contact(at)onbelief.orgList of Articles Reader Responses: Page 10
Andrew: You noted that "We should also welcome the acknowledgement of a lack within science as an overarching view of the world". I believe that science can explain everything in theory. This may not be the case in practice and perhaps will always be so due to humans limitations but theoretically science could explain everything because everything exists physically. This means that everything is measurable and quantifiable. Even thoughts and emotions are caused by electrical and chemical signals within the brain. But because science never is 100% about any claim we will never be 100% sure whether a theory is correct. There is always a certain amount of doubt.
You also noted that Monsanto is an immoral company because they "trying to market reproductively disabled (sterile) and trait-restricted seeds to world farmers". Whilst I agree that the company is indeed an immoral one, the product they produce is not. One of the unavoidable problems with genetically modified crops is that they, species dependant, are sterile but in theory GM crops could be very good, provided adequate research into the safety of these crops was conducted. We are able to create drought, pest resistant etc which could be very usefully in some developing countries if companies, such as Monsanto, were not interested in making money but rather helping these countries.
On the subject of pseudo-science I read something quite alarming on the bbc web site http//www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11277990 in which 3 GP's had given homeopathic MMR "vaccines " to their patients when their patients had asked about them.
One the section about laws in science then there are indeed laws which scientist believe to be true as a result of the evidence for it. However unlike faith, which has no evidence, a belief can change if the evidence is no longer compelling. This happens the whole time in science and it is the great thing about it, P never equals 1.
I watched quite an interesting documentary about the British faith schools and it raised some interesting points. Mainly about how children are brainwashed into religious thinking. Richard Dawkins went to a muslim faith school where the pupils were taught science. However none of the pupils believed in evolution and they also believed that salt water and fresh water could not mix because it said so in the Quaran. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/faith-school-menace/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
Andrew Again: I think that before one can ask whether science can give us answers to moral questions we have to ask what morality is. I would argue that morality is a vague notion that there is good and evil exists. This is an illusion since morality is a man-made to describe people's opinion on the consequences of our actions. To our knowledge, it is only to humans to whom actions can have moral implications. It is therefore fair to say that a morally good or evil deed is purely how we, as humans, perceive the outcome.
Science and vagueness do not gel so if we are going to determine whether science can answer moral questions we have to define what the outcome parameter is? How are we going to measure the outcome? Is it by determining the percentage of people who think the outcome is good or bad? Who is the outcome good for? Is it for the humans within a community or all humans? Is it good for humans and nature? Is it good for future generations?
Consider you are a car dealer and a customer comes and ask, ‘what is a good car?' This question is invalid because the outcome parameter has not been defined. If the question was ‘what is a good car for off road driving?' then science could answer it because of the knowledge of traction, torque, horsepower etc.
Next we have to define what is good and bad? Is a good moral outcome one that results in wealth, happiness, health and so on. There is no concrete idea about what a good or bad is. Moral goodness is a fluid concept that is judged by the zeitgeist of acceptable behaviour at that time. If one were living in America during the 50's one would most likely consider black people inferior and treat them as such (unacceptable by today's standards but not during that period of time). It is therefore not hard to imagine that what we consider to be good now will perhaps be thought of as barbaric in the future. Because the concept of moral good or bad is evolving the conclusions of what should be done on a moral dilemma would therefore also have to evolve in conjunction.
This, however, does not mean that science should be considered inept in answering moral questions. If we return to the idea of a car dealer the concept of what constitutes a good off road car then imaging asking the same question 50 years ago. The answer would be different but both would be correct. It is merely that what was considered a good off road car in the 60's has changed in 2010. It is the same with morals.
Finally I would like to note that I don't think there can be a fixed idea of what moral good or bad is at any one point in history, much like there will never been an off road car that is the definitively the best. There will always be different people's opinion on what the best car is as well as people believing that off road cars are bad due to their negative effect on the environment. Even today there is a geographic distinction in moral conduct. In less evolved societies capital punishment is still practiced because in those societies that behaviour is acceptable, but for us it is not.
On an ethical issue I think don't think that we could conduct physical scientific experiments to determine the answer to many moral questions but we could give people moral dilemmas and analyse the results. Here is an example of a moral question which physiologist have used in an experiment; http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/06/23/a-moral-dilemma/
Historically we can look back and gain the answer to moral questions such as ‘Is stealing good'. It is beneficially to all in a society if nobody steals, if some people steal it is detrimental to the rest and if all steal then nobody benefits. We can therefore say that stealing is wrong.
There was one section in which you wrote “ The amoral blindness of a small minority of scientists has a greater destructive potential than all of the ravings and genocide of all religious bigots throughout the whole of human history. To examine the physical destructive power of a weapon in the absence of a sociological or ethical meta-analysis concerning its use is madness. Consider what happened in the late 1940's after Europe and the East had been devastated by believers in the Third Reich and the Emperor. A highly intelligent, very educated but completely witless and amoral group of physicists developed the fusion bomb . ” I have to take you up on this point as I do not feel it is valid.
Firstly Franklin D. Roosevelt, who started the project, was an Episcopal Christian and Harry S. Truman, who ordered the bombing of Japan, was a Southern Baptist. I am unaware of the religious views (or lack there off) of Leslie Groves and J. R, Oppenheimer or the other people involved, but it does not matter. The vast majority of atrocities that have ever been committed have been done using science (be it a sword, gun or bomb). As always it is how the technology is used that has moral implications and not technology itself.
And secondly without nuclear theory we would not have many modern medical treatments such as radiotherapy, and many modern theories which rely on the nuclear theory.
Finally I think it is important to note that there is no consensus on whether the use of the two nuclear bombs was justified. I would like to mention that prior to the bombs being dropped America been dropping napalm on Japan which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 civilians in Japan (300,000) more than from the two nuclear bombs) and Japan never surrendered. I am not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree (I do not feel I have adequate information to allow me to make a strong case either way). I found some information which gave both sides of the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debates_over_the_bombings
Todd: Thanks, I enjoyed your ideas whether I agreed with them or not. Here are some thoughts: (please forgive me if one of your articles went into these in more detail but I didn't see an article title that seemed related other than the one's I read (a fair number))
(1) There are well-know criticisms of the various forms of utilitarianism (and responses of course), but the question is why isn't this a belief system? It has some evidence for it, of course, and is, to some extent, testable via history and politics, but at least the following is not self-evident to me: "I consider that it is better to determine whether our not our ideas have any utility , by whatever criteria we choose to adopt and whether or not they bring us satisfaction." Stepping outside the issue of religion, some studies have suggested that unreasonable optimism is a characteristic of "successful" people. Should we be unreasonably optimistic and encourage others to be so too in the name of "utility" and "satisfaction"?
(2) You criticize Einstein and Teller for helping develop nuclear bombs. On what basis? Utilitarianism? That the world is meaningless? Would you support imposing your ideas (about not imposing beliefs, utilitarianism, etc.) on a society that condones someone throwing acid in a young woman's face because she is going to school? I think I would even if though I might be wrong in the particular instance and in the general. I am not suggesting that your criticism of a "naive" belief in science is wrong or that the US was innocent in developing the fusion bomb, but aren't you proposing (and willing to impose in certain circumstances) ideas too?
In the US, Sam Harris has written a book about "science and morality" that advocates utilitarianism (maximizing "brain states"). It's OK, but he seems a little weak in considering the arguments surrounding utilitarianism over the last 150 years.
Commentary: Utilitarianism is such a fundamental way to construe the world that it forms part of most beliefs systems, albeit in disguised forms. Any culture or belief system that lacks utility will inevitably be replaced during the cultural the evolution of ideas. That is not to say that frivolous or outlandish beliefs are either transitory or lack prevalence at any particular pont in time. By our very existence in the world we provvoke or cuase change and so to evolve other ideas. Some newer ideas will of course also prove to be useless.
It seems now well accepted that we have an inbuilt 'optimism bias' which could not be be described as rational. I cannot see however why that should only correspond to particular definitions of success. I suspect it is more fundamental to the majority of people who would not be described as depressed. I would argue however that it is no more irrational than the desire to stay alive, which is necessary for biological survival and evolution. Indeed I think of the 'optimism bias' as necessary component of sustaining life itself. Given a set of future predictions about our personal futures such bias will have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.
When I say "I consider that it is better to determine whether our not our ideas have any utility , by whatever criteria we choose to adopt and whether or not they bring us satisfaction." I mean rather than suppose a priori our ideas are bearers of truth (or falsity).
Any societal consensus will inevitably mean that some do not see their aspirations or their way of doing things being tolerated by others. The differences and tensions between ideas within society will be a driver for change and cultural evolution. Clearly when views are diametrically opposed in the form of 'to build fusion bomb' or 'not to build the fusion bomb' then at some point there will inevitable be coercion. If I am militaristic and am successful in building a bomb, as UK politicians have been, I am imposing on opponents the shared responsibility and consquences of this belief. However it seesm unlikey that I should attempt to corece them to believe that this is the appropriate course of action.
Norman: Suffice to say I agree with your belief that "- on pragmatic and philosophical grounds that rigidity and absoluteness of belief in many domains of thinking causes unhappiness, and also restricts novelty, creativity, and intellectual progress in the world." - except that it goes away beyond unhappiness to ultimate cruelty, misery and pain.
Commentary: Additional words from me would be entirely superfluous
Your Response
Please indicate if your response is not intended for publication on this site. Your response might be shortened or paraphrased or be restricted to a particular point you have made.
If you would like to respond please feel free to contact me at contact(at)onblief.org I am happy to discuss the ideas expressed on this site with religious and non-religious people alike. However, please to not waste your time trying to convert me to your particular religious perspective. Despite my contentious remarks about religion, I no longer see any personal value in debating the correctness of particular details of the many theologies that exist with the religious or 'non-believers' and do not obtain any satisfaction from doing so. Perhaps you could direct such comments to a 'believer', priest, minster of religion, theologian, philosopher, atheist or skeptical thinker as you think appropriate. I hope you will not see that request as arrogance on my part but merely as a desire to move on to other areas of debate, which at this time in my life, I view as more productive. If you have been personally insulted by what I have written you have my sincere apologies for I seek to challenge rather than insult. I can say very little to those who see all challenges to their beliefs as an insult, especially if those challenges come in the form of newspaper cartoons. Otherwise your comment is very welcome. A good online place to ask questions and debate philosophical issues is http://forums.philosophyforums.com/
On the Philosophy of Belief
www.onbelief.org
Scotland, 12th October 2007 and thereafter
Copyright 2007 onwardscontact (at) onbelief.org
