Good and Evil

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I realize you disagree.  You didn't have to lay out a line of dogma to tell me so, but I appreciate it.  I simply disagree with many of your assertions.  

 

All the best.  

I just hate not knowing what you disagree with. 

Everything I said can basically fall in 2 different assertions.  Which one/s specifically do you agree with and disagree with:

1) Morality is entirely a human construct - a paradigm that we create and choose to live by.   It is totally imaginary.   An illusion not unlike art, or free-will, or the self...  There is nothing to measure there.

2) It is entirely relative to the individual's natural upbringing and culture.  Each person's paradigm of morality is potentially different from the next.  There is no scientifically objective moral code in our minds where we can discover answers of objective and universal moral good and evil, right and wrong.

 

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Natural law IS scientific objectivity

I thought that was probably the disconnect.   This really is not a matter of contention or controversy. 

One is a method or approach to discovery:

Quote

Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/#:~:text=Scientific objectivity is a characteristic,name a few relevant factors.

Quote

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

The other is...well...natural laws which give order to the universe.

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I just hate not knowing what you disagree with. 

Everything I said can basically fall in 2 different assertions.  Which one/s specifically do you agree with and disagree with:

1) Morality is entirely a human construct - a paradigm that we create and choose to live by.   It is totally imaginary.   An illusion not unlike art, or free-will, or the self...  There is nothing to measure there.

2) It is entirely relative to the individual's natural upbringing and culture.  Each person's paradigm of morality is potentially different from the next.  There is no scientifically objective moral code in our minds where we can discover answers of objective and universal moral good and evil, right and wrong.

 

I'm interested in knowing how you think those 2 choices of perspectives square up with or against what we think and believe regarding morality.  And if you do attempt to explain that please say something about what you mean by a human construct, and which individual's beliefs determine what is good or what is evil.  To my mind, coming to this planet to have this mortal experience was mainly or at least as much about gaining (more) knowledge of good and evil as it was about gaining a (more) glorified physical body, and I don't think any of us would know much about what is good or what is evil without getting to know (better) about our Father in heaven and Satan, mainly the differences between them.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Ahab

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I just hate not knowing what you disagree with. 

Everything I said can basically fall in 2 different assertions.  Which one/s specifically do you agree with and disagree with:

1) Morality is entirely a human construct - a paradigm that we create and choose to live by.   It is totally imaginary.   An illusion not unlike art, or free-will, or the self...  There is nothing to measure there.

If you mean imaginary in the sense that it exists in the mind or imagination..then I agree.  indeed it is completely dependent upon such imagination.  If you mean imaginary in the sense that it lacks factual reality then I disagree.  I do so primarily based on science's ability to read or measure the mind, essentially.  

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

2) It is entirely relative to the individual's natural upbringing and culture.  Each person's paradigm of morality is potentially different from the next.  There is no scientifically objective moral code in our minds where we can discover answers of objective and universal moral good and evil, right and wrong.

 

I disagree.  I think there are answers or potentially so.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If you mean imaginary in the sense that it exists in the mind or imagination..then I agree.  indeed it is completely dependent upon such imagination.  If you mean imaginary in the sense that it lacks factual reality then I disagree.  I do so primarily based on science's ability to read or measure the mind, essentially.  

I don't know what you mean by "factual reality".  Is an illusion which can only be perceived in the mind "factual reality" because the mind is able to perceive it, and science is able to "read or measure the mind" (it can't, by the way).  So, what if science could "read or measure [the perceptions of] the mind", does that make the illusion of art any more "real", or any less relative?  Does the ability to measure the mind give any objectivity to the perceived illusion other than to say, "this is what the person perceives"?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  I think there are answers or potentially so.  

You disagree that morality is relative?

Edited September 14, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought that was probably the disconnect.   This really is not a matter of contention or controversy. 

One is a method or approach to discovery:

The other is...well...natural laws which give order to the universe.

 

...those "natural laws" which man has discovered over time through scientific observation and experiment.  Religions used to believe the earth was the center of the universe. And in this age of rapid scientific discovery religions are still adjusting and constraining their claims more and more to align with scientific discovery when those discoveries have continued to age well.

Do you really think that religious morals were just revealed before mankind obeyed them at all? More likely, human beings discovered the usefulness of moral concepts through observation and experiment and enshrined the most beneficial as sacred religious knowledge. This would explain why there are strong similarities in religious morals across time and geography.

 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

...those "natural laws" which man has discovered over time through scientific observation and experiment. 

So, they were discovered through scientific objectivity. That is VERY different from saying "natural laws are scientific obectivity".   That is the source of your misreading my posts.

