Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:03 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Science vs Morality
#31
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm)Mozart Link Wrote: But the concept of "superior" has a scientific explanation because everything has a scientific explanation. Therefore, since there would have to be a scientific definition of "superior," then that is what determines whether that definition applies here in my argument or not.

Nonsense. There is no scientific definition of superior. Relative subjective criteria, such as superior, are purely philosophical descriptors. Once the criteria is agreed to, science can be used to measure attributes which can then be used to rank examples.

Working the other direction is also possible. Science can accumulate facts about entities and can even order examples on a min/max scale, but as far as determining which is superior would be a philosophical matter.

I would post a video if I could so you'll have to settle for this transcript of a scene from Master and Commander which I think helps illustrate my point:

[Dinner in the officers' mess. The captain is inebriated, but asks apparently seriously]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: Do you see those two weevils doctor?
Dr. Stephen Maturin: I do.
Capt. Jack Aubrey: Which would you choose?
Dr. Stephen Maturin: [sighs annoyed] Neither; there is not a scrap a difference between them. They are the same species of Curculio.
Capt. Jack Aubrey: If you had to choose. If you were forced to make a choice. If there was no other response...
Dr. Stephen Maturin: [Exasperated] Well then if you are going to *push* me...
[the doctor studies the weevils briefly]
Dr. Stephen Maturin: ...I would choose the right hand weevil; it has... significant advantage in both length and breadth.
[the captain thumps his fist in the table]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: There, I have you! You're completely dished! Do you not know that in the service...
[pauses]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: ...one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
[the officers burst out in laughter]
Reply
#32
RE: Science vs Morality
I just started reading that series (as a kid I read Two Years Before the Mast) - and it's alot better than I thought it would be. Really digging it, got every book in the series for my Kindle.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#33
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I just started reading that series (as a kid I read Two Years Before the Mast) - and it's alot better than I thought it would be. Really digging it, got every book in the series for my Kindle.

I have them all in paperback and they are well thumbed. They are good to the last book. Be aware that he died before finishing the series so there's no really conclusive ending. Don't forget The Golden Ocean and The Unknown Shore which are some of Obrien's best though not part of the Aubrey/Maturine series.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#34
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 1:30 pm)Mozart Link Wrote:
(July 2, 2014 at 1:25 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Quote and source that definition.
I can't. You have to find it yourself because it's obviously there.

Why can't you find it if it's obviously there?
Badger Badger Badger Badger Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?
Reply
#35
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 3:33 am)ignoramus Wrote: That falls in line with belief systems nicely.
You sacrifice your "intelligence" for the more pleasurable emotion, namely your belief that you are at one with god.
Also explains why most intellectuals and scientists aren't religious.

In my opinion, people can make two possible choices. You can choose to lack belief in any deities since there is no inductive or deductive evidence - This is the hardest path one can take, there are no fairy tales, no afterlife, no miracles, no one watching over your shoulder; or you can choose to believe in a supreme entity, it will give you comfort and probably make you happier, but it is still not the right decision, since there is no proof to believe a god exists, just like unicorns or dragons. I consider the first one to be the current (and probably will always be) truth, but like I've heard some people saying, a lot of people couldn't handle the truth.

I'll admit lacking belief was easy at first, but when I started to mature it certainly didn't make me happy. Sure the thought of no hell is comfortable, no superstition, no ghosts or haunted houses, but I had and still have a hard time coping with the fact I will cease to exist one day, everything that defines me will be gone and swift to eternal emptiness/nothingness, this is a problem that gave me a severe depression but I was ashamed to tell my family since I'm not an out of the closet atheist. After two years, I feel a lot better and have been doing progress, I'm getting comfortable and ok everyday with the thoughts of dying, it doesn't bother me anymore.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#36
RE: Science vs Morality
Two other problems here:
You're interchanging definition and explanation at times when they mean two completely separate things.

And second, superior is a relative term, not an absolute term.
You can't just 'be superior'. You have to be superior to something or at something.
IE.... Flying: Birds are superior to humans.
Building computers: Humans are superior to birds.
You can't just say "Humans are superior". That sentence in itself is meaningless.
Reply
#37
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm)Mozart Link Wrote:
(July 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Ah, there we go.

