Science vs Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2014, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2014 12:07 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:14 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  According to science, morals are false and irrational. For example, the religious moral that homosexuality is a sin is something many atheists know is false according to science.
Umm.....No. Science has only a say in empirical matters. It does not have any say in what is a sin and what isn't. Now, if you had phrased it "homosexuality isn't natural' then that would be within the realm of science, however, it wouldn't be a moral, just a belief.

Quote:However, these same atheists are unaware that their own personal morals such as helping others, not harming or criticizing others, and not seeking self-glory and attention are also false according to science.


Actually, there is a whole study on morals, specifically, the origins thereof and its highly interesting. here is even a belief that morality, or at least the basic moral concepts are selected for by evolution. Other animals display the traits I specifically bolded in your posts. In fact, with social species, it is highly beneficial to help others, as you may rely on these others at a later time, or in your ordinary life. In fact a species of bats make "deals" with one another, and if one bat is majorly selfish, or doesn't live up to the deal, they will be ostracized from the group. It the same way if you are a jerk to people, they will be less inclined to help you out. So it pays to be nice, or go out of your way for someone.

Quote:They are no different than morals from religion (the only difference being that religious morals are from primitive superstitious belief and that their own personal morals are from their own personal views of life). But they are both similar in that they are from personal views in life and not from scientific facts.

Well... yeah. that's what morals are. They are certain beliefs on how one should act. They don't need scientific fact to weigh in on them because science, in the empirical proving sense, has nothing to do with morals. Just because science isn't involved, doesn't necessarily mean its useless.

Quote:If we were to look at everything from a scientific perspective and not from a moral point of view, then everything would all just be a natural scientific process that we won't frown upon (because this is the perspective that atheists already have towards things like homosexuality as they are already aware that homosexuality is something scientifically natural).

Except that just because its natural, doesn't mean its good and or should be tolerated. Like I said, science has no real claim on morality other than maybe claiming natural processes (like evolution) or base instincts are the cause of them. Science doesn't tell you how things should be, but rather how things are.

Quote:According to science, the concept of something "bad" is when a pain signal or a signal that triggers a loss of pleasure reaches the brain (even emotions such as anger and sadness are recognized by the brain as something "bad"). Therefore, if someone were to have the attitude of harming others and decides to do it and takes pleasure in doing so, only the harm that these people are experiencing is something bad for them. But as for this person's attitude and actions, they are not bad.


Sam Harris made an outline for a objective moral standard (Good is what promotes or benefits yours or others' well-being, whilst bad is the opposite, to paraphrase him). Perhaps you should check it out, you some extra reading on a subject you might find interesting.

Quote:Only the pain and unpleasant emotions themselves that these people are experiencing are bad for them.
Again, science does not tell you what is right or wrong. It is my personal beliefs that a basic moral compass is evolutionary, and the society is the main contributor to providing, or inspiring certain moral beliefs.

Quote:Actions are nothing more than a series of atomic activity (and this even goes for an attitude which is nothing more than a series of neuron activity and such in the brain). Therefore, attitude and actions by themselves are not bad as they are not pain or unpleasant emotional experiences. Even if you were to interpret these things as bad, the scientific fact is that they are not. All it is is just a matter of one person experiencing personal pleasure (in this case, from harming others) while other people experience misery and nothing more.

Which only strengthens the argument that science is not a basis for morality. It comes independent of the study of things (matter, biology, physics). Science may help put things into perspective, but it does not dictate anything that would be considered moral or immoral. Why do you believe science does or should?

Quote:Having feelings of anger and such towards someone who chooses and has the attitude of harming others and such may be an evolutionary response in getting problems solved (in this case, the problem being harm being done to others). And that by having feelings of anger and such towards this person, that would be a way of trying to change this person so that they stop causing this problem. But the scientific fact of the matter is that you do not have to be a part of evolution in this sense and what others think of you. You are free to think, feel, and do whatever you want according to science.

UGGG, because science has no moral authority! I've said this a billion times!

