.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure it can, in some cases and it often has, too.

Very few of us imagine that a mental illness is the result of demons.

We have science to thank for that.

When your appendix bursts, few of you are likely to appeal to a shamen to petition some spirit for relief.

You can thank science for that.

People do not often throw Virgins into volcanos to appease the volcano god.

You have science to thank for that change in morals, too.

Understanding the world (science of all kinds, including social sciences) helps mankind find new moral paths to creating better societies.

Science is never, however, going to replace humanism as the ultimate souce of morality.

All it can do is give us clues about how the world works, and we'll adjust out Moral POVs based on that.

Science and religion are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Some religious people might want to make the case that they are, but those people are mistaken.

Actually, in my experience, it's been just the opposite. It's atheists who like to claim that science disproves religion, and that there isn't any synergy between the two.

Religion exists. Science has never 'proved' otherwise, nor do I suspect any scientist ever tried. God however, or a supreme being, has never been proven or disproved.
The ides that morality and religion are simpatico is silly, the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Lyte]

In that he is totally WRONG. Morality cannot be defined or codified by science because Morality is a mental/emotional/spiritual matter more than anything else.

Let me guess, you didn't view his talk?

 

[Anachronism]

Let me guess, you didn't view his talk?

No I did not. I've got better things to do with a half hour of my life than to listen to another scientist try to tell me how everthing in the world can be categorized and codified by the scientific community if they're just given the right number of test tubes, beakers, and budgetary dollars. I have a brother with a PhD in some form of genetic microbiology so far over my head that I don't even bother trying to understand it anymore, so I've heard it plenty of times before.

 

[Lyte]

Let me guess, you didn't view his talk?

No I did not. I've got better things to do with a half hour of my life than to listen to another scientist try to tell me how everthing in the world can be categorized and codified by the scientific community if they're just given the right number of test tubes, beakers, and budgetary dollars. I have a brother with a PhD in some form of genetic microbiology so far over my head that I don't even bother trying to understand it anymore, so I've heard it plenty of times before.

Yes, well this thread is about Mr. Harris TED talk, where he makes his case for scientific method of dealing with the questions of morality. If you don't have time to listen to his talk, then please don't bother to give comments on it.

Here he made claim why Morality can be defined and codified by science even though morality is a mental/emotional/spiritual matter. If you would have pointed out errors in his method, we would have had an interesting debate, instead you repeated a claim, which he already counter argued in his talk - without explaining why he is wrong in his reasoning.

I'm sure even you can see that your comment was pointless.

 

[Anachronism]

Here he made claim why Morality can be defined and codified by science even though morality is a mental/emotional/spiritual matter. If you would have pointed out errors in his method, we would have had an interesting debate, instead you repeated a claim, which he already counter argued in his talk - without explaining why he is wrong in his reasoning.

I'm sure even you can see that your comment was pointless.

Life is for the most part, pointless, Lyte. Once you realize that it gets much easier to deal with.

As for "an interesting debate"... I don't engage in debate. It has no point. My views are definitely not going to be changed, and I somehow doubt that yours are either, so what would be the value in us "debating" anything. We might be able to have a discussion about it, but that's about all.

 

[manifold]

Yes of course, much the same way that sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.

 

[rikules]

This is one of the TED talks which gave me a pause. I tend to believe what Sam Harris is saying here, that science not only can but it should start to answer these questions. Difficult questions of right and wrong can be examined scientifically and we can find a scientific answer to these questions which are hard to contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

mostly, yes.


science (and logic and reason) can answer MOST moral questions

it can certainly answer most moral question better than MOST religions can

q: what moral questions?

homosexuality?
sex outside of marriage?
divorce?
drinking? smoking pot? snorting cocaine?
discriminating against identifiable groups of people?
slavery?


science can certainly provide BETTER ANSWERS to these moral questions

 

[manifold]

This is one of the TED talks which gave me a pause. I tend to believe what Sam Harris is saying here, that science not only can but it should start to answer these questions. Difficult questions of right and wrong can be examined scientifically and we can find a scientific answer to these questions which are hard to contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

mostly, yes.


science (and logic and reason) can answer MOST moral questions

it can certainly answer most moral question better than MOST religions can

q: what moral questions?

homosexuality?
sex outside of marriage?
divorce?
drinking? smoking pot? snorting cocaine?
discriminating against identifiable groups of people?
slavery?


science can certainly provide BETTER ANSWERS to these moral questions

ummmm, hold on...





.. ok, how do I want to say this?



...



Yup, everything you just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit.



Carry on.

 

[Anachronism]

You know, I just wasted half an hour of my life that I'll never get back actually watching this thing. I could have stopped after about the first 90 seconds and gotten everything I needed out of it. Unfortunately I didn't know that at the time.

This guy is totally wrong for one simple reason.... His entire concept of what morality IS/SHOULD BE is totally incorrect. He seems to have some ridiculous idea that morality is about making people happy, healthy, and positive. That's not what Morality is about at all. It's about RIGHT and WRONG. Life is not about happiness, health, or positivity. Life is about RIGHT and WRONG. Just because something makes people happy, healthy, or improves their life doesn't mean it isn't WRONG. Likewise, that which makes one miserable, unhealthy, and uncomfortable may be the absolute RIGHT thing.

 

[del]

This is one of the TED talks which gave me a pause. I tend to believe what Sam Harris is saying here, that science not only can but it should start to answer these questions. Difficult questions of right and wrong can be examined scientifically and we can find a scientific answer to these questions which are hard to contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

mostly, yes.


science (and logic and reason) can answer MOST moral questions

it can certainly answer most moral question better than MOST religions can

q: what moral questions?

homosexuality?
sex outside of marriage?
divorce?
drinking? smoking pot? snorting cocaine?
discriminating against identifiable groups of people?
slavery?


science can certainly provide BETTER ANSWERS to these moral questions

ummmm, hold on...





.. ok, how do I want to say this?



...



Yup, everything you just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit.



Carry on.

i'd be interested to hear the scientific take on slavery.


i could use a laugh.