the rules in science

"Not allowed"? Where do you think this unbending rule comes from? Who decided this "rule" and why must we adhere to this "rule"?I think you are confusing what science is able, or not able, to meaningfully study and this silly "rule" concept of yours. And why must we accept this assertion of yours that there even is a supernatural realm? Never mind accept that "why questions" somehow belong there. Has it? Where do you get this from? There are numerous "why questions" science can and has answered.
Why does the Earth go round the Sun? According to the outlandish assertions made in your previous topic the Earth and all other inanimate objects are as equally capable of decisions as brained up human beings. So why does the Earth go round the sun?
Science has an answer to this "why question" but your decisions based theory does not. Is psychology science in your view?
It also depends what it is you are claiming makes decisions. Are we talking just conscious beings or are you, as before, extending this to all inanimate objects as well.It seems to me that if you take your decisions theory at face value and apply it, as you have done previously, to inanimate objects then the problem that you have is answering all the why questions that science can and has answered.Why do planets, viruses, cars, transistors etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. behave as science expects them to if they are able to "choose" to do otherwise?It is you and your silly decisions nonsense that is unable to answer any of the "why questions". Not science.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Unless you are claiming that God exists but has no physical effect on the universe then objective evidence should be available to support the exitence of God. If these areas have a physical basis as all the evidence indicates then why can we not study these things scientifically?If brain damage affects peoples sense of morality why should science not examine this phenomenon.Your silly "rule" regarding what science should and should not examine is based on some sort of dogmatic misapprehension. The only limit on that which science can investigate is that only empirical evidence is a valid basis on which to draw conclusions.If empirical evidence exists for a given phenomenon then science can investigate that phenomenon. As long as conclusions are based on empirical evidence all sorts of questions can be answered depending on the nature of the investigation. How, what, when, which and yes - Why. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I never said that there was.But why should that stop us scientifically studying the effects of brain damage on people's moral decisions? For example.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can you give a specific example of the science you are objecting to and where it is that this science claims to give us objective criteria for making moral judgements?Name a specific example of science determining right from wrong rather than empirically examining the basis of such choices.You seem to think this is a widespread problem so give us some examples.

What "rule"? Who wrote this "rule"? Why must we adhere to this "rule"? The fact is that there is no rule. There is simply the limitation of science to investigate only that which is empirical.All the empirical evidence suggests that goodness, badness, love, hate and gods are indeed concepts. Concepts derived by brained creatures. Not only are they concepts they are concepts that are applied inconsistently across human cultures.If the basis on which moral decisions are made can be studied empirically then science will indeed be able to investigate these concepts and their their basis in empirical reality.

This is not science saying what is morally right or wrong as per your original claim. This is not science being "judgemental" in the way that you suggest This is science saying that the basis for such concepts cannot be divorced entirely from the physical aspects of reality. Such concepts are rooted in the physical. Such concepts are derived from brains.If the empirical evidence does indeed suggest that good, bad, love, hate and god are indeed concepts derived from brained conscious creatures rather than somehow things wholly removed from the physical world then on what basis do you disagree with this conclusion? Other than faith based dogma?

No it is not. That is the whole point. It is a statment of fact regarding inanimate objects and mindless physical processes. Science in itself makes no such judgement. It may however explain the basis on which we as human beings make such judgements. Things that cannot make decisions cannot make moral choices. Hence the decription of nature as pitiless and indifferent. This is not the same as morally wrong. It is simply a statement of the fact that inanimate objects do not and cannot make such choices.Lets put aside the question as to whether inanimate objects are capable of moral choices for one moment.Do you agree that if inanimate objects and physical processes are indeed incapable of such choices then nature is indeed "indifferent and pitiless"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

"Forced" implies some sort of external coersion. Descriptions such as "pitiles and indifferent" are not moral judgements made by science. They are descriptions of mindless physical processes that are incapable of good, evil, love, hate, pity or caring.The whole premise of your OP is misguided in this sense. So you repeatedly and endlessly assert. Yet you refuse to explain why it is that brains seem to be so fundamental to the whole decision making process. Could you make decisions without your brain?Can you give an example of moral decisions being made by non-brained entities?
Can you explain why brain damage or even brain removal seems to have such a profound effect on the ability of conscious beings to make moral decisions?

But you have yet to give an example of where science is being used to make moral judgements.Science suggests that nature is amoral. Not immoral as you sugest. The whole premise of this thread is false. Science can and does study the physical basis of emotions like love etc. Do you consider this to be "wrong"?Why on Earth should we assume that religion has anything worthwhile to say about such matters? Maybe it does. Maybe it does not. But on what basis do you assert that it must? Your whole theory relies on every random act in anture being seen as a decision. What evidence do you have that physical processes are actually decisions rather than mindless acts of nature?Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exacctly does this decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?

All of the above is meaningless blather. As usual you fail to address a single point and continue to go on your merry way with your refuted claims intact as far as you, and you alone, are concerned.The whole premise of the OP ignores the fact that science (and indeed common sense would agree) that nature is mindless and amoral.Your whole position only makes sense if every act of nature is regarded as a moral choice by nature itself. Yet you refuse to examine this question because, I suspect, even you know it is ridiculous.I ask again:Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature? What exactly is it you think psychologists syudy when they investigate love? Are you saying psychologists are artists?

Can you give a specific example of where you think this is happening?

