There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

Started by monkey0506, Fri 07/06/2013 07:27:40

Previous topic - Next topic

Problem

Science is a great achievement, but it's ethically neutral. Good or bad - that depends on what we do with the knowledge that science provides us with. So, of course we still need ethics. Ethics and science don't contradict each other, that's a common misunderstanding. Science is about gaining knowledge, and ethics is about what we do with it. That said, ethics doesn't necessarily require a religion.

Atelier

Science is neutral, obviously. In my post I was only discussing those few words alone, 'building a bomb is neither good nor bad', without even referencing science.  Actually, even in context of whether science is good or bad, I still don't see why building a bomb can be considered ethically neutral? Indeed, science really has nothing to do with the statement.

Lt. Smash

The process of building a bomb can be considered good or bad depending on the purpose it serves. If you build a bomb to use it to blast rocks in order to build a street or a tunnel, it may be considered good. If you use it to be able to defend your country, it can also be considered good. But of course you can use every bomb to destroy enemy cities or kill innocent people, which the average person would call bad.

Someone may consider this ethically neutral, as it can serve the good and the bad.

Babar

There are some very odd discussions going on here.

What useful, "good" purposes exactly does a nuclear bomb serve?
Who or what achieved "science"?
What does it mean to achieve science?
What happens when you apply the same criteria ("you can't judge science on its results or the actions of its 'followers'" or "science has been used for good and bad things") to religion or theism?

I know Andail stringently removed all traces of "Is this a useful discussion?" from this thread, but I am curious. We've had a couple of religious threads over the years that ended up as some sort of debate, someone earlier here mentioned how their understandings of theism and faith and belief were "forged" by such discussions, how exactly does that happen? Were they forged, or just reinforced?

The closest thing I can even vaguely remember is some thread about homophobia where a particular (somewhat religious?) member made some comments and was called out on them, and then years later mentioned that thread when they came out, but I don't think there was forging taking place there...
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Khris

If we're talking about extremely powerful bombs in general, one application would be to move an asteroid on a collision course with earth out of its trajectory.

When I said, science is an achievement, I was talking about the scientific method, double-blind trials, peer review, etc. The establishment of a reliable way to find "truth", with demonstrable results and built-in self-correction.

Science is just a tool, while religions address questions of why and morality.
Science tells us that humans are just animals, it doesn't say how we should behave though. Comparing science to theism is useless, it's like comparing a hammer to an instruction booklet.

Regarding the forging of understanding: somebody who wants to hold personal beliefs or opinions for good reasons, who's interested in what's actually true, might encounter arguments for or against their positions and change their mind, or at least shift a view point slightly.
It is true that whenever I'm arguing with religious people, my belief that religions are useless, false and can be actually harmful gets reinforced. I didn't wake up one day and decide that that's going to be my belief from now on though, my stance on religions was "forged" over years, mostly by listening to or reading arguments from atheist and theists. It could have gone either way, and had I found the religious side more convincing, I might be religious today.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that people who are following this debate and get to hear some of the arguments for the first time could draw something useful out of it.

Babar

The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Khris

No, not in the sense that the bible is.
Science says "to get X, do Y" or "X works like this". It doesn't say "do X" or "do not X". I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

Baron

Sorry, I've been away.  Life....

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 10:54:28
Again, I don't trust anything that calls itself science blindly. I am well aware that proper science doesn't have all the answers and maybe never will.

I don't think this opinion is that far off of what I've been trying to express.  I think when approaching a "fact", whether promulgated by a scientist in a research paper, his agent in the field (medical opinion, for example), or indeed a person with deep religious convictions, my first impulse is to be sceptical.  How do you (not you, but the person saying he's right.... well, maybe that is you too) know you're right?  If the scientific methodology easily produced airtight results, there would be a lot more scientific "laws".  Especially when something is going to affect me directly, I am not inclined by disposition to just rely on the opinions of people representing themselves as experts.  I want to be convinced.

Quote[Science] IS the only way to get actual answers though.

There's lots of ways to get answers.  When I'm thinking up a way to make an adventure puzzle work, I don't use anything resembling a methodical approach.  If I'm really stuck I have a beer and think at it laterally, and something usually just pops into my mind.  Some people are divinely inspired, some people rely on instincts, some people find answers in the past, and others are just really good at guessing.  I wholeheartedly concur that science is a very good way to approach problems, but its not the only way and I'm sure there are some circumstances where it's not even the best way.

