Originally posted by twhiteheaddalai lama
And you are yet to justify such a claim. I say the opposite, religions are a very bad source of moral guidance.
[b]An understanding of what they stand for can be good for Scientists.
Religions don't 'stand for' anything. Religions are delusional beliefs, not political/moral causes.
But instead you almost have a scientific hatred of religion ...[text shortened]... ed ethics courses? You have given no real justification for picking on science in particular.
5 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
No not quite that, I'm not saying Scientist need religion to make good judgement . But religions are a very good source of moral guidance.. An understanding of what they stand for can be good for Scientists. But instead you almost have a scientific hatred of religion spouted by Dawkins types and by people in these forums. I have listed quite a few scientif ...[text shortened]... a short course on ethics / morality. Infact I felt it was a really big omission from my course.
where a bit more morals would have been useful, not saying they have to come from religion. Just if you look at the subject of morality, its hard to discuss without a mention of it.
-'hard' only if you don't understand morality. If you know what morality really is, you would know religion is not required for morality nor is morality in anyway enhanced by religion.
TRUE meaningful morality comes purely from compassion, sympathy and a sense of fairness and absolutely none of it would come from some religion nor any other set of superstitious beliefs.
Originally posted by humyit isn't a difference between learning that from religion or education or personal experience. morality comes from somewhere, why not religion? (better said religious faith, religion has come to be synonymous with dogma and that's another dish)where a bit more morals would have been useful, not saying they have to come from religion. Just if you look at the subject of morality, its hard to discuss without a mention of it.
-'hard' only if you don't understand morality. If you know what morality really is, you would know religion is not required for morality nor is morality in an ...[text shortened]... solutely none of it would come from some religion nor any other set of superstitious beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chris
No not quite that, I'm not saying Scientist need religion to make good judgement . But religions are a very good source of moral guidance.. An understanding of what they stand for can be good for Scientists. But instead you almost have a scientific hatred of religion spouted by Dawkins types and by people in these forums. I have listed quite a few scientif ...[text shortened]... a short course on ethics / morality. Infact I felt it was a really big omission from my course.
When I was studying chemistry I would of loved a short course on ethics / morality. In fact I felt it was a really big omission from my course.
Knowledge of how to count can allow a person to fiddle his tax -so we all could do with a course on ethics before learning to count?
And therefore it was a really big omission to exclude ethics when you were first taught how to count to three?
4 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't follow your meaning/reasoning.
it isn't a difference between learning that from religion or education or personal experience. morality comes from somewhere, why not religion? (better said religious faith, religion has come to be synonymous with dogma and that's another dish)
My morality comes from innate compassion and a sense of fairness and, as far as I can tell, doesn't relate to my 'education' or 'experience' much.
I don't see how religion without compassion sympathy and a sense of fairness can lead to any kind of morality other than a rather hollow one and if religion is combined with compassion sympathy and a sense of fairness then that just make the religion an unnecessary appendage to that morality that can be simply disposed of without sacrificing any of the meaningful morality.
Originally posted by humyyou consider religion incapable of providing morality and i do not understand why.
I don't follow your reasoning.
morality is learned. so what is the difference between having religion (for example christianity) as a source of morality or your parents, or society? why can't you gain knowledge from religion? you apply the same filter to religion as you would filter the uncool stuff from a very nice uncle who for example, doesn't like gays.
Originally posted by humyone cannot learn compassion and fairness without being taught those concepts. the animal in us is driven by instinct, by self-preservation, by selfishness. you are taught that it is nice to go against those imperatives, that helping others might in the future get you helped in return, to avoid the anarchy of everyone being out for themselves. you are taught cooperation.
I don't follow your meaning/reasoning.