Quote:Therefore, based on my reasoning here, does this give anyone the right to do anything they want in life? If not, you would have to scientifically explain why. Otherwise, any moral explanation you come up with against my argument would be false and irrational according to science.

Why scientifically? Why are you setting up a question which could not be answered? D yo honestly think that that is even a remotely fair question to ask? First of all, its not even remotely smart, nor has anything in your paragraph established that science SHOULD have a moral say so, not to mention the fact that you have failed to prove it DOES.

Essentially, until you prove that science does have a say so in morality, that question can be discounted as nothing but a stupid question raised by someone who hasn't proved anything. Killing is bad because it does have negative effects on the killers, and the victims. It can be proven such.

Quote:Finally, it's also a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble.

Uhhhh.... citation needed, and fuck you.

Quote: If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science.


.....?Dodgy

Quote:If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers.
Except we are dealing with concepts and emotions like pleasure and pain and not physical capabilities like the amount of RAM you have.

Quote: Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person.
That depends on what you mean by 'better person.'
Quote:But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that).






Quote: You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure.

Uhhh, no. Fuck you.

Quote:Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.

citation needed, buck-o.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
04-07-2014, 11:07 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(04-07-2014 09:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 09:39 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  He's most definitely a troll that's been rather sufficiently demonstrated in past threads. He lacks intellectual capabilities or the imagination, being ludicrously boring, to be a poe. A bot..maybe.

Personal I just stick with stupid and call it a day.Drinking Beverage

Or a rather depressed rather young (bright) adolescent. Not sure.
Eh, could be but I don't think depression causes you to regurgitate the same talking points over and over and over in every thread, on multiple forums. Even if I give you depressed and young, which hell sure why not, you ain't getting bright outta me.

No way does someone who gets what science is and how it works so fundamentally wrong repeatedly, time and time again, even after dozens of well written explanations get called "bright". I refuse to have the bar set that low.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 06:22 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
(04-07-2014 08:57 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  A part of what makes a person superior is having no depression in their lives. If they are superior to suffering and life's struggles, then that means they don't even have to deal with them in the first place. Or that if they do, then they would completely overcome them. Otherwise, if they don't overcome them, then they will never be superior to their problems.

Lack of depression does not make a person any more superior. Happiness is not a mark of superiority - or even necessarily a marker of quality of life.

You completely misunderstand the nature of depression - either unwittingly or not - in this paragraph.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 06:29 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
Quote:Therefore, for people who have depression in their lives that they can't overcome, if they wish to be superior, then they should choose to end their lives because ending your life would completely overcome the problem of depression. Otherwise, they would forever be bound to being inferior human beings by their own depression.
Again - misunderstanding - overcoming depression is not a permanent process - sometimes you win - sometimes you lose - and sometimes it can last months or years in the positive before the black dog comes out to play.

I'm interested that you use the phrase 'want to be superior'. I don't think most people go through life trying to be superior to others, merely to lead the best existence that they can - regardless of where they are in any kind of hierarchy.

Also interesting that you say that the logical conclusion to ending depression is suicide. If that is your argument then surely the same applies to any long-term medical condition such as cancer, MS or schizophrenia. When placed on the same level your argument is seen to be patently absurd.

Furthermore - if you're an atheist then ending your life brings no sense of superiority because the vast majority do not believe in any kind of afterlife.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 06:30 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
(04-07-2014 08:57 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  Therefore, if I was chronically depressed right now with no way of it going away, me choosing to end my life would give me the last laugh because I now know that I am superior to my own depression and suffering by choosing to overcome these things through death. I wish to dictate my own life and have no problems in life dictating how I feel (this would obviously include the problem of depression). So me choosing to die would give me this power and make me superior.

Your pattern of thinking is achingly familiar here - if you're not trolling and are being genuine then I wonder if you yourself are actually depressed.