Science views natural processes as mindless and amoral. This is what is meant by "blind pitiless indifference". It has nothing to do with what "ought" or "ought" not to take place. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate where this occurs except by your own twisted interpretation of science. Interpretations borne of ignorance and some sort of anti-scientific prejudice. You are effectively arguing against your own version of science rather than a real one.I, nor any scientist I am aware of, would brand individuals who remain childless as "failures" because in purely biological evolutionary terms they have not "succeeded". Humanity has hopefully progressed beyond such simplistic definitions to the point where the contribution an individual makes to society and humanity as a whole can be judged in more sophisticated terms. Terms however that have got nothing whatsoever to do with sprituality.If nature is indeed mindless and amoral, incapable of morality or immorality, then descriptions such as "blind, pitiless and indifferent" are perfectly accurate and justified.If however, as you assert, acts of nature and inanimate objects are constantly making moral decisions then you need to make this argument. So far you have repeatedly failed to do so at every available opportunity. To examine this I will ask again (for the third time)Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But it is not a good example because science makes no moral judgement in the way that you continually assert it does. Science simply concludes that mindless physical processes are mindless and amoral. Again none of this makes even vague sense unless you assume that physical processes and inanimate objects make moral decisions. An argument that you seem desperately unwilling to confront. I ask for the fourth time:Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?Why do you continually refuse to examine your own conclusions?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ought and ought not has got nothing to do with the "spiritual realm" whatever that might be.
This does not mean, as you seem to falsely assume, that anyone is saying that science can form some kind of objective morality either.
It is not, as you falsely assume, an either or situation.Morality is a subjective human construct that is not dependent either on science or the "spiritual realm". We can make moral choices without either of these having any input.Your ongoing implication that anyone who does not recognise the "spiritual realm" is some kind of cold hearted automaton seeking to objectify everything including morality is not only wrong but ignorant, stupid and and frankly arrogant. Yes it is "vague". Just as human subjectivity is "vague" and just as morality is "vague". None of this however implies that there is any worth or veracity to your even more vague and ill thought out "spiritual realm".If you can give us some more definites about how this "spiritual realm" is involved with morality that would make things much less vague. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This whole debate comes down to whether or not acts of nature are "moral decisions" made by mindless inanimate objects and natural physical processes in the way that you insist and assert. No you have not!! That is the problem. You use meaningless labels such as "spiritual realm" and "decisions" but point blank refuse to describe or explain what you mean by these terms in relation to actual examples. I'll ask yet again:Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature? I have not objectified pity or indifference. Or love. I have simply stated the conclusion that is obvious to almost everybody, creationist or otherwise, that acts of nature and inanimate objects are incapable of moral decisions. Or love. They are amoral. In this sense they are pitiless and indifferent because they are incapable of caring, wanting, desiring or decision-making. A rock can no more be evil than it can be good. Nor can a Tsunami.Is a tsunami a "decision"? Is a tsunami a moral decision made in the spiritual realm? Why won't you explain what you actually mean by "decision" and "spiritual realm"? You have no understanding of the theory that you yourself advocate beyond a superficial belief that it supports your wider subjective world view. Ironically it is you that is trying to objectify your subjective views with a theory of decisions supposedly based on maths about which you have no clue at all.Science suggests that nature is amoral and that the concept of morality is the product of conscious brained beings.
You say that this is untrue and that every act in nature is a "decision" with a moral value derived from the "spiritual realm". Not only do you repeatedly refuse to define what you mean by these vague terms you are also unable to explain any of the following in terms of your alternate "theory":

Why it is that simple inanimate objects act in such predictable ways that suggest that they have little or no freedom at all (e.g. orbiting planets).

Why it is that brained beings are observed to exhibit what appears to be considerably more freedom than those objects that do not possess brains.

Why it is that damage to brains can result in significant effects on subjective views regarding morality.

​

MINDS OF MEN Vs THE SPIRITUAL REALM
Nobody is denying subjectivity. But your ongoing assertion that we should label this with the meaningless term "spiritual realm" is wholly unwarranted.
All the evidence suggests that subjectivity, including morality, is derived from the "minds of men". We know that brains exist. We know that physical changes affect the ability to be subjective and moral. Yet we have no reason at all to think that the "spiritual realm" exists in any way shape or form beyond your assertion that it must.

​

Unless you are able to explain how nature and inanimate objects make "decisions" derived from the "spiritual realm" why should we abandon the very obvious and very physical evidence that if you remove someone's brain they become incapable of moral decisions and indeed all subjectivity?

​

If you insist on divorcing subjectivity from any physical basis then you need to explain why physical phenomenon can have such profound effects on the nature and ability of beings to be subjective. You never confront this issue despite the fact it is fundamental to the theory of decisions that you espouse.

​

CONCLUSION
I don't expect you will be able to answer any of the above questions. I ask mainly to highlight the weaknesses in your position. I am sure that you don't have any answers to such questions and that you will fail to even acknowledge such questions because they refute your whole "decisions" argument.
You have some sort of irrational prejudice against science based on your own straw man version of what science actually is and you have seized upon the first theory to come along that you think supports this twisted view in a gleeful grasp of ignorance.
You have no more idea as to what you mean by the "spiritual realm" or how this might interact with the physical world than I do. It is simply a convenient term for you to use when asserting the validity of your own subjective and unjustifiable views regarding the nature of morality. Views which are themselves derived from irrational faith based dogma.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.