My morality comes from innate compassion and a sense of fairness and, as far as I can tell, doesn't relate to my 'education' or 'experience' much. I don't see how religion without compassion sympathy and a sense of fairness can lead to any kind of morality other than a rather hollow one and if religion is combined with co ...[text shortened]... ary appendage that can be disposed of without sacrificing any of the meaningful morality.
religions are basically a compilation of these rules. one simply needs to not be a psychopath and realize that the genocide depicted in noah's flood for example has nothing in common with christianity and should be ignored.
11 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you consider religion incapable of providing morality and i do not understand why.
morality is learned. so what is the difference between having religion (for example christianity) as a source of morality or your parents, or society? why can't you gain knowledge from religion? you apply the same filter to religion as you would filter the uncool stuff from a very nice uncle who for example, doesn't like gays.
you consider religion incapable of providing morality and i do not understand why.
No, I DO think religion is capable of proving morality -just not a very meaningful one and not what I would call “true morality”. What I call true morality would not let you blindly follow a set of rules from a book (such as the Bible) nor your parents but rather make you decide for yourself what is the right or wrong thing to do according to your own feelings of compassion and sense of fairness -if the rules you have been given conflict with your compassion/fairness then, for you to have true morality, you would question them and probably disobey them and make up your own rules else your morality is a hollow meaningless one.
True morality cannot be just merely taught for true morality must come from within.
morality is learned.
Yes, the basic concept of morality is normally learned at early childhood. But, to be truly meaningful, it is still must be based on compassion and a sense of fairness and compassion and a sense of fairness which I believe is, in the main, innate. I believe I heard somewhere (don't remember where) that neurological science actually showed compassion and fairness is innate.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour not making sense. You say religion is a source of morality then point out that one must filter through all its teachings to decide what is moral and what is not. If you are getting your rules or morality from religion, then surely there is a large danger of incorrectly incorporating one of those immoral rules?
you apply the same filter to religion as you would filter the uncool stuff from a very nice uncle who for example, doesn't like gays.
religions are basically a compilation of these rules. one simply needs to not be a psychopath and realize that the genocide depicted in noah's flood for example has nothing in common with christianity and should be ignored.
If anything a large part of Christianity is about encouraging people to follow blindly immoral rules and deliberately making claims that a determination of their morality is not possible and that the rules are dictated by God who 'knows better'.
I believe Budhists on the other hand tend to encourage questioning the teachings. Hence Budhists end up pacifist, vegetarians, but Christians do not.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one cannot learn compassion and fairness without being taught those concepts. the animal in us is driven by instinct, by self-preservation, by selfishness. you are taught that it is nice to go against those imperatives, that helping others might in the future get you helped in return, to avoid the anarchy of everyone being out for themselves. you are taugh ...[text shortened]... cted in noah's flood for example has nothing in common with christianity and should be ignored.
one cannot learn compassion and fairness without being taught those concepts.
compassion is not a 'concept' but an emotional response.
Here is just some of the evidence that, at least a very large part of morality is innate:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121024175240.htm
“Area of the Brain That Processes Empathy Identified”
http://www.parentingscience.com/empathy-and-the-brain.html
“...The neural basis of morality?
To better understand how theory of mind contributes to the perception of “second hand” pain, Decety’s team showed kids two sets of images. One set depicted people experiencing painful accidents. The other set showed people who were being victimized by aggressors (Decety et al 2008a).
In both scenarios, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) revealed that merely looking at images activated brain regions associated with the first-hand experience of pain.
But when kids watched images of one person deliberately inflicting pain on another person, additional brain regions (in the orbital medial frontal cortex and the paracingulate cortex) were activated.
Brain imaging research and studies of brain-damaged patients suggest that these regions are associated with social interaction, emotional self-control, and moral reasoning (Blair 2007; Sturm et al 2006).
Were the additional brain regions activated because the kids were engaged in social and moral thinking? It seems very plausible.
...”
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_compassionate_instinct
“...
Taken together, our strands of evidence suggest the following. Compassion is deeply rooted in human nature; it has a biological basis in the brain and body. Humans can communicate compassion through facial gesture and touch, and these displays of compassion can serve vital social functions, strongly suggesting an evolutionary basis of compassion.