What about the religious truth claim of resurrection, for example?  Is that constrained by scientific objectivity?  Surely, you can see that it is not.  Do you really need more examples?  If we were constrained by scientific objectivity, then we could not claim resurrection to be a religious truth.  Religious truth vs scientific truth.  One is constrained by scientific objectivity, the other is not.  I don't think any scientist would disagree with that, which is why I am confused as to why you are.

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Religions used to believe the earth was the center of the universe. And in this age of rapid scientific discovery religions are still adjusting and constraining their claims more and more to align with scientific discovery when those discoveries have continued to age well.

There are still religious fundamentalists which believe the earth is flat.  They are not constrained by science.  In our faith, we respect science as one sphere of truth, of course we look to it and use it and appreciate its discoveries, and evolve along with it.  That in no way constrains our prophet to use scientific objectivity when receiving and delivering religious revelation.

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you really think that religious morals were just revealed before mankind obeyed them at all? More likely, human beings discovered the usefulness of moral concepts through observation and experiment and enshrined the most beneficial as sacred religious knowledge. This would explain why there are strong similarities in religious morals across time and geography.

Ok???

Edited September 14, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know what you mean by "factual reality".  Is a piece of art a piece of "factual reality"?  Sure, but it is still just an illusion which can only be perceived in the mind. 

The piece of art is a factual reality, sure.  I'm not following what you mean by ""it is still just an illusion which can only be perceived in the mind".  The piece of art is illusion?  Or the concept that it is "art" is an illusion?  Are you playing post modernist right now?     

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, what if science could "read or measure [the perceptions of] the mind" (which it can't), does that make the illusion of art any more "real", or any less relative?  Does it give it any objectivity other than to say, "this is what he perceives"?

Art?  I don't care.  Not sure how this applies.  Are you saying since you think art is imaginary and you think morality is imaginary that means they are comparable?  I'm not really on board with the premise.  

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

You disagree that morality is relative?

I think we went over this.  I don't think we can quite argue it can be considered objective in a philosophic sense.  But in a science says I think there is room to suggest as much--practically speaking.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The piece of art is a factual reality, sure.  I'm not following what you mean by ""it is still just an illusion which can only be perceived in the mind".  The piece of art is illusion?  Or the concept that it is "art" is an illusion?  Are you playing post modernist right now?     

I mean the perception of art is an illusion in the mind.  In the real world, what looks like "rain" is just a downward brush stroke through some pigment on canvas.  The perception of rain, doesn't scientifically correspond with reality.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying since you think art is imaginary and you think morality is imaginary that means they are comparable? 

Yes, you admitted that the perception of morality is imaginary in the sense that it exists only in the mind or imagination.  How is that not illusory if morality only exists in our minds but not in the real world?  I am not playing post modernist.  I am trying to use science talk and language.  If the perception of a thing is not of an object in the real world, then it is thought to be illusory, according to science.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in the mind...just like the perception of the self, or free-will.  How is a perception of something that doesn't correspond with anything in objective "factual reality" (the real world), not illusory?  The reason that Harris dismisses the concept of the self, is because it is illusory.  He can't find it anywhere in the "factual reality" aka "real wold".  There is no valid reason why he shouldn't come to the same conclusion with morality.  It is just as imaginary.  

Edited September 14, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

So, they were discovered through scientific objectivity. That is VERY different from saying "natural laws are scientific obectivity".   That is the source of your misreading my posts.

What about the religious truth claim of resurrection, for example?  Is that constrained by scientific objectivity?  Surely, you can see that it is not.  Do you really need more examples?  If we were constrained by scientific objectivity, then we could not claim resurrection to be a religious truth.  Religious truth vs scientific truth.  One is constrained by scientific objectivity, the other is not.  I don't think any scientist would disagree with that, which is why I am confused as to why you are.

Religion is generally constrained by scientific objectivity, but not necessarily controlled by it. I do think we have sufficient evidence that said constraint even applies to the revelation process, especially the LDS one.

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I mean the perception of art is an illusion in the mind.  In the real world, what looks like "rain" is just a downward brush stroke through some pigment on canvas.  The perception of rain, doesn't scientifically correspond with reality.

