Re: Fw: Alliance for Science

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:30:07 -0700 "Matt \"Fritz\" Bergin"
<fritziematt@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Morality isn't just the laws of the land. There are things that
> are
> > considered immoral that aren't against the law. I don't kill or
> steal
> > because its wrong not because I will be punished for it by
> society. People
> > break laws and cause war and death because that's human nature.
> >
You're right that morality is not just legal prohibitions and
requirements. There are many actions that are either commended or
penalized that are not covered by laws. Indeed, legal enactments are a
rather blunt instrument relative to the fine distinctions that may be
made morally.

Some people break laws because they think they can get away with the act.
Some years back I had opportunity to talk to a chap who was in charge of
training at a penal institution. He noted that many of the inmates
recognized that they had made a mistake that allowed them to be caught.
This did not persuade them to give up crime. They expected to continue
their criminal life after serving the sentence, being careful not to make
the mistake that sent them to jail. He also noted that it was very
difficult to have an effective training program with the inmates because
most had low intelligence. The reason, he claimed, was that it was mainly
the stupid ones that got caught.

As to human nature, the situation is more complex. There are psychopaths.
Some of these are very tenderhearted when it comes to animals. But there
are other individuals who are very sensitive to human hurt. It's not
possible to paint all with the same brush.

> > Whats the difference between saying that there is no absolute
> truth and
> > that we can't know what it is? The outcome is the same...and are
> you
> > saying that your statement is an absolute truth that we do know?
> or don't
> > we know that either? We are still faced with the same problem.
> >
There is a large difference between denying absolute truth and
recognizing that it is beyond human reach. The latter springs from a
recognition of human finitude. I cannot prove that God exists, but I
place my full confidence in trusting that he does. Note that the author
of Hebrews says that the human suppliant must believe (not know) that he
exists, and that he rewards those who seek him. The claim to know is, if
reasonable, a toned down version, something one is committed to, or else
is foolish. C. S. Peirce wisely noted that all human beings will admit
that a human being may be wrong, always making exception for themselves
in this instance.

I note that science properly recognizes the tentative nature of their
theories. Unfortunately, there are those who think that science
determines the right answers to metaphysical, moral and other matters
that cannot be touched by scientific investigations.

> > I really don't think that atheists and christians have the same
> reasons
> > for being moral. Sure we obey the laws because we agree to keep
> the laws
> > as part of being citizens. I would be willing to guess that most
> > Christians want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus for reasons
> that don't
> > include not wanting to be punished by society. I'm saying that
> atheists
> > have no reaon at all to be moral and no reason to tell other
> people to do
> > the same. I'm not saying that there aren't atheists that aren't
> good
> > people or that follow the law. There are atheists now that are
> moral
> > because they were raised that way in a society that is influenced
> by
> > religion (an observation by my atheist prof.). What about people
> and
> > societies in an atheist future that will be raised on the idea
> that there
> > are no morals or absolute truth or that their existence is just an
>
> > illusion and that other people are just a clump of molecules and
> > electrical and chemical signals? You can't really say otherwise if
> you
> > only use science to look at the world or people.
> >
> > I'm very weary of the atheists that say religion is the cause of
> every
> > problem (Dawkins), that morality is just an illiusion created by
> our genes
> > (Ruse), that people are just a buch of molecules and signals that
> create
> > an illusion of existence (Crick), ect. I don't know about you but
> I don't
> > want anyone who thinks that morality is a genetic illusion working
> on
> > anything that has to do with experimenting with human DNA. Maybe I
> just
> > don't have enough experience in genetics and DNA but I can't help
> but
> > think of the horrors that humanity could create with this also.
> Science
> > can be used for great good...but if we destroy any idea of
> morality where
> > is that going to lead science in the future?
> >
> > ~Matt
> >
To be sure, Christians and atheists have very different foundations for
their moral claims, but not always. There are various matters that have
been claimed to be basic. Even the same basis may be developed to produce
vary different moral rules. However, in practice, both Christians and
atheists may apply "I would feel very bad if ..." This is an area that
gets very complicated when examined broadly and dispassionately. As
noted, some atheists act as Christians ought to act. Some Christians act
like the devil.
Dave
Received on Sat Mar 11 23:49:58 2006