Framework of science

That would be pretty bad . If we start to agree more ill consider changing my views😆

My evolution can inform me that dropping a rock on the person next tome is probably not in my best interest for long-term survival, but it cannot say whether I truly should drop the rock on the person.

5 Likes

There are two related questions that science cannot answer:
What gives your life its meaning?
What is the nature of good and evil?
The first question is so personal that it would be difficult for science to give an answer. Science can help provide the knowledge needed, but not the answer.
As to the second, you have a similar problem. Science can provide you the knowledge to help you judge good and evil, but the determination itself is not simply objective.
I’m sure that there are other similar questions that are beyond science’s purview. One that comes to mind is “what is beauty” or “what is art?”

5 Likes

Yeap. Social norms i guess doesnt exist. Arent they the result of evoltuion though?

Evolution has given us nearly all two moral imperatives; do no harm and be fair, as can be seen throughout non-human species.

Successfully reproducing individuals are those who are the parents of future generations. This is an amoral fact and does not depend on the way how this result is achieved.

‘Be fair’ is not a basic rule in nature, at least not in the sense I understand it.
‘Be fair if it is profitable’ is a more accurate observation. Nature is not fair.

‘Do no harm’ is not either a basic rule in nature. Harming others in a passive or active way is common. ‘Do no harm’ only holds if harming gives no reward or is too risky.

What is right or wrong is something that cannot (or should not) be decided based on what happens in nature. Otherwise we might conclude that eating your own kids is ok, or something as horrible.

3 Likes

Interesting.

Remind you some rules and actions that God commanded troughout the OT?

These are natural, evolved, genetic, human and higher animal basic rules. Capuchins know unfairness when they see it.

Does anyone else see the contradiction? (It wasn’t edited away.)

One question that I feel science can’t answer is “ what is the value of one person’s life versus the next” or at what point does something become statistically not worth spending time on anymore such as a struggling marriage and the chances of it making it or not and so on. Obviously science can’t give a definite answer on faith or morality as well.

0t course science cannot address “wjh” this or
that about people. Science is good at " what ",
not. " why ".

As for “should” purpose, goals etc these are
human concepts about conscious human behaviour, and no more apply to evolution than
to a waterfall.

They emerge from the evolutionarily genetically hard wired brain. Science is perfectly adequate for addressing the whys, the shoulds. There’s nothing else, God or no.

I can find no way to connect the definition of "should " to evolution.

As for " why" , Dr Feynman said it far better than i could

I don’t know much about the capuchins but I can accept that they understand unfairness in the relationships within their social group. This does not mean that ‘be fair’ would be a basic rule in nature. Many social animals, probably also the capuchins, favor closer relatives or friends in sharing resources or services, and cheat when they get an opportunity to do it without others seeing. Knowing unfairness is different from ‘be fair’.

Capuchins know it independent of kinship. You need to see the Frans De Waal Ted Talk.

Should is used in morality. That is evolved from the bottom up of life. Our capacity for should, for shame, is entirely predicated on what others would think. That isn’t magic.

As to the why of things, why is existence meaningless? is syntactic but not semantic. Why questions are only meaningless when they reach for what isn’t there. But why did you steal the last cookie that was for your sister? is a perfectly valid quest for motive, self reflection, moral development which is why it was asked.

Science doesnt do why, or morality. We dont seem to be on the same topic.

1 Like

Oh … it is the same topic. Klax just has a one-track mantra he repeats around here that “there is nothing beyond.” Don’t let that bother you much. Most Christians have no trouble accepting that there is much to life and philosophy quite beyond the reach of science. Dissenting background noise and grumblings will always be there.

3 Likes

I read posts elsewhere and got the idea after i posted…
you confirmed it. Tnx.

Can science tell me if I have a soul or spirit?