

Morality: 'We can send religion to the scrap heap' - shawndumas
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827822.100-morality-we-can-send-religion-to-the-scrap-heap.html?full=true&print=true

======
shawndumas
To start up discussion I'll drop a quote from Gordon H. Clark:

"I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any
empirical science can never determine moral norms.

Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover
what people ought to do.

From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to
define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.

Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine
who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can
only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason
wants to do.

[...] Anyone who begins their arguments with statements about man and the
universe -- statements in the indicative mood -- cannot end their arguments
with statements in the imperative mood."

~~~
msluyter
Yes, your point essentially mirrors Hume's famous is/ought gap, under which
statements about what "ought" to be cannot be derived from statements about
what is (factual statements.) This still poses some serious philosophical
questions. See:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem>

------
ugh
_Questions of right and wrong, good and evil, are questions about human and
animal well-being._

I agree that religion can tell us no more about morality than anything else
but I’m not sure whether it’s that simple. Watching the discourse in society,
however, it does actually look to me that this assumption underlies most of
the discourse about moral questions.

Nobody, if they don’t want to be laughed out of the room, says “Abortion
should be illegal because the Pope who speaks for god on earth says so.”, they
say “Abortion should be illegal because of facts A, B and C.” and those facts
relate to human well-being [+]. That’s at least my experience with discourse
in Europe. You might see overt references to religion but they are really
rare.

I don’t know how to justify the assumption that human well-being should be the
center of our morality in detail (someone help me out please) and wouldn’t
talk with the same certainty about it Sam Harris does but I do think that it
today shapes much of our discourse about morality. Most people simply agree
that human well-being is central to our morality, that’s why we so often can
use science when we talk about morality. That’s why we can all agree about
most moral questions. All that’s left are rare edge cases like abortion or
euthanasia.

[+] Even the Pope talks mostly about human well-being and not about scripture
when he talks about abortion, see for example:
<http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506904.htm>

~~~
tome
_Even the Pope talks mostly about human well-being and not about scripture
when he talks about abortion_

I think this is expedience on the part of the Catholic church more than
anything else.

~~~
JunkDNA
Not quite expedience. This is a tradition that dates back to the very earliest
years of the Church (c.a. 160 AD), starting with Justin Martyr and his
writings to the Emperor of Rome (known as "apologies").

Justin was a philosopher convert to Christianity and was known for using the
language and reasoning common to philosophers of the time to defend the early
Christian Church. He reasoned that if he was going to make a case for the
Church, he would have to frame his argument with principles familiar to his
audience. This was a novel approach at the time, but it has been emulated by
countless people since.

------
danbmil99
What creeps me out about Harris's ideas on this subject are the fact that he
concludes we need a world government and a panel of "well-being" scientists to
decide right and wrong.

There's no way that could turn out bad, now is there? Sounds like a B-
Hollywood script. Spoiler: the scientists are crazy and abuse their power to
evil ends. Bruce Willis has to kill them and take over the world government
for sane people everywhere.

------
dazzawazza
I certainly agree that science can offer a more useful, factual and inclusive
set of guide lines than any faith.

Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by
religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to
society or the individuals concerned.

This can be used as a basis for policy in government and morality within
society.

Now consider slavery which many religion's texts consider acceptable. Science
can tell us that it does a great deal of harm to the individual concerned,
their close relatives and less but not insignificant harm to the host and
parasitic societies. Again this can be used to form policy and wider morality.

It doesn't mean that it will always be 'right' but it does mean we will be
able to make changes to our moral landscape by learning from past mistakes and
studying the data that led to past moral decisions. We will also be able to
challenge other peoples morals using data and not ad-hominems etc.

At the moment as a species we struggle with:

\- the false notion that morality is absolute: it never changes and can never
change.

\- lack of data about how past absurd moral decisions were made (for example
no gays, but slaves are a go)

~~~
michael_dorfman
_Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by
religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to
society or the individuals concerned._

Science can't tell us that, really. Even if we had an objective measure of
"societal harm", we'd have to normalize somehow _for the content of the
cultures themselves._ In other words, being gay may cause no social harm in a
society that permits homosexuality, but may cause significant social harm in a
society that does not.

Science can be a contributing factor to discussions of morality, but it is not
probative.

 _At the moment as a species we struggle with: \- the false notion that
morality is absolute: it never changes and can never change. \- lack of data
about how past absurd moral decisions were made (for example no gays, but
slaves are a go)_

In light of your first point: are you suggesting that morality is completely
relative? Or merely that it is culturally contingent? If the latter, which
portions are to be considered quasi-absolute so that we don't slip into the
former?

As to your second point: "absurd" by what definition? You are presupposing (by
your notion of "absurdity") some sort of measure of "reasonability" that I
think you will have trouble defining, especially if you think that absolute
morality is a false notion.

------
brudgers
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy>

Kick off with fallacious reasoning.

 _"Questions of right and wrong, good and evil, are questions about human and
animal well-being."_

And replace religion with faith -

 _"Once we accept the idea that right and wrong relate to questions of well-
being, and that such questions have answers that will be best illuminated by
honest observation and careful reasoning, then we can decide, once and for
all, that certain people are not worth listening to on the subject of
morality."_

We can decide certain people aren't worth listening to without accepting the
idea.

------
known
"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