...”
-there is good evidence that we are born with specialized areas of the brain for empathy, sympathy and a sense of fairness. Learning may or may help to activate or help develop or stimulate those areas but the fact that they are there at all suggests that morality doesn't necessarily need to be formally taught for it is at least partly instinctive -at least that is what the scientific evidence suggests at the current time.
1 edit
Why you need ethics in science but not so much maths should be historically evident... The worst a mathemitician can do is chuck a bit of chalk at you ... but dioxin etc shows the need for morals in science (its an interesting case re morals because they made it by the ton even tho it was toxic but also tried to treat malaria with it)
Originally posted by e4chrisEugenics remember? Fostered by two greats of statistics, Fisher and Pearson. Both were mathematicians. That will do for a start on the harm mathematicians can do if they put their minds to it.
Why you need ethics in science but not so much maths should be historically evident... The worst a mathemitician can do is chuck a bit of chalk at you ... but dioxin etc shows the need for morals in science (its an interesting case re morals because they made it by the ton even tho it was toxic but also tried to treat malaria with it)
Scientists did not make dioxin by the ton. Industry made dioxin by the ton. Captains of industry are generally not research scientists. They employ scientists to discover stuff and then turn it over to the accountants and cost analysts (maths again) to discover if it is a viable product. If there are safety concerns that arise after the fact the lawyers get wheeled in, not the scientists.
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat is the problem with filtering out some things you think do not apply to you? tell me what philosophical systems are infallible. tell me if you take everything your parents told you when growing up to the letter.
Your not making sense. You say religion is a source of morality then point out that one must filter through all its teachings to decide what is moral and what is not. If you are getting your rules or morality from religion, then surely there is a large danger of incorrectly incorporating one of those immoral rules?
If anything a large part of Christianit ...[text shortened]... questioning the teachings. Hence Budhists end up pacifist, vegetarians, but Christians do not.
"If anything a large part of Christianity is about encouraging people to follow blindly immoral rules"
this is incorrect. no place in the bible does jesus tell people to follow immoral rules. in fact he intervenes several times when outdated laws are applied like in the stoning of the adulteress, like when the pharisees asked him why he is healing people on the Sabbath, and so on.
your mistake is that while you don't get your morality just from a person, or a philosophical system, that while you are capable of deciding for yourself if something X said is morally wrong or right, you don't believe christians are capable of doing just that.
there are christians and muslims that don't adhere to the ideas that women should be subservient to men, that gays will be going to hell and so on. does that make them less christian/muslim? no. who decided that believing in a global flood is integral to being a christian?
" If you are getting your rules or morality from religion, then surely there is a large danger of incorrectly incorporating one of those immoral rules"
no, because being a christian doesn't mean i am a drone, unable to think for myself. regardless of what your opinion is of christians/muslims/jews. no christian is required to adhere to every rule from every sect/cult ever created. you obey each of those rules or not, as your conscience dictates.
Originally posted by Kepleryou are wrong. that was not fostered by mathematicians. it was fostered by loonies who happened to be mathematicians.
Eugenics remember? Fostered by two greats of statistics, Fisher and Pearson. Both were mathematicians. That will do for a start on the harm mathematicians can do if they put their minds to it.
Scientists did not make dioxin by the ton. Industry made dioxin by the ton. Captains of industry are generally not research scientists. They employ scientists to dis ...[text shortened]... re are safety concerns that arise after the fact the lawyers get wheeled in, not the scientists.
no fancy math is involved in the wacky idea of "hmm, let's start killing/neutering people we don't deem worthy to reproduce".
Originally posted by e4chrisI can assure you that a mathematician can chuck dioxin just as well as any other person. If anything we can calculate the path it will take with greater precision.
The worst a mathemitician can do is chuck a bit of chalk at you ... but dioxin etc shows the need for morals in science