Re: Regarding Lenny's post on science/religion/morality

"Morbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >  <snip>
> > > > > I am well aware of what you are trying to say and I myself have
been
> > > > > involved in many a "debate" about what science (usually evolution)
has
> > > > > to "say" about morality (namely nothing)...  Science obviously
says
> > > > > nothing about what morality/ethics/opinions should be.... But
Science
> > > > > say what morality/ethics/opinions ARE...  And if anybody makes a
> > > > > statement regarding what they should be... Science interprets it
as
> > > > > just more opinion/taste...  You are/MUST be aware that there is no
> > > > > "moral" constant.  And therefore, science does not say that it
cannot
> > > > > find a moral constant, it says that there IS no moral constant.
> > > > > Likewise "Is murder wrong?" is not addressed by science as "I
don't
> > > > > know... I can't find an answer."  It is instead addressed by
"There is
> > > > > no ethical constant, and therefore, murder cannot be said to be
wrong
> > > > > or right."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then what are we arguing over.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The way I see it, we disagree over the consequences of separating a
> > > statement from science....
> > >
> > > As I mentioned earlier, science is the only way we can properly
> > > understand the universe.  So if we put forward any statement or belief
> > > that has "nothing to do with science"... Then it has nothing to do
> > > with the way the universe works, and all it's implications fall apart.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fine with me.  "Is murder wrong" has nothing to do with "the way the
> > universe works."
> >
> > That doesn't translate into "irrelevant to human understanding".
> >
>
>
> Yes it does.  I have told you that before....  You gotta define it
> before it can hold any meaning...
>
> > > For example: "Is chocolate ice-cream 'better' than vanilla?"  Such a
> > > question can be called "separate from science".  So what's the
> > > consequence of this?  The consequence is that it's 'proposal' falls
> > > apart.  Chocolate ice cream is not found to be better than vanilla,
> > > and the question deflates into a meaningless statement, subjective or
> > > otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Murder is wrong" is not "meaningless".  Just try killing someone, and
> > you'll quickly find out how non-"meaningless" it is.
> >
> "Murder is wrong" is meaningless....

You mean that ethics, morality, justice have no meaning? Perhaps in
Morbert-space. . .


> Killing someone isn't...  I'm not
> going to kill someone because such an act would cause huge amounts of
> stress, guilt and shame for me.  Plus, I would get into a serious
> amount of trouble.

Many people don't murder simply because they know it is wrong.


> Lenny, I'm gonna spell it out for you (again).  Wrong means factually
> incorrect.

You have changed the meaning of the word. Wrong in this case means "unjust"
or "immoral."


> It doesn't MATTER whether you think murder is factually
> incorrect or not.  Science sees murder as not wrong.

Actually, science has no perception of right and wrong. Like much of human
experience, it is outside the purview of science.


> The same way
> science doesn't give a shit if one thinks refuting creationism leads
> to moral incorrectness.   In fact, the only way one can hold morality
> with ANY sort of integrity is by recognising it for what it is... A
> code of conduct and NOT some sort of cosmic absolute.

Some people trace trace their morality to a cosmic absolute. Can you use the
scientific method to demonstrate that they are incorrect? (Keep in mind that
the scientific method is inductive, not deductive.)

By the way, you have never, ever provided any scientific evidence to
demonstrate your point. You have however offered some information that most
people think "murder is wrong." But can you use the scientific method to
determine if they are correct? Of course not. It is not a scientific
question, and science has no answer. It is *outside science*.


> >  And it turns out that the only way to give such a
> > > statement any sort of meaning is to apply the principles of science
> >
>
> >
> > OK.  Apply the principles of science to the question "is murder
> > wrong".  <shrug>
> >
> Ok.. I will assume you mean "wrong" as "morally wrong" or "against
> ones morals...
>
> The answer, after a hypothetical survey (I'm not heading out there in
> the rain) and observation of the law in the world we get a (quick)
> result...

Oops. I can feel the etymological equilibrium shifting.


> "Over (approximately) 97% of the population hold murder against their
> moral code.  Therefore, murder is wrong to that portion of the
> populace.
<snip more of same>

But that isn't the question. The question (rephrased) is whether "wanton
killing of other people is unjust". Ninety-seven percent of the people might
be mistaken.

Can you apply the scientific method to issues of morality, ethics, justice,
beauty? No. However, you can pretend these issues don't exist--and in the
rarified region of logic called Morbert-space, they simply don't exist.