In science there is no such thing as a 'more superior living thing'. So, you're either making this up from your own opinion, or your "science" sources aren't doing science.
But the concept of "superior" has a scientific explanation because everything has a scientific explanation. Therefore, since there would have to be a scientific definition of "superior," then that is what determines whether that definition applies here in my argument or not.

If the bolded statement above is true, please provide a 'scientific explanation' for each of the following:

-Dark matter/Dark energy.

-Methane found by the Viking lander.

-The horizon effect.

-Tetraneutrons.

-The anomalous drift in the trajectories of both Pioneer spacecraft.

-The placebo effect.

All of the above are real - their existence isn't in doubt. But there is - as yet - no scientific explanation for them. Kindly provide one.

And, before you embarrass yourself further with your stunning ignorance about what science is and does, try to remember that a definition does NOT count as an explanation.

Boru

Addendum: Watching you twist like a Millerite in the wind gives me pleasure. This must make me superior to you.
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#38
RE: Science vs Morality
If, let's pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure, if you were to lose all your pleasure and become severely depressed (obviously the worst depression you can possibly have), this would be worse than death and worse than losing all your intelligence and other brain functions. You do not need a sense of personal opinion and such to come to the conclusion that losing all your pleasure would be worse (it would be something catastrophically worse). It's something self-explanatory (common sense) and you don't need any knowledge of science or anything. Therefore, this proves my argument of pleasure obviously being the greatest function of the brain which means pleasure is the greatest part of who you are and if you lose that, then you are reduced to a mere emotionless robot. And that would, in fact, make you less of a person because you have lost the one and only greatest thing that defines you.
Reply
#39
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 11:12 pm)Mozart Link Wrote: If, let's pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure, if you were to lose all your pleasure and become severely depressed (obviously the worst depression you can possibly have), this would be worse than death and worse than losing all your intelligence and other brain functions. You do not need a sense of personal opinion and such to come to the conclusion that losing all your pleasure would be worse (it would be something catastrophically worse). It's something self-explanatory (common sense) and you don't need any knowledge of science or anything. Therefore, this proves my argument of pleasure obviously being the greatest function of the brain which means pleasure is the greatest part of who you are and if you lose that, then you are reduced to a mere emotionless robot. And that would, in fact, make you less of a person because you have lost the one and only greatest thing that defines you.

*sigh*

Losing all of any kind of brain function is often fatal. What about losing the part of your brain that handles involuntary systems like heart beat? Instant death. Heart beat is the most superior function of the brain.

Nonsense of course. But just as logical or illogical as yours.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#40
RE: Science vs Morality
(July 2, 2014 at 11:42 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(July 2, 2014 at 11:12 pm)Mozart Link Wrote: If, let's pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure, if you were to lose all your pleasure and become severely depressed (obviously the worst depression you can possibly have), this would be worse than death and worse than losing all your intelligence and other brain functions. You do not need a sense of personal opinion and such to come to the conclusion that losing all your pleasure would be worse (it would be something catastrophically worse). It's something self-explanatory (common sense) and you don't need any knowledge of science or anything. Therefore, this proves my argument of pleasure obviously being the greatest function of the brain which means pleasure is the greatest part of who you are and if you lose that, then you are reduced to a mere emotionless robot. And that would, in fact, make you less of a person because you have lost the one and only greatest thing that defines you.

*sigh*

Losing all of any kind of brain function is often fatal. What about losing the part of your brain that handles involuntary systems like heart beat? Instant death. Heart beat is the most superior function of the brain.

Nonsense of course. But just as logical or illogical as yours.
Death itself is not a horrible experience because you experience nothing when dead. But as for the experience that leads to death (your heart shutting down and such), losing all of your pleasure is the absolute worst experience you can have and is worse than any other such horrible experience. Again, as I just stated, it is common sense and you do not need to have any knowledge or value whatsoever towards pleasure and such to know this.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  No morality in science ? StuW 3 1116 August 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science FifthElement 23 7633 June 25, 2013 at 10:54 am
Last Post: Rahul
  Study: the origin of morality Foxaèr 30 7772 May 13, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Last Post: Godscreated
  Book exploring evolution and morality. Brian37 3 1722 March 23, 2013 at 8:15 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Science Laughs: Science Comedian Brian Malow orogenicman 4 4240 December 10, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Last Post: Lethe



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)