(04-07-2014 08:57 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  As I stated before, I realize that this is the one and only life. Therefore, since this is the one and only life, that is why I wish for it to be a perfect fantasy world (just in terms of my pleasure). Therefore, if it can't be that way, then I will gladly end my life. However, if I were to have problems in my life that don't hinder my pleasure, then that would be fine. But if I were to have depression which does take away my pleasure, that's when I would decide to end my life providing that the depression never goes away completely. But in the meantime if I did have the depression, I would wait for it to go away completely first. If it doesn't, that's when I would end my life.
Can you define or give an example of a problem that does not hinder your pleasure? Surely such a thing is then not a problem?

Again you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of depression on multiple fronts in this paragraph - if you wish for me to be more specific then feel free to ask but there are so many falsehoods through your entire post that if I were to deal with all of them in the depth I would like, then I'd have to lock myself away for a week in order to do it...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
As another person who deals with depression I would like to say your statements seem misguided at best and offensive at worst. The fact that I deal with recurring bouts of depression does NOT make me an inferior human being. If you think it does then give me some evidence of this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
If you are the type of person to derive positive value from struggles, then philosophies that say struggles in life give positive value does hold true for these types of people. But if you are like me who utterly detests struggles and finds no positive value from them and wants nothing to do with them, then this doesn't hold true for me or anyone else like me. Again, I do not mind struggles themselves. The only struggle I do mind is depression (so this is what we are talking about when I mean struggles). The ideal truth would be that feelings of pleasure (including love and many others) are the greatest gifts to you and absolutely no one or nothing can take these away from you. How do you feel about that? I bet you are feeling right now that this is the absolute truth of life and that this is the main thing that makes us as human beings.

But what if I told you right now that there is, in fact, something that can take these things away from you? And that would obviously be depression. So how do you feel now? I bet you feel enraged that such an inferior abomination exists. I bet now you utterly detest depression and that there is no positive value whatsoever you can deem from it.

It wouldn't make sense anyway to derive pleasure (positive value) from something that takes away your pleasure. Also, if you somehow think that depression and struggles in life give your life greater positive value, I feel that this would be false because you can have much more positive value through having a life of no struggles and depression. For example, if depression is something you think has given your life positive value because of the fact that you are socializing and sharing your feelings with those who also have depression (or any other positive value of such), the fact of the matter is that you can socialize and share your feelings in healthier ways without struggles or depression in life and this would have greater positive value because with depression, you have both a negative and a positive going on. You have depression (which is obviously negative) and you have socializing and sharing your feelings with others which is positive. But without depression, then you would have 2 positives. You would feel happy with no depression (this is the 1st positive) and you would socialize and share your feelings with others (which is the 2nd positive). This is why having no depression in life has greater positive value (obviously because two positive values in life are greater than just one positive value). So basically, gaining positive value through struggles and depression in life is pointless when you could have gained positive value through something much better (a life of no struggles and no depression).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
(05-07-2014 09:31 AM)Mozart Link Wrote:  If you are the type of person to derive positive value from struggles, then philosophies that say struggles in life give positive value does hold true for these types of people. But if you are like me who utterly detests struggles and finds no positive value from them and wants nothing to do with them, then this doesn't hold true for me or anyone else like me. Again, I do not mind struggles themselves. The only struggle I do mind is depression (so this is what we are talking about when I mean struggles). The ideal truth would be that feelings of pleasure (including love and many others) are the greatest gifts to you and absolutely no one or nothing can take these away from you. How do you feel about that? I bet you are feeling right now that this is the absolute truth of life and that this is the main thing that makes us as human beings.

But what if I told you right now that there is, in fact, something that can take these things away from you? And that would obviously be depression. So how do you feel now? I bet you feel enraged that such an inferior abomination exists. I bet now you utterly detest depression and that there is no positive value whatsoever you can deem from it.

It wouldn't make sense anyway to derive pleasure (positive value) from something that takes away your pleasure. Also, if you somehow think that depression and struggles in life give your life greater positive value, I feel that this would be false because you can have much more positive value through having a life of no struggles and depression. For example, if depression is something you think has given your life positive value because of the fact that you are socializing and sharing your feelings with those who also have depression (or any other positive value of such), the fact of the matter is that you can socialize and share your feelings in healthier ways without struggles or depression in life and this would have greater positive value because with depression, you have both a negative and a positive going on. You have depression (which is obviously negative) and you have socializing and sharing your feelings with others which is positive. But without depression, then you would have 2 positives. You would feel happy with no depression (this is the 1st positive) and you would socialize and share your feelings with others (which is the 2nd positive). This is why having no depression in life has greater positive value (obviously because two positive values in life are greater than just one positive value). So basically, gaining positive value through struggles and depression in life is pointless when you could have gained positive value through something much better (a life of no struggles and no depression).

