Why do some professionals in the sciences reject religion?

[FlashDangerpants]

First: the idea that we “can’t derive an ought from an is” (Hume’s Guillotine) is often misunderstood. It doesn’t mean values can’t be informed by facts. It means you need at least one value assumption to get going—something like: “We should reduce suffering,” or “Human well-being matters.” Once you accept even a single ethical premise like that, the rest absolutely can be shaped by evidence.

So you start with an assumption that cannot be backed up by any evidence, base everything off that, and then congratualte yourself for being evidence-based. Awesome.

[BigMike]

First: the idea that we “can’t derive an ought from an is” (Hume’s Guillotine) is often misunderstood. It doesn’t mean values can’t be informed by facts. It means you need at least one value assumption to get going—something like: “We should reduce suffering,” or “Human well-being matters.” Once you accept even a single ethical premise like that, the rest absolutely can be shaped by evidence.

So you start with an assumption that cannot be backed up by any evidence, base everything off that, and then congratualte yourself for being evidence-based. Awesome.

Every ethical system—including yours, whether you admit it or not—starts with at least one unprovable value assumption. That’s unavoidable. But those assumptions don’t come out of nowhere. They’re caused by noticing life experiences and their outcomes, by observing what leads to harm or well-being, by seeing patterns emerge around us over time.

So yes, the first step is technically an assumption—but it’s not arbitrary. It's shaped by the same causal universe we’re all embedded in.

And this isn’t hypocrisy—it’s just how reasoning works. Physics itself operates on a hypothetico-deductive model. We assume certain things (like the laws of motion or conservation laws), then test predictions. If the predictions fail, we revise. That’s science.

Mathematics and logic are different—they’re axiomatic deductive systems. They don’t deal with the real world; they operate within closed symbolic frameworks. But when it comes to applying ethics in reality—where outcomes matter—you better believe we need evidence.

So no, it’s not “congratulating ourselves” for being evidence-based. It’s recognizing that once you care about anything at all, you’ve already stepped into the world of values. The only honest question is: are your values responsive to reality, or just anchored in ancient stories and untested dogmas?

[Alexiev]

[


Every ethical system—including yours, whether you admit it or not—starts with at least one unprovable value assumption. That’s unavoidable. But those assumptions don’t come out of nowhere. They’re caused by noticing life experiences and their outcomes, by observing what leads to harm or well-being, by seeing patterns emerge around us over time.

So yes, the first step is technically an assumption—but it’s not arbitrary. It's shaped by the same causal universe we’re all embedded in.

And this isn’t hypocrisy—it’s just how reasoning works. Physics itself operates on a hypothetico-deductive model. We assume certain things (like the laws of motion or conservation laws), then test predictions. If the predictions fail, we revise. That’s science.

Mathematics and logic are different—they’re axiomatic deductive systems. They don’t deal with the real world; they operate within closed symbolic frameworks. But when it comes to applying ethics in reality—where outcomes matter—you better believe we need evidence.

So no, it’s not “congratulating ourselves” for being evidence-based. It’s recognizing that once you care about anything at all, you’ve already stepped into the world of values. The only honest question is: are your values responsive to reality, or just anchored in ancient stories and untested dogmas?

Actually, the first assumptions about ethical "oughts" are shaped by cultural norms. And cultural norms are often shaped by religion. The dogma of religious morality may be based on.myths -- but it is far from "untested". Indeed, it is because such ethical norms as "do unto others" have stood the test of time that we renounce them at our peril. There's no reason these norms should be abandoned simply because we cannot accept the religious foundation on which they are based. If we don't believe in God does that mean it's OK to covet our neighbor's wife? Or kill? Or bear false witness?

Of course we should look at evidence to see if our behavior is consistent with our deeply held (and non-evidence-based) moral principles. Who would deny it? But inventing the principles without reference to history, cultural norms, and time-tested ethical systems smacks of dangerous hubris.

[BigMike]

Every ethical system—including yours, whether you admit it or not—starts with at least one unprovable value assumption. That’s unavoidable. But those assumptions don’t come out of nowhere. They’re caused by noticing life experiences and their outcomes, by observing what leads to harm or well-being, by seeing patterns emerge around us over time.

So yes, the first step is technically an assumption—but it’s not arbitrary. It's shaped by the same causal universe we’re all embedded in.

And this isn’t hypocrisy—it’s just how reasoning works. Physics itself operates on a hypothetico-deductive model. We assume certain things (like the laws of motion or conservation laws), then test predictions. If the predictions fail, we revise. That’s science.

Mathematics and logic are different—they’re axiomatic deductive systems. They don’t deal with the real world; they operate within closed symbolic frameworks. But when it comes to applying ethics in reality—where outcomes matter—you better believe we need evidence.

So no, it’s not “congratulating ourselves” for being evidence-based. It’s recognizing that once you care about anything at all, you’ve already stepped into the world of values. The only honest question is: are your values responsive to reality, or just anchored in ancient stories and untested dogmas?