Yes, you admitted that the perception of morality is imaginary in the sense that it exists only in the mind or imagination.  How is that not illusory if morality only exists in our minds but not in the real world?  I am not playing post modernist.  I am trying to use science talk and language.  If the perception of a thing is not of an object in the real world, then it is thought to be illusory, according to science.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in the mind...just like the perception of the self, or free-will.  How is a perception of something that doesn't correspond with anything in objective "factual reality" (the real world), not illusory?  The reason that Harris dismisses the concept of the self, is because it is illusory.  He can't find it anywhere in the "factual reality" aka "real wold".  There is no valid reason why he shouldn't come to the same conclusion with morality.  It is just as imaginary.  

Morality can be thought of as more than illusory/imaginary because it can be described as a pattern of behaviour.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I mean the perception of art is an illusion in the mind.  In the real world, what looks like "rain" is just a downward brush stroke through some pigment on canvas.  The perception of rain, doesn't scientifically correspond with reality.

Yes, you admitted that the perception of morality is imaginary in the sense that it exists only in the mind or imagination.  How is that not illusory if morality only exists in our minds but not in the real world?

Our minds are in the real world.  There is not quite the division you describe.  The point is our minds are in existence naturally.  They simply are not make believe.  They operate whether we like it or not.  There is not something discernible making them go besides what it found in nature.  They operate as a part of nature.  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not playing post modernist.  I am trying to use science talk and language.  If the perception of a thing is not of an object in the real world, then it is thought to be illusory, according to science. 

This seems to be missing the point.  The thought of morality and morality itself are two different things.  Its precisely like physical health.  The notion someone has of physical health and actual physical health are two different things.  If we substitute morality with physical health then it starts to make more sense, to me.  There is science in medicine, all determined by what we imagine to be physical health.  Not really because we have pretty good measures to define physical health, well as good as we know.  If the science of the mind potentially helps us find morality much like physical health, then we have something.  It seems likely, since our minds are products of nature, wholly contingent on and operative in nature, and the concept of morality is found in the mind, then we might find way to measure our way to morality.  Its like our bodies are products of nature.  Their health is determined by measurable parameters set scientifically, on the grounds that we are products of nature.  Its easy, for instance, to imagine that it is morally wrong to practice slavery.  Those who have practiced or do practice slavery might not see the obvious.  But that does not mean we cannot find reason to demonstrate that it's morally wrong.  Its physically wrong to consume exclusively sugary snacks and not exercise.  Someone out there might not think its physically wrong...but that hardly means there's no scientific objectivity to it.  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

It doesn't exist anywhere but in the mind...just like the perception of the self, or free-will.  How is a perception of something that doesn't correspond with anything in objective "factual reality" (the real world), not illusory?  The reason that Harris dismisses the concept of the self, is because it is illusory.  He can't find it anywhere in the "factual reality" aka "real wold".  There is no valid reason why he shouldn't come to the same conclusion with morality.  It is just as imaginary.  

I think we need to focus on the practical nature of morality rather than the philosophical nature of it.  

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Religion is generally constrained by scientific objectivity...

We are both talking about religious truth claims, right?  Atonement, resurrection/reincarnation, faith healing, karma, transubstantiation, deification, heaven, hell, post mortal life, spirit/soul, God, Gods, etc, etc, etc.  These are all "generally" constrained by scientific objectivity?  Sigh.

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

...but not necessarily controlled by it.

Scientists are not "controlled by it" either, but they are "generally" constrained by it.  So what is the difference between a scientist and a prophet in terms of scientific objectivity?  You are turning prophets into scientists, it seems. 

You are missing the original point completely.   

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Our minds are in the real world.  There is not quite the division you describe.  The point is our minds are in existence naturally.  They simply are not make believe.  They operate whether we like it or not.  There is not something discernible making them go besides what it found in nature.  They operate as a part of nature.  

 Our minds are not make believe, but they can make believe.  Surely you see the difference. If you want to base your life around an imaginary make believe world of moral rights and wrongs go ahead.  But then it would be completely hypocritical of you to criticize religion for doing the exact same thing. 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This seems to be missing the point.  The thought of morality and morality itself are two different things.  Its precisely like physical health.  The notion someone has of physical health and actual physical health are two different things.  If we substitute morality with physical health then it starts to make more sense, to me. 

Physical health is based on actual real world physiology, anatomy, chemistry, tangible observable things.  Physical health sciences came about by studying the human body.  It started with something that actually exists in nature that is not just an illusion or imaginary ideal.   

Morality is nothing more than an idea or ideal that we choose to live by. There is no body to observe and study.   It doesn't exist except as a creation of our minds - much like the abominable snow man.  Morality can be whatever you want.  There are no objective limits or truths to morality.  If I think it is moral to save the jack rabbits from hunters, then it is moral to save the jack rabbits.  Why?  Because that is what my mind created, and according to you, we shouldn't distinguish what happens in our mind from real world objective facts. 

There is no universal objective moral code in our brains that we can tap into. It doesn't exist.  

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not making a division.  You are misunderstanding my point.  The point is that the perceptions of our minds (whether they are in the "real world" or not), do not always correspond with reality.  We can see things that are not there.  We can imagine things that don't exist.  You seem to be attempting to blur the line between the imagination and the real world.  If you want to base your life around an imaginary world and call it science, go ahead.  But how would you be different from a religionist at that point?

Physical health is based on actual real world physiology, anatomy, chemistry, tangible observable things.  Physical health sciences came about by studying the human body.  It started with something that actually exists in nature that is not just an illusion or imaginary ideal.   

Morality is nothing more than an idea or ideal that we choose to live by.  It doesn't exist except as a creation of our minds - much like the abominable snow man.  Morality can be whatever you want.  There are no objective limits or truths to morality.  If I think it is moral to save the jack rabbits from hunters, then it is moral to save the jack rabbits.  Why?  Because that is what my mind created.  Your mind can create something different if it wants.  There is no scientifically objective real world thing to convince me that I could be wrong.  Morality is whatever you want it to be.  There is no universal objective moral code in our brains that we can tap into. It doesn't exist.  

 

Ok.  A different angle.  Another little argument Sam Harris has used:

Quote

 

Questions of right or wrong and good or evil depend upon minds.  They depend upon the possibility of experience.

Minds are natural phenomena.  They depend upon the laws of nature.

Morality and human values, therefore, can be understood potentially in the context of science..

 

we really are talking about all the facts that relate to the well being of conscious creatures....we're talking about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology and economics.  We're talking about the same types of actual real world observable things you mention about physical health.  

I'm using a picture he's often drawn, in his book, articles and speeches. 

Quote

Imagine a universe where every conscious creature suffers as much as it can, for as long as it can.  We'll call this the worst possible misery for everyone.  The worst possible misery for everyone is bad.  If the word bad is going to mean anything surely it applies to the worse possible misery for everyone.  The moment you admit the worst possible misery for everyone is the worst outcome, then you have to admit every other possible experience is better.  So a continuum opens up and because the experience of conscious creatures is going to depend in some way on the laws of nature, there are going to be right and wrong ways to move across this continuum.  With peaks being the heights of well being, and valleys being the low points of suffering....there is going to be a possibility for multiple peaks.  Maybe there are many different but morally equivalent ways human beings to thrive.  But clearly there are many more ways not to thrive.  

At this point he often uses the Taliban as a good example of a morally corrupt group that simply fails to find a peak, for the most part.  Its obvious the reasons why they fail to reach the peaks based on their moral behavior.  He'll say, "its obvious..." that it's morally problematic to throw battery acid in the face of little girls for the crime of learning to read.  There are definite answers as to why there's a failure to reach the peaks.  And that suggests there definite answers as to why we may reach peaks.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  A different angle.  Another little argument Sam Harris has used:

Quote

 

Questions of right or wrong and good or evil depend upon minds.  They depend upon the possibility of experience.

Minds are natural phenomena.  They depend upon the laws of nature.

Morality and human values, therefore, can be understood potentially in the context of science..

 

Using the same logic:

Quote

 

Questions of god and spirituality depend upon minds.  They depend upon the possibility of experience.

Minds are natural phenomena.  They depend upon the laws of nature.

Spirituality, therefore, can be understood potentially in the context of science.

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

we really are talking about all the facts that relate to the well being of conscious creatures....we're talking about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology and economics.  We're talking about the same types of actual real world observable things you mention about physical health.  

I thought we were talking about morality, why are you changing the subject to "well being"?  I thought well-being was unrelated to his syllogism about the objectivity of morality.  It works just as well without out it, you said.  So lets keep well-being out of it.

Quote

Imagine a universe where every conscious creature suffers as much as it can, for as long as it can.  We'll call this the worst possible misery for everyone.  The worst possible misery for everyone is bad.  If the word bad is going to mean anything surely it applies to the worse possible misery for everyone.  The moment you admit the worst possible misery for everyone is the worst outcome, then you have to admit every other possible experience is better.  So a continuum opens up and because the experience of conscious creatures is going to depend in some way on the laws of nature, there are going to be right and wrong ways to move across this continuum.  With peaks being the heights of well being, and valleys being the low points of suffering....there is going to be a possibility for multiple peaks.  Maybe there are many different but morally equivalent ways human beings to thrive.  But clearly there are many more ways not to thrive.  

"The worst possible misery for everyone is bad".  Why must we judge it to be morally bad?  Again, I thought we were talking about morality, why are you changing the subject to suffering and well-being? 

We have to have a criteria for moral judgment for anything to be morally "bad".  We have to make one up, because one doesn't exist in objectivity.  And any criteria we come up with will just be a creation of the imagination.  It is arbitrary.  It could be based on anything we imagine really.   

We have natural aversions as humans, so what?  That is a fact, but we don't need to judge it as morally good or bad.  Our aversions help us survive in Darwinianism.  Science would suggest that it is about evolutionary survival not about any imagined objective morality. 
 

Worms have natural aversions too.  Whenever I go fishing and stick a hook through the end of a worm, it recoils in pain and I can't help but feel a little guilt. Not to mention the poor fish!  Is the worst possible suffering and misery of all worms bad?  It is if we want it to be.  That is the arbitrary nature of it all.  It can be anthropocentric, if we choose to follow Sam Harris's arbitrary criteria, or it can be ecocnetric, or it can be whatever our imagination think up, really.  Because it doesn't exist.  We made it up.  We get to decide what it is. 

The worst possible misery for me might be different then the worst possible misery for you.  Misery is subjective, just like pain.  On a scale of 1 to 10, I might experience the misery of losing a loved one totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of a paper cut totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of drinking urine totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of bone cancer totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of going to the dentist totally different from you.  I have different fears, perspectives, perceptions,  and beliefs which all play into my personal experience and judgment  of misery.  Misery is entirely a subjective judgment.  Misery is not universally experienced in the same way.  A Buddhist monk can endure what anyone else would consider excruciating pain while meditating without describing his experience as "misery".  Not because he doesn't feel pain, but because he doesn't judge it as "bad".  You mean to tell me that I don't have to judge experiences as "good" or "bad"?  That kind of destroys the argument of Sam Harris.  A Buddhist monk would suggest that "it just is" and that we don't need to judge it as good or bad.  They just simply observe it and experience it without judgment.  Misery is a subjective judgment.  It only exists because of human judgement.  The role of science is not to make subjective judgments, but to simply observe, much like a Buddhist monk in meditation without judgment of "good" or "bad"...it just is!!!

 

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

We are both talking about religious truth claims, right?  Atonement, resurrection/reincarnation, faith healing, karma, transubstantiation, deification, heaven, hell, post mortal life, spirit/soul, God, Gods, etc, etc, etc.  These are all "generally" constrained by scientific objectivity?  Sigh.

Notions about all those things are impacted by science.  Religions pray over doctors. Most religions today do not believe Hell or Heaven is a literal place on or inside the planet, as older ones did.

These examples you have are beliefs which remain, and you'll find the ones which remain (or the parts of them which remain) are usually the ones which cannot be disproven by science. 

Many more religious beliefs have dissolved as scientific discoveries have repeatedly shown them to be impossible. As I have already pointed out, people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. Sure there are some exceptions like you mentioned of flat-earthers who refuse scientific consensus, but even then, they still try to use the scientific method or scientific ideas to prove their points.

There are examples in LDS belief too, of beliefs which have changed once science counter-demonstrated them.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Scientists are not "controlled by it" either, but they are "generally" constrained by it.  So what is the difference between a scientist and a prophet in terms of scientific objectivity?

A scientist refers to someone doing the work of science exclusively.  

A prophet uses what he believes he knows, and offers some additional or unifying understanding of what is known, usually claiming to do so with the aid of God. LDS prophets speak about accepting truth from wherever it flows, and of studying out problems and questions, of developing faith through pondering and experiment until knowledge is obtained. Prophets do not use science exclusively, but they do generally allow very well-accepted scientific fact to constrain them. That does not mean there is no controversy. History shows us that one of the frequent points of contention with new science comes from religion. It is the older, generally-accepted scientific facts that religion generally accepts, eventually.

For instance, a prophet might say that the Second Coming is upon us. Science cannot disprove the existence of a Supreme Being nor the imminent arrival of one, right? But then after immediate time has passed, and the expected delay is long over, they do not usually say that God has returned and the rest of the world is blind to the event; they tend to redefine the temporal description. 

Also, just to be more precise about the difference between a scientist and a prophet, prophets might say uncountably numerous things like "God wants the church to stop using the name 'Mormon'" or "God forbids us to eat pork," things that science may not constrain at all.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 There is no universal objective moral code in our brains that we can tap into. It doesn't exist.  

That's kind of an odd way to describe our brains regardless. Anyhow, one could instead say that humans can use their brains to develop a human-universal moral code. And they have. Of course, not all humans obey it, but a general basic moral code exists and is used by humanity.

I'll mention another principle purpose of religion, and that is to provide tribal identity and community to human beings. And that can be a very good, extremely valuable purpose. I think that religion contributes more to perpetuating moral codes because it very effectively provides a sense of community that reinforces the value of a moral code. I've already described how it can happen and be reasonable process, and I'll link that here in case you missed it: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73153-good-and-evil/?do=findComment&comment=1209991954

One could describe human moral code as real as a gravitational equation which describes the force between two objects: a moral code can describe the algorithm of treating others that is the most beneficial for the individual and the group. 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Meadowchik
one word missing

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Using the same logic:

 

Quote

Questions of god and spirituality depend upon minds.  They depend upon the possibility of experience.

Minds are natural phenomena.  They depend upon the laws of nature.

Spirituality, therefore, can be understood potentially in the context of science.

That could possibly be why it's a complete incoherent notion to believe in God.  But, also, it seems to miss the point.  If you say the abstract concept of god and spirituality depend upon conscious minds...ok.  But that does not men they depend upon the possibility of experience.  Questions of right and wrong or good and evil do so depend upon the possibility of experiences.  

 

Quote

I thought we were talking about morality, why are you changing the subject to "well being"? 

It felt like we were getting weighed down on this point.  But I'd like to resurrect it.  MOrality, on this position, doesn't make sense without well being.  

Quote

I thought well-being was unrelated to his syllogism about the objectivity of morality. 

It did, per the one I had previously used.  On this argument I'd say it's necessary.  I think we'd have to admit that well being has something to do with right and wrong.  

Quote

It works just as well without out it, you said.  So lets keep well-being out of it.

"The worst possible misery for everyone is bad".  Why must we judge it to be morally bad?  Again, I thought we were talking about morality, why are you changing the subject to suffering and well-being? 

If we can't agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad, then we have little place to go.  If we existed now in a state of the worst kind of suffering for all of us, for as long as we can, then it's simply a bad state of things.  Moral comes in when we say, "oh, well, we don't have to suffer this badly for this long, if we learn to make moral choices to lessen suffering and increase well being".   

Quote

We have to have a criteria for moral judgment for anything to be morally "bad".  We have to make one up, because one doesn't exist in objectivity.  And any criteria we come up with will just be a creation of the imagination.  It is arbitrary.  It could be based on anything we imagine really.   

That's only the case if we say the same for every field of science and its endeavors.  Setting a goal of physical well being is not arbitrary.  We can absolutely see what takes us down to the valleys and what takes us up to the peaks for physical well being.  What is proposed, we can use science to the same effect for morality.  If there is an absolute misery (which none of us ever really achieves, we might say) If there are peaks as we increase well being, and if those subsequent peaks and valleys occur due to natural effects of our choices, then we can define the science of morality, just as we do with the science of medicine.  

Quote

We have natural aversions as humans, so what?  That is a fact, but we don't need to judge it as morally good or bad.  Our aversions help us survive in Darwinianism.  Science would suggest that it is about evolutionary survival not about any imagined objective morality. 

Obviously I disagree.  

Quote

 

Worms have natural aversions too.  Whenever I go fishing and stick a hook through the end of a worm, it recoils in pain and I can't help but feel a little guilt. Not to mention the poor fish!  Is the worst possible suffering and misery of all worms bad?  It is if we want it to be.  That is the arbitrary nature of it all.  It can be anthropocentric, if we choose to follow Sam Harris's arbitrary criteria, or it can be ecocnetric, or it can be whatever our imagination think up, really.  Because it doesn't exist.  We made it up.  We get to decide what it is. 

We decide based on science.  If sticking a worm to catch a fish propels conscious beings (not just worms or humans or fish for that matter) further up towards a peak of well being, then it might crudely fall on the scale of morality.  If it leaves conscious beings in the same place otherwise, or if conscious beings fall towards sufferign overall, then we can determine such effects, scientifically.  Of course that's a rather crude example.  But, with that said, it might be completely morally wrong to use worms as fish bait, as it may decrease overall well being of conscious creatures.  

Quote

The worst possible misery for me might be different then the worst possible misery for you.  Misery is subjective, just like pain. 

That's why it's a landscape with various peaks and valleys.  It also could be you and I end up at the bottom of a scale of physical well being.  It may be that each of us got there in a different way.  But that hardly means the science of medicine doesn't exist.  

Quote

On a scale of 1 to 10, I might experience the misery of losing a loved one totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of a paper cut totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of drinking urine totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of bone cancer totally different from you.  I might rate the misery of going to the dentist totally different from you.  I have different fears, perspectives, perceptions,  and beliefs which all play into my personal experience and judgment  of misery.  Misery is entirely a subjective judgment.  Misery is not universally experienced in the same way.  A Buddhist monk can endure what anyone else would consider excruciating pain while meditating without describing his experience as "misery".  Not because he doesn't feel pain, but because he doesn't judge it as "bad".  You mean to tell me that I don't have to judge experiences as "good" or "bad"?  That kind of destroys the argument of Sam Harris.  A Buddhist monk would suggest that "it just is" and that we don't need to judge it as good or bad.  They just simply observe it and experience it without judgment.  Misery is a subjective judgment.  It only exists because of human judgement.  The role of science is not to make subjective judgments, but to simply observe, much like a Buddhist monk in meditation without judgment of "good" or "bad"...it just is!!!

 

 

Exactly.  But I'm seeing you don't have it.  

On a scale of 1 to 10, I might experience the misery of over eating and lack of exercise totally different from you.  I might rate the physical misery of a paper cut totally different from you  .I might rate the physical misery of drinking urine totally different from you.  I might rate the physical misery of bone cancer totally different from you. ...

I hope that makes the point.  But, alas, I figured a number of my attempts would make it...so...you know.  Have a good one.  

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by stemelbow

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Notions about all those things are impacted by science.  Religions pray over doctors. Most religions today do not believe Hell or Heaven is a literal place on or inside the planet, as older ones did.

These examples you have are beliefs which remain, and you'll find the ones which remain (or the parts of them which remain) are usually the ones which cannot be disproven by science. 

Many more religious beliefs have dissolved as scientific discoveries have repeatedly shown them to be impossible. As I have already pointed out, people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. Sure there are some exceptions like you mentioned of flat-earthers who refuse scientific consensus, but even then, they still try to use the scientific method or scientific ideas to prove their points.

There are examples in LDS belief too, of beliefs which have changed once science counter-demonstrated them.

A scientist refers to someone doing the work of science exclusively.  

A prophet uses what he believes he knows, and offers some additional or unifying understanding of what is known, usually claiming to do so with the aid of God. LDS prophets speak about accepting truth from wherever it flows, and of studying out problems and questions, of developing faith through pondering and experiment until knowledge is obtained. Prophets do not use science exclusively, but they do generally allow very well-accepted scientific fact to constrain them. That does not mean there is no controversy. History shows us that one of the frequent points of contention with new science comes from religion. It is the older, generally-accepted scientific facts that religion generally accepts, eventually.

For instance, a prophet might say that the Second Coming is upon us. Science cannot disprove the existence of a Supreme Being nor the imminent arrival of one, right? But then after immediate time has passed, and the expected delay is long over, they do not usually say that God has returned and the rest of the world is blind to the event; they tend to redefine the temporal description. 

Also, just to be more precise about the difference between a scientist and a prophet, prophets might say uncountably numerous things like "God wants the church to stop using the name 'Mormon'" or "God forbids us to eat pork," things that science may not constrain at all.

That's kind of an odd way to describe our brains regardless. Anyhow, one could instead say that humans can use their brains to develop a human-universal moral code. And they have. Of course, not all humans obey it, but a general basic moral code exists and is used by humanity.

I'll mention another principle purpose of religion, and that is to provide tribal identity and community to human beings. And that can be a very good, extremely valuable purpose. I think that religion contributes more to perpetuating moral codes because it very effectively provides a sense of community that reinforces the value of a moral code. I've already described how it can happen and be reasonable process, and I'll link that here in case you missed it: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73153-good-and-evil/?do=findComment&comment=1209991954

One could describe human moral code as real as a gravitational equation which describes the force between two objects: a moral code can describe the algorithm of treating others that is the most beneficial for the individual and the group. 

 

 

You are totally convoluting the issue.  My point is simply that religious truth claims don't need to be based in scientific objectivity.  Scientific truth claims...do.  I've given you several examples as proof.

As to your claim that there is a universal moral code that we all subscribe to or accept, even if we are not perfect at obeying it - CFR.

Edited September 15, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  A different angle.  Another little argument Sam Harris has used:

we really are talking about all the facts that relate to the well being of conscious creatures....we're talking about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology and economics.  We're talking about the same types of actual real world observable things you mention about physical health.  

I'm using a picture he's often drawn, in his book, articles and speeches. 

At this point he often uses the Taliban as a good example of a morally corrupt group that simply fails to find a peak, for the most part.  Its obvious the reasons why they fail to reach the peaks based on their moral behavior.  He'll say, "its obvious..." that it's morally problematic to throw battery acid in the face of little girls for the crime of learning to read.  There are definite answers as to why there's a failure to reach the peaks.  And that suggests there definite answers as to why we may reach peaks.  

People don't agree on what are peaks and valleys, though.  A peak for some people is what some other people would consider a valley.  Little girls learning to read is a valley to some people and they respond as if its a valley.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That could possibly be why it's a complete incoherent notion to believe in God.  But, also, it seems to miss the point.  If you say the abstract concept of god and spirituality depend upon conscious minds...ok.  But that does not men they depend upon the possibility of experience.  Questions of right and wrong or good and evil do so depend upon the possibility of experiences.  

Are you suggesting that my spirituality is not based on, or depends on, the possibility of experiences?  Come on stem..conscious minds depend upon conscious "experiences".  What else is there?  Of course spirituality depends upon the possibility of experiences.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, I might experience the misery of over eating and lack of exercise totally different from you.  I might rate the physical misery of a paper cut totally different from you  .I might rate the physical misery of drinking urine totally different from you.  I might rate the physical misery of bone cancer totally different from you. ...

I hope that makes the point.  But, alas, I figured a number of my attempts would make it...so...you know.  Have a good one.  

I guess I don't get it. This seems to prove my point.  Suffering and misery is based on subjective judgments. And if morality is based on suffering and misery, then morality is based on subjective judgments. 

Let me ask you this - is objective morality about the individual or about the whole?

Edited September 15, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are totally convoluting the issue.  

I am thinking about the existing complexities of science and religion as part of my responses to you. 

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

My point is simply that religious truth claims don't need to be based in scientific objectivity.  

And I am saying that generally and in this specific topic of morality and religion, human beings including religions are constrained by scientific reasoning. The more we know, the more religions change to adjust to that knowledge. 

 

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

As to your claim that there is a universal moral code that we all subscribe to or accept, even if we are not perfect at obeying it - CFR.

I said:

"That's kind of an odd way to describe our brains regardless. Anyhow, one could instead say that humans can use their brains to develop a human-universal moral code. And they have. Of course, not all humans obey it, but a general basic moral code exists and is used by humanity."

I assume you want me to CFR this statement above?

It's often referred to as the Golden Rule. 

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

If morality is an objective fact and truth...

Just acknowledging that this is a snippet from your response to stemelbow first...

You said earlier that human beings (being freed from scientific constraint) develop a morality subjectively through religion. I'm saying that we can develop a morality objectively and that even religions develop morality objectively.  (My commentary in previous reply supported that claim.) Sure, that still leaves room for lots more subjective moral views and rules, but a basic human morality is still there.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And I am saying that generally and in this specific topic of morality and religion, human beings including religions are constrained by scientific reasoning. 

No...religion is not constrained by scientific objectivity in prescribing morals.  Sorry. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am thinking about the existing complexities of science and religion as part of my responses to you. 

And I am saying that generally and in this specific topic of morality and religion, human beings including religions are constrained by scientific reasoning. The more we know, the more religions change to adjust to that knowledge. 

 

I said:

"That's kind of an odd way to describe our brains regardless. Anyhow, one could instead say that humans can use their brains to develop a human-universal moral code. And they have. Of course, not all humans obey it, but a general basic moral code exists and is used by humanity."

I assume you want me to CFR this statement above?

It's often referred to as the Golden Rule. 

Just acknowledging that this is a snippet from your response to stemelbow first...

You said earlier that human beings (being freed from scientific constraint) develop a morality subjectively through religion. I'm saying that we can develop a morality objectively and that even religions develop morality objectively.  (My commentary in previous reply supported that claim.) Sure, that still leaves room for lots more subjective moral views and rules, but a basic human morality is still there.

We are all children of God... all of us people who scientists call "human"... so there is no way and there never will be a way to remove God from any equation in which we are or were or will ever be involved.

Even if you do not believe the above statement is true.

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm saying that we can develop a morality objectively

The second you try and define it, you have lost all objectivity.  Science defines things as it is observed in nature, without bias.  It is not in the business of defining things that don't exist in nature, without anything to observe, and which is based entirely on personal bias, culture, and values.

Edited September 15, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

No...religion is not constrained by scientific objectivity in prescribing morals.  Sorry. 

Well I'm sure you'll understand that I won't take your word to be the authority on that. Provide some reasoning and compelling evidence, and that might be persuasive.

Cheers and good night from the Firth of Forth.