QuoteIt also sounds like you're saying that until science is 100% perfect and has all the answers, you might as well reject it.
At no point did I say this.  I said I doubt science can produce all the answers, and will critically consider what it has answered and come to my own conclusions.  For the record, I am convinced that global warming is human induced, the ability to cure cancer would be awesome, and the stars are giant orbs of gas and not various quarrelling deities.  On the other hand, I'm not so sure massive genetic engineering of plants to augment the food supply is such a good idea.  I know we could use extra food, but other branches of science have determined that lack of genetic diversity makes a population vulnerable to disease.  What happens if/when the world's rice supply is reduced by 50% due to an unforeseen blight?  A reasonable person ought to conclude that this is risky and that we should think about this for a bit.  You are probably going to say "but science doesn't implement the invention, so it's not the methodology's fault."  But like the nuclear example already beat to death, the foreseeable consequence of knowledge is that it will be used, usually by people with short-term goals that don't entirely understand the long-term ramifications.  Some genies are best left cooped-up.

QuoteIf you don't have access to clean water and keep getting sick, wouldn't you treasure a device that destroys 50% of the pathogens? This is what science does, as opposed to religion, which simply tells you that you'll get all the clean water you'll ever want after you die.

I'm not saying religion overtly has the best approach, but inadvertently it may have a better one.  Humanity has survived for millions of years without devices that destroy pathogens in water.  Yes pathogens in water kill many people, but the remaining population is stronger from a Darwinian point of view.  The elimination of pathogens, which is scientifically rational (especially from an individual's perspective, 'cause you don't want to be the one dying!), may have the unintended consequence of making humanity much more susceptible to mass-death later on.  And this is what I'm talking about in terms of science, compartmentalized and looking only at specific problems in isolated circumstances, not considering the broader implications.  I would reason that a better approach would be to develop a method of ensuring that all people are exposed to all known pathogens in as safe a manner as possible, so that they can handle them later on in the event of shit happening.  This would be a robust solution.  But this would be hard to study/develop/implement.  Science lends itself better to quick-fix solutions to smaller problems, the bigger picture be damned.

QuoteBecause even if we start charging up the good against the bad, the good will always win. Accumulation of knowledge and understanding about the universe will always win out against psychopaths who decided to use new technology to kill.

What?  Is this like a comic book lesson or something?  Good vs. bad?  We are THE BAD, brother!  Our ancestors were the best at wiping out the competition, and so it's their descendants that have inherited the earth.  Ever heard of gentle australopithecus robustus?  Whatever happened to the Neanderthals?  Your and my great-great-great-grand-daddies wiped them out, probably with the technology that the best minds of the day could invent!  I bet those Neanderthals were thinking "Ah, we're good natured folk.  We shall overcome."  If being righteous is your survival strategy I hope you've got your fingers crossed.

QuotePlease point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

As I've said, I am even more sceptical about religion than I am about science.  Having said that, credit where credit is due.  Religion has proven itself to be a fairly good instrument of education over the years.  I know it's been pointed out that this is likely "indoctrination" for the religion's own nefarious purposes, but much good has come of it.  The scientific revolution would hardly have been possible without the protestant reformation: suddenly it was important to teach good Christians to read so that they could read the bible themselves, and this mass literacy enabled the scientific revolution to proceed in a way it probably wouldn't if priests still held a near monopoly on the dissemination of ideas.  The abolitionist movement was intimately intertwined with various religious movements, notably the Society of Friends (but there were many others).
   I think a lot of the flack that religion gets is that it has been co-opted by secular powers that use it as a tool for their own devices.  Jeshua's teachings were mostly positive, as I interpret them, but once the institution built by Paul and especially Constantine took over as universal governing body the movement was twisted almost beyond recognition.  At a personal level I still believe it's possible to embrace the good teachings of good teachers, but once it becomes institutionalized it takes on a life of its own.  Blaming religion for what kings used it for might not be fair, I suppose, but then the religion was an accessory to the crimes, wasn't it?  The religion benefited from the proceeds of power (money, influence...).  But wait.... The kings nowadays are governments, and they base all of their decisions on scientific studies.  They can and do co-opt perfectly innocuous research and overtly weaponise it (ie Manhattan Project).  Science benefits massively from its relationship with government (grant money, influence...).  So if you get to blame religion for all the injustices of the past, I don't see how me blaming a few of the injustices of the present on science is unfair.  It is, like religion was, an accessory to the crime.