What is the capital of Germany?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
05-07-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
Facepalm

No. I do not agree.

The greatest pleasure or joy in life comes from being a fully actual used being. From achievement of goals and values and the pride that stems from that. I feel joy and pleasure when I see a beam I designed take a load to reinforcing weight ratio of over 50x. I feel joy and pleasure when I conquer a challenging program or engineering problem. I feel joy and pleasure when I see something I designed and built performing at or above expectations.

Now in my case depression is cyclical, caused by imbalances in certain hormones. My birth control pills help by releasing hormones that even me out and I eat a high protein diet which also helps. Depression does not steal my fulfillment. It does not make me feel like an inferior human being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
Quote:If you are the type of person to derive positive value from struggles, then philosophies that say struggles in life give positive value does hold true for these types of people. But if you are like me who utterly detests struggles and finds no positive value from them and wants nothing to do with them, then this doesn't hold true for me or anyone else like me. Again, I do not mind struggles themselves. The only struggle I do mind is depression (so this is what we are talking about when I mean struggles). The ideal truth would be that feelings of pleasure (including love and many others) are the greatest gifts to you and absolutely no one or nothing can take these away from you. How do you feel about that? I bet you are feeling right now that this is the absolute truth of life and that this is the main thing that makes us as human beings.

Disagree - not least because how could you conceive of such perfection without any kind of fly in the ointment - in the situation you describe - nothing would happen.

Quote:But what if I told you right now that there is, in fact, something that can take these things away from you? And that would obviously be depression.


There are a myriad of other things that could take away pleasure besides depression.

Quote:So how do you feel now? I bet you feel enraged that such an inferior abomination exists. I bet now you utterly detest depression and that there is no positive value whatsoever you can deem from it.

Not inferior because it's part of the psyche - to call it inferior is to grossly simplify it.

In the long term I would consider it arguable that depression can have positive outcomes for some people - of course, it is impossible to know how these compare with what would have happened without depression.

Quote:It wouldn't make sense anyway to derive pleasure (positive value) from something that takes away your pleasure.


In the long-term of course it is - that is why people work towards future goals and don't live entirely in the short-term.

Al
Quote:so, if you somehow think that depression and struggles in life give your life greater positive value, I feel that this would be false because you can have much more positive value through having a life of no struggles and depression.


Examples or citations?

Quote:For example, if depression is something you think has given your life positive value because of the fact that you are socializing and sharing your feelings with those who also have depression (or any other positive value of such), the fact of the matter is that you can socialize and share your feelings in healthier ways without struggles or depression in life and this would have greater positive value because with depression, you have both a negative and a positive going on. You have depression (which is obviously negative) and you have socializing and sharing your feelings with others which is positive. But without depression, then you would have 2 positives.


All purely hypothetical

Quote:You would feel happy with no depression (this is the 1st positive) and you would socialize and share your feelings with others (which is the 2nd positive). This is why having no depression in life has greater positive value (obviously because two positive values in life are greater than just one positive value). So basically, gaining positive value through struggles and depression in life is pointless when you could have gained positive value through something much better (a life of no struggles and no depression).


You make the mistake of assuming that the only key to happiness is a lack of depression - I submit to you that this is bullshit of the highest order. Surely you could just as easily make the same argument for those of us that also have physical disabilities - that the key to us having better lives would be not to have those conditions.

What you're doing is missing the point that these long-term conditions either physical or psychological have an effect on the individual's make-up and so if you were to say to me that my life would be better without cerebral palsy (which affects my ability to walk) - in reality that point is not worth making because then I would be somebody else in terms of personality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: