Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Article: Religion and Science
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 230 (218052)
06-19-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TimChase
06-19-2005 1:36 PM


I don't hold with the "Seperate Magesterium" or whatever its called.
The realm of empirical knowledge belongs to science, whereas religion ministers to the need for normative guidance.
Why can't science be the basis for normative guidance? In fact, I'll go farther - prove to me that empiricism isn't already the basis for every person's practical morality.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-19-2005 02:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TimChase, posted 06-19-2005 1:36 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TimChase, posted 06-19-2005 7:02 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 5 by TimChase, posted 06-19-2005 7:23 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 06-22-2005 4:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 230 (218147)
06-19-2005 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by TimChase
06-19-2005 7:02 PM


Re: An Empirical Moral Guide...
I personally believe that experience must inform our ethical decisions, but there are certain difficulties which face a "system" which attempts to defend certain fundamental ethical principles simply by reference to experience -- which, as I understand it, would be what is required for empiricism to arrive at fundamental ethical principles by which to guide actions.
Empiricism arrives at practical principles, not fundamental ones. Why would we need fundamental principles when practical ones suffice? For that matter is there anyone, really, that truly follows a fundamental moral code? I would suggest that situtational ethics, relativism, are the universal rule.
A garden-variety criminal may very well have little problem with this sort of approach, chosing to be honest only when he believes that honesty is a practical means of achieving his ends.
So, in other words, we would find that people are generally honest except when the consequences would be really bad. How is that different from the way it is?
And how does one non-arbitrarily pick an end by reference to which one will judge actions or the principles which guide actions?
You're starting to get backwards. You don't justify empiricism by recourse to assumed axioms. I'm sure you know as well as I do that tentative axioms are derived from experience and observation.
People don't need to be told what makes them happy and what makes them suffer; they don't need to derive those positions from axioms in order to experience them. They are experienced. That fact is sufficient to derive normative guidance, as evidenced by the fact that that's how normative guidance has always been derived.
Of course, we will need some sort of causal analysis which shows that they do in fact achieve or can serve as the means to achieving those other ends, but then we are faced with a regress, one which may either be finite or infinite.
The only thing we regress to is observation and experience. Empiricism, remember?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TimChase, posted 06-19-2005 7:02 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TimChase, posted 06-20-2005 3:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 230 (218168)
06-20-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TimChase
06-20-2005 3:53 AM


Re: An Empirical Moral Guide...
I was speaking of morality, not merely practical principles.
Then there's no such thing as the first, only the second.
Could a society wait for its young to perform these inductions prior to their achieving adulthood?
Doesn't it have to? Isn't that why we have an entirely separate, more lenient criminal justice system for minors?
But empiricism doesn't mean that we all have to induct separately; just as in science, communication means that we share the results of another individual's hard work.
If the simple fact that one experiences pleasure from a given activity is sufficient for deriving normative guidance, then what of the serial killer -- who derives something akin to ecstasy from torturing and killing someone, and then reliving his "precious" experiences through personal mementos?
What about his victims?
I mean that pretty much answers it for me. I don't need a highfalutin' moral precept to know that society has an interest in disallowing personal pleasure at the cost of someone else's involuntary suffering.
To take a less extreme example, what of theft? If someone were to steal one of your possessions, would you have any sort of justification for other people to act in defense of your property?
Consider the two potentialities: one is, you steal from me, the other is that you do not.
Now, which of those outcome leads to the greatest suffering? If we're talking about my new TV, probably the first. If we're talking about bread, and your family is starving, probably the second.
Like I said I don't see a need to appeal to a principle that I have no way to verify, when an empiric consideration of the consequences shows me how to act.
At any rate, I think we've certainly demonstrated that your initial premise is suspect - there's enough overlap, science extends far enough into the domain of ethics and guidance that it is incorrect to assert that religion provides something that science cannot. Religion is one way to understand your place in the world; science is another. In that sense they do compete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TimChase, posted 06-20-2005 3:53 AM TimChase has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 230 (219251)
06-24-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
06-24-2005 8:13 AM


Re: Refrain from Making Insults
This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --Admin
Blessed are the persecuted-for-righteousness'-sake, Amen.
Man, persecuted on an Internet forum. Your life must be hell.
This message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 06-24-2005 8:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 06-24-2005 8:24 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024