QuoteIt's pretty frustrating, because I have lots of respect for you and think you're a funny, creative and intelligent guy. Seeing you talk like that about the greatest human achievement ever really makes me sad.

I like these debates, and I'd never hold anyone's convictions against them unless they were completely intolerable.  I respect what you do around here on the forums, and I respect your opinions in this thread.  Heck, I might even agree with half of them.  But I don't think you're 100% right about how to see the world, and I think we can respectfully debate that without taking it to the personal level.  You big poop head. :)

Khris

QuoteIf the scientific methodology easily produced airtight results, there would be a lot more scientific "laws". Especially when something is going to affect me directly, I am not inclined by disposition to just rely on the opinions of people representing themselves as experts.  I want to be convinced.
So every research that doesn't produce something like E=mc² is merely an opinion, and should be met with skepticism? Sorry, no.
Published papers line out what they did and how they did it, and anybody who's an expert in the same field can put it under scrutiny, and they will. Bad stuff gets weeded out by this. Granted, peer review doesn't catch all bad papers, but before something is used to for instance actually treat patients (except in the studies themselves of course), it is going to be under years of more scrutiny (not true for pseudoscience of course, like alternative medicine).

A religious person is talking out of their ass 100% of the time.

QuoteThere's lots of ways to get answers.  When I'm thinking up a way to make an adventure puzzle work, I don't use anything resembling a methodical approach.
You're talking about creativity, and you know perfectly well that science doesn't do that. When I said "actual answers", I was talking about stuff like "how do the planets move?" or "let's engineer a bacterium that eats crude oil".

QuoteYou are probably going to say "but science doesn't implement the invention, so it's not the methodology's fault."
Exactly. You're talking about ethics and politics, not science.

QuoteYes pathogens in water kill many people, but the remaining population is stronger from a Darwinian point of view.
"Let's just let all these African children die; if we hadn't invented methods to clean the water, they would die anyway. Their children will be stronger, right?" Right.
Even if this isn't what you said (sure sounds like it though): please note that my point was that religion does NOTHING to save those kids, and it can't, and it never will.

QuoteAnd this is what I'm talking about in terms of science, compartmentalized and looking only at specific problems in isolated circumstances, not considering the broader implications.
This is pure prejudice, entirely disconnected from reality. It's also again about the ethics of science though. Scientists do consider the broader implications of their work all the time. A scientist who works on improving a plant gene without considering what the implications are will get flack for it by the scientific community.

QuoteNeanderthals
That they were killed by other humans is just one hypothesis. Also, if you have to go back in time that far to find something, I'd wager what I said holds up today. We are not THE BAD. Most people are caring.

Quote[Science] is, like religion was, an accessory to the crime.
Like I said in my previous posts, science is a tool, religion is much more. The logical pathway from "I believe holy book X is written by the creator of everything" to "let's kill group X" is much more robust and obvious than the one from "I only believe hypotheses that have been verified lots of times, and until they're disproven" to "we must drop two bombs on japan" (hint: there is none).
If you want to be mad at the hammer for hitting yourself on the thumb, go ahead. But don't expect me to follow.

Dualnames

Ah, the annual religion topic. I missed these, they usually occur when the community bonds at a great degree. I can remember a bunch of people that left or decided to lurk the forums because of these kind of topics. Want me to share?
Worked on Strangeland, Primordia, Hob's Barrow, The Cat Lady, Mage's Initiation, Until I Have You, Downfall, Hunie Pop, and every game in the Wadjet Eye Games catalogue (porting)


SSH

I'd just like to say that I've personally found it much harder to remain a Christian when surrounded by the gun-lovin, Obama-hating,  Fox-watchin, Young-earth folks in this part of Colorado than I did surrounded by the relatively enlightened Scots...

That is all. I've done my share of internet religious debate. http://xkcd.com/386/
12


miguel

That's a cool cartoon, Khris. I guess we all should learn from it in a positive way.
I wanted to ask you guys this for a long time and never got the chance:

- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?
- Quantum stuff... how big is planet Earth in the cosmos? Can we relate our size in the cosmos to the size required to experience quantum effects as studied today on sub-atomic levels? If so, is it possible that we (the planet) can simply shift position, disappear and reappear on a different location? Can it happen without us being aware? Can it happen, period?
- The fact that the outcome of quantum experiences is different IF we are "looking" at it or not, does it raises the question: If planet Earth doesn't change position (we watch the skies since the Sumerian, at least) as it was never reported so, is something watching us or not watching us?
Working on a RON game!!!!!