Actually, the first assumptions about ethical "oughts" are shaped by cultural norms. And cultural norms are often shaped by religion. The dogma of religious morality may be based on.myths -- but it is far from "untested". Indeed, it is because such ethical norms as "do unto others" have stood the test of time that we renounce them at our peril. There's no reason these norms should be abandoned simply because we cannot accept the religious foundation on which they are based. If we don't believe in God does that mean it's OK to covet our neighbor's wife? Or kill? Or bear false witness?

Of course we should look at evidence to see if our behavior is consistent with our deeply held (and non-evidence-based) moral principles. Who would deny it? But inventing the principles without reference to history, cultural norms, and time-tested ethical systems smacks of dangerous hubris.

You're absolutely right that cultural norms play a massive role in shaping early ethical assumptions. But here's the thing: those norms, including religious ones, didn’t descend from the sky. They were formed by human beings responding to the challenges of survival, cooperation, and social cohesion—in other words, shaped by cause-and-effect patterns observed over time. Religion just happened to be the dominant explanatory framework at the time.

Yes, “do unto others” has stood the test of time. Not because it was delivered by divine decree, but because it works. Empathy, reciprocity, and cooperation are pro-social behaviors that lead to more stable, peaceful groups. That’s not myth—that’s evolutionary psychology and anthropology.

The idea that we must retain religious foundations just because certain values happened to be expressed in that form historically is like saying we should still explain lightning with Zeus because ancient people happened to stumble upon some good fire safety rules while fearing him. We can keep the helpful insights and ditch the superstition.

And no—disbelieving in God doesn’t mean anything goes. It means we take responsibility for evaluating our principles in the light of reason and evidence, not fear of divine punishment. We don’t need a cosmic parent to know that lying, stealing, and killing usually have destructive consequences. We observe that they do, across cultures and centuries.

Referencing history and tradition is wise. But blindly preserving what’s “time-tested” without questioning its origins, its purpose, or its truth? That’s not humility. That’s inertia. And in a world facing new global challenges, we can’t afford to navigate using outdated maps.

[Alexiev]

We don’t need a cosmic parent to know that lying, stealing, and killing usually have destructive consequences. We observe that they do, across cultures and centuries.

Huh! Lying, stealing and killing served the Mongol conquerors well. Nor did their moral codes decry them.

Also, you are correct that I don't need a cosmic parent to make moral decisions. I'm afraid you do, though. His divine name is Determinism (with a capital "d").

[FlashDangerpants]

First: the idea that we “can’t derive an ought from an is” (Hume’s Guillotine) is often misunderstood. It doesn’t mean values can’t be informed by facts. It means you need at least one value assumption to get going—something like: “We should reduce suffering,” or “Human well-being matters.” Once you accept even a single ethical premise like that, the rest absolutely can be shaped by evidence.

So you start with an assumption that cannot be backed up by any evidence, base everything off that, and then congratualte yourself for being evidence-based. Awesome.

Every ethical system—including yours, whether you admit it or not—starts with at least one unprovable value assumption. That’s unavoidable. But those assumptions don’t come out of nowhere. They’re caused by noticing life experiences and their outcomes, by observing what leads to harm or well-being, by seeing patterns emerge around us over time.

So wait, which is your only one single assumption that doesn't derive from evidence?

• It's good for things to be nice?

• It's good to be alive?

• It's good to be free?

• It's good to notdo evil shit?

• It's good that we can all agree to be good?

• A rational agent should only be constrained by laws to which he would readily assent if he had an ideal comprehension of all the issues involved?

Where is the only thing you are assuming? Something vague involving two nebulous concepts such as "good" and "well-being" is just an infinite special pleading buffet for the terminally lazy.

So yes, the first step is technically an assumption—but it’s not arbitrary. It's shaped by the same causal universe we’re all embedded in.

That's circular, you are claiming an ought from an is right there. You should read the original text, it is a warning about how easily even the careful can slip between propositions of one sort and propositions of another without even noticing.

And this isn’t hypocrisy—it’s just how reasoning works. Physics itself operates on a hypothetico-deductive model. We assume certain things (like the laws of motion or conservation laws), then test predictions. If the predictions fail, we revise. That’s science.

Mathematics and logic are different—they’re axiomatic deductive systems. They don’t deal with the real world; they operate within closed symbolic frameworks. But when it comes to applying ethics in reality—where outcomes matter—you better believe we need evidence.

So no, it’s not “congratulating ourselves” for being evidence-based. It’s recognizing that once you care about anything at all, you’ve already stepped into the world of values. The only honest question is: are your values responsive to reality, or just anchored in ancient stories and untested dogmas?

Yeah .... but your special thing for your ethical model is "evidence based" is it not?

I stopped reading the 200 page thread when it became all about Jacobi and thereby lost the last vestiges of potential interestingness. But last I did know, your ethical approach offered only a bunch of stuff that could equally be arrived by all sorts of other means without needing to make any expansive claims about the metaphysics of causation. It doesn't seem that further thinking has lead to any further development I'm afraid.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

To the OP. The clue is professionals. The more educated, the more likely.

[Skepdick]

...

Because it's perfectly rational to evict any beliefs which don't pay rent.

Unless they are working in the abstract/contemplative fields of science (which deal with deep thinking/foundational issues that borders on mysticism) chances are they have no use for those sort of ideas in their professional life.

And if it serves no social/spiritual function either - evict it.