Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Your idea that there was no scientific method before Francis Bacon is simply false,

No, it's right. But you can prove it wrong, if I'm wrong. Who is the father of the scientific method, if not Bacon? Just answer that.

The the problem is that you're not differentiating between people who (without having any consistent episteme) made technological or inventive advances, from the practitioners of a coherent and consistent scientific theory. And I am. That's why we're not agreeing. For you, "science" just means the equivalent of "inventing something" or "discovering something" -- and, of course, people have invented or discovered all kinds of things. But "science" as it came to be understood during the Enlightenment, required the discipline of the scientific method. Today, we don't call "science" things that are premised on traditions, myths, cultural preferences, superstitions, occultism, pure theory, and so forth. Today, we require the application of the particular methodology outlined in the link I sent, before we bestow the honourific "science" upon a particular area of investigation.

So you have one definition of "science," a sort of casual one, and I'm defining "science" as that which is genuinely subject to scientific method. And that's why we're missing one another. But we're actually not in disagreement that elements of that method (such as observation or experimentation) were possible before there was any such thing as a the systematic discipline we know now as "science." That's why people are sometimes "scientific" to various degrees, but not truly "scientific."

The so-called disciplines of phrenology or alchemy, for example, were once called "science." We now know they were nothing of the kind. But they did share some elements with real science, in that they purported to deal with the material realities in a knowledge-revealing and patterned way; but today, we recognize these, along with, say Aristotelian cosmology, not as "science" but as "pseudo-science."

In the same way, Aristotle had lots of ideas about "medicine" and "cosmology." But they were mostly terrible ideas, and they shackled real medicine and cosmology for thousands of years. The problem was that Aristotle, smart as he may have been, and as helpful in some philosophical ways as he may have been, was also merely pre-scientific, and largely wrong: his methodology was undisciplined, and so it was just as unscientific as it was any kind of "science."

...your assertion that it took Christianity to come up with one is demonstrably untrue.

It's Alfred North Whitehead's assertion, as it happens; I only agree with it. But it's actually true. And if you think it's not, then explain why all the billions of people in non-Christian lands never developed the scientific method. I'll be happy to hear your account of how you think it came about.

[Harbal]

...your assertion that it took Christianity to come up with one is demonstrably untrue.

It's Alfred North Whitehead's assertion, as it happens; I only agree with it. But it's actually true. And if you think it's not, then explain why all the billions of people in non-Christian lands never developed the scientific method. I'll be happy to hear your account of how you think it came about.

I've lost the thread a bit. What's the relevance of who invented science, and when?

[nemos]

They "can" be correct in some of these ways. But I'm not sure what the real question there is asking.

It was ironic (on my part), but so be it. Boring.

[Skepdick]

I've lost the thread a bit. What's the relevance of who invented science, and when?

The relevance is the phenomenon of multiple discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

In any collaborative community working on a set of problems it rears its head. Multiple people stumble on the same sort of idea presumably my cross-polination or shared inspiration - or whatever the sufficient conditions.

Presumably then an event as significant and as outsized (in terms of social impact) as the scientific revolution of 16th century should've happened somewhere else too...

[Harbal]

I've lost the thread a bit. What's the relevance of who invented science, and when?

The relevance is the phenomenon of multiple discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

In any collaborative community working on a set of problems it rears its head. Multiple people stumble on the same sort of idea presumably my cross-polination or shared inspiration - or whatever the sufficient conditions.

Presumably then an event as significant and as outsized (in terms of social impact) as the scientific revolution of 16th century should've happened somewhere else too...

I think the point being made was that the scientific method came from Christianity, and it was the relevance of that that I was questioning. I wondered why it mattered how science started.

[Skepdick]

I think the point being made was that the scientific method came from Christianity, and it was the relevance of that that I was questioning. I wondered why it mattered how science started.

It's simply a matter of curiosity for other scientists. To understand what inspired the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Imagination is more important than knowledge on matters of scientific discovery.

[iambiguous]

Here we go again...

ME:

Really? Okay, given a moral conflagration of note, cite some examples of behaviors all rational and virtuous men and women ought to avoid in order to sustain actual moral obligations.

You don't think sparing your progeny from congenital disabilities and genetic disorders fits the bill?

Again, as I noted above to VA:

Well, let's just say that the relationship between genes and memes in the human species is such that we can go far, far beyond biological imperatives. Once recognizing that inbreeding poses any number of problematic consequences, actual copulation can be avoided. Or one can have a vasectomy or a hysterectomy and then even pregnancy itself is out of the question.

So, is sex between, say, two sisters or two brothers inherently/necessarily immoral? Unless, of course, one does posit a God, the God, their God, and it becomes a "mortal sin"?

If you do believe that morality is within the reach of the deontologically minded.

Let's see if I'm wrong about you when this all comes down out of the theoretical clouds.

Which part of our interaction has been theoretical in your clouded mind?

My point is that when we bring incest or abortion or gun control or gender roles etc., down out of the theoretical clouds, things can get very, very cloudy indeed.

At least until the moral objectivists among us can provide us with something analogous to a deontological resolution?

Now, let's commence new discussions regarding moral conflagrations that are of particular interest to you.

SKEPDICK:

At least until the moral objectivists among us can provide us with something analogous to a deontological resolution?

Does anyone have a duty to furnish you with a deontological resolution?

The irony of pretending to be something more than a theoretical navel-gazing philosopher and then dragging the debate right back into theoretical navelgazing.

He -- she? -- completely avoids the points I raised regarding incest above. And refuses to explore other moral conflagrations in turn.

Instead, in my view, as with "minds" of his or her ilk that thrive here, it's snip, snip, snip...wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. And then the Stooge Stuff.

Though, again, I flat out admit my reaction here is just another manifestation of my own existential prejudices. If others here can defend Skepdick's point above more substantively, by all means, educate me.

[Immanuel Can]

...it was the relevance of that that I was questioning. I wondered why it mattered how science started.

It certainly destroys the very silly modern myth that Christianity and science are somehow at enmity with each other, or to put it Hitchens's way, "religion poisons everything." That certainly stands in need of correcting. And it certainly raises reasonable suspicions that there may indeed be other ways in which we have underestimated the contributions of Christianity in the past...like in law, in charitable causes, in penal reform, in human rights, in politics, in medicine, in exploration, in public education and the universities...Of course, any fair review of history will show that Christianity has been a key contributor in all these areas and more. But many skeptics are not so much interested in being historical and fair as they are in finding a quick road to dismissing everything Christianity has achieved.

Giving birth to the methodology of modern science is certainly a signal contribution...but only one of many.

[Harbal]

...it was the relevance of that that I was questioning. I wondered why it mattered how science started.

It certainly destroys the very silly modern myth that Christianity and science are somehow at enmity with each other, or to put it Hitchens's way, "religion poisons everything." That certainly stands in need of correcting. And it certainly raises reasonable suspicions that there may indeed be other ways in which we have underestimated the contributions of Christianity in the past...like in law, in charitable causes, in penal reform, in human rights, in politics, in medicine, in exploration, in public education and the universities...Of course, any fair review of history will show that Christianity has been a key contributor in all these areas and more. But many skeptics are not so much interested in being historical and fair as they are in finding a quick road to dismissing everything Christianity has achieved.

Giving birth to the methodology of modern science is certainly a signal contribution...but only one of many.

I imagine the Church, as an institution, facilitated the things you mention because it was, at the time, more or less the only source of education. Perhaps the early scientists were more the product of education than of Christianity per se. But does it matter? Science no longer has any formal ties to Christianity, does it?

[Immanuel Can]

I imagine the Church, as an institution, facilitated the things you mention because it was, at the time, more or less the only source of education.

And more recently than you would think. It's not at all surprising to find that any educational institution bears the name of some Christian denomination, if only in tradition, now.

Perhaps the early scientists were more the product of education than of Christianity per se. But does it matter?

Well, it certainly puts the lie to the idea that Christianity was some sort of stifling force that made it hard for science to emerge. Far from it: without that primary "leap of faith" that expects (prior to any evidence, of course) that the universe will turn out to rational, mathematical, logical and interpretable by our reasoning powers, there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all. And that assumption only comes from two beliefs key to Christianity and Judaism: namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles, and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world. Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism, which expects the world to be nothing but the product of forces acting randomly, and human beings to be accidental productions of an indifferent process.

[Skepdick]

Here we go again...

ME:

You don't think sparing your progeny from congenital disabilities and genetic disorders fits the bill?

Again, as I noted above to VA:

Well, let's just say that the relationship between genes and memes in the human species is such that we can go far, far beyond biological imperatives. Once recognizing that inbreeding poses any number of problematic consequences, actual copulation can be avoided. Or one can have a vasectomy or a hysterectomy and then even pregnancy itself is out of the question.

So, is sex between, say, two sisters or two brothers inherently/necessarily immoral? Unless, of course, one does posit a God, the God, their God, and it becomes a "mortal sin"?

If you do believe that morality is within the reach of the deontologically minded.

Let's see if I'm wrong about you when this all comes down out of the theoretical clouds.

Which part of our interaction has been theoretical in your clouded mind?

My point is that when we bring incest or abortion or gun control or gender roles etc., down out of the theoretical clouds, things can get very, very cloudy indeed.

At least until the moral objectivists among us can provide us with something analogous to a deontological resolution?

Now, let's commence new discussions regarding moral conflagrations that are of particular interest to you.

SKEPDICK:

At least until the moral objectivists among us can provide us with something analogous to a deontological resolution?

Does anyone have a duty to furnish you with a deontological resolution?

The irony of pretending to be something more than a theoretical navel-gazing philosopher and then dragging the debate right back into theoretical navelgazing.

He -- she? -- completely avoids the points I raised regarding incest above. And refuses to explore other moral conflagrations in turn.

Instead, in my view, as with "minds" of his or her ilk that thrive here, it's snip, snip, snip...wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. And then the Stooge Stuff.

Though, again, I flat out admit my reaction here is just another manifestation of my own existential prejudices. If others here can defend Skepdick's point above more substantively, by all means, educate me.

Prime example of a dumb philosopher. An armchair theoretician far removed from real-world consequentialism-based decision making.

Thank fuck idiots like this don't run the world.

[promethean75]

"Far from it: without that primary "leap of faith" that expects (prior to any evidence, of course) that the universe will turn out to rational, mathematical, logical and interpretable by our reasoning powers, there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all. And that assumption only comes from two beliefs key to Christianity and Judaism"

Watch out, Harb, he's tryna trick u again. The scientific method of research and experimentation has existed as long as we've been upright and on two legs (long before Bacon made the scene). It is a natural capacity of man owing itself to our faculties of reasoning, ability to retain memories, make predictions and draw inferences while observing and manipulating the world (for our use).

Nobody ever needed to believe the universe is 'rational' (whatever that means) or that there had to be a god that made the world intelligible and wanted us to figure it out, to 'do' science.

In fact, religion is most often an obstacle to science becuz when a n*gga believes there's a god that doesn't want him tampering with nature (the science of medicine and gene biology is an example), it prevents him from investigating something he's naturally curious about... and likely able to make great progress with if he were permitted to engage with it scientifically.

U better be careful messin with this guy Immental Can, Harb.

[Harbal]

I imagine the Church, as an institution, facilitated the things you mention because it was, at the time, more or less the only source of education.

And more recently than you would think. It's not at all surprising to find that any educational institution bears the name of some Christian denomination, if only in tradition, now.

Perhaps the early scientists were more the product of education than of Christianity per se. But does it matter?

Well, it certainly puts the lie to the idea that Christianity was some sort of stifling force that made it hard for science to emerge.

It might be fair to say that science first came about because of the Church, although how much the Christianity element in that played a part is hard to say. The Church's reason for educating its servants was probably part of a strategy that was nothing to do with the details of the religion. I don't know to what extent the Church actually sanctioned the development of scientific study, but it's a fair bet they weren't anticipating many of the revelations that were a consequence of it. There's no way they could have seen Darwin coming.

Far from it: without that primary "leap of faith" that expects (prior to any evidence, of course) that the universe will turn out to rational, mathematical, logical and interpretable by our reasoning powers, there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all.

Intense curiosity is a basic human characteristic, and science is merely an inevitable consequence of that.

And that assumption only comes from two beliefs key to Christianity and Judaism: namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles, and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world.

I would simply put it down to our inability to stop asking the question, "why"?. The idea of God originated there; we needed him as an explanation for the things we had no other way of explaining.

Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism,

Actually, atheists probably make better scientists than Christians, because they are still looking for answers after the Christians think they have found them in the Bible.

which expects the world to be nothing but the product of forces acting randomly, and human beings to be accidental productions of an indifferent process.

That's not really a very accurate presentation of how scientifically minded none Christians regard nature, but I know you are just being you.

[Harbal]

U better be careful messin with this guy Immental Can, Harb.

Do you sense that I am vulnerable, prom?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I thought Forrest Gump invented science?