Problem

Not an expert on quantum physics, so I'll just answer the first question.
Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 10:26:41
- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?
The thing is, we just can't know. Science deals with what's inside of the universe, because this is everything we can observe. So the question what is outside or what was before the universe doesn't make sense from this point of view. This is something that science usually doesn't deal with, because there's nothing to work with. That's also the reason why (serious) scientists don't try to prove the existence or nonexistence of a god, because there is no way to verify or falsify it.
As for me, I'd like to believe that there is more to the universe, that there was something before and that there is something "outside", whatever this may mean. But that's out of reach, nobody knows anything about these questions, least of all any "holy books". And I'm sure we'll never find out.

miguel

It sure is incredibly difficult or maybe even impossible to really know what happened before the BigBang. But my questions weren't about gods.
I can relate better with the notion that the BigBang was the immediate start of a universe that had extinguished the immediate moment before. A tiny portion of almost nothing giving birth to another one that reproduces itself makes sense to me.
A cycle makes more sense to me than the idea of nothing. I can't comprehend nothing.
Problem, some scientist do try to prove or understand what happened or what was before the Big Bang. No gods again, here. If they are "serious" or not that's out of my league.

Working on a RON game!!!!!

Problem

Basically, what you can do is take the physical laws and calculate backwards in time until you've reached a point before the big bang. But this is just math, and there's no real data to verify this. This may lead to interesting theories, but none of them can be validated in any way.

Stupot

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 10:26:41- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?
I'm fine with the Big Bang theory, in general. It's neat, it's dramatic, it explains a hell of a lot and it's a lot more logical to me than the concept of God.  I do struggle though when people say that time itself began with the Big Bang, that you can't ask what was the 'before' the Big Bang because there was no 'before' since time didn't exist.

I don't like this. I would like one day in my lifetime for that part to be proven wrong, but it probably won't be, since it is physically impossible to see or to measure.  I personally like to think there 'was' a 'before', that our universe is just one cycle in an eternity of big bangs and expansions and contractions.  I also like to think that there are other universes besides our own that do exist 'outside' our own despite assertions that there is no 'outside', but I am happy to accept that these thoughts are born from a need to be able to answer questions that are (for now and maybe for ever) beyond human understanding... which I guess is not too dissimilar to the reasons why people started believing in gods before we had many of the answers that science gives us today.
MAGGIES 2024
Voting is over  |  Play the games

miguel

QuoteBasically, what you can do is take the physical laws and calculate backwards in time until you've reached a point before the big bang.

I knew that, like most of us here sure know it. I'm not trying to be a wise-guy here.
What I mean is that we all assume that the BigBang theory is right, we (me included) take it as certain.
But we cannot study what was right before it because the data we get through observation and maths calculation returns zero. Or nothing. And so (some) scientists say that before the Big Bang there was nothing.
So, can we prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang or we don't know and assume that there was nothing?
Anyway, it's interesting that you want to believe that there is more to the universe than we scientifically know, you want to believe that there was "something" before the BigBang and "something" "outside" of what we scientifically know.

Quotebut I am happy to accept that these thoughts are born from a need to be able to answer questions that are (for now and maybe for ever) beyond human understanding
I agree with you Stu, and I stopped quoting you before you went on mentioning gods. My understanding of things is that we humans will forever try to disclose what's happening here beyond our short lives. We never in our lives consider ourselves to be a mere dust in the universe. We, as individuals question things that are really far from the boundaries of what we can see. I believe that that is part of being human.
Working on a RON game!!!!!

Problem

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 11:36:44
So, can we prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang or we don't know and assume that there was nothing?
Anyway, it's interesting that you want to believe that there is more to the universe than we scientifically know, you want to believe that there was "something" before the BigBang and "something" "outside" of what we scientifically know.
No, we can't prove that there was nothing. It's all assumptions. And the fact that I like the idea that there is more is probably just human. You already said it, we can't comprehend "nothing". Even a vacuum is not nothing. It's in our thinking that there is a reason for everything, so a universe that starts to exist out of nothing is something we can't really imagine.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk