Science Fetishists hate it when you call them out

This morning I tweeted:

You cannot 'science' your way into morality

Naturally, this really gets to the Naturalists, the people who believe that science alone can perceive the universe. I got a response (from a Ron Paul supporter no less):

GodsofLiberty wrote:Intolerance and war in the name of religion that dictates its own "morality" is morality?

I responded:

Who said anything about religion? Show me where science has created a moral code to live by?

He responds:

GodsofLiberty wrote:By not forcing its moral code on you it has demonstrated morality.

I responded:

Is there are moral code in science? Where is it derived?

So far no response to my inquiry. There is no such thing as a moral code that comes from scientific study. Science is amoral at best.

Not that I find anything wrong with scientific study, but I do have serious issues with morons who can't fully comprehend the end logic of their assertions. Morality is derived from religion, not science.

I disagree.

When the complexity of interdependent natural systems is understood, including those which support human life, a certain respect for them is a natural result. Does this respect translate to morality? It depends on the definition of morality, of course, but it is fair to say, "Sometimes."

I see no reason whatsoever to assume that an atheist inherently is immoral or amoral. And, many "religious" people had no problem supporting Bush's immoral intervention in Iraq, nor did they have any problem with immoral sanctions on Iraq which did result in the deaths of many children and elderly people.

Religion may create a moral code, but by no means may we say that religious people actually live by it. They may hide behind it however.

There is a saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I've never heard it said, but it would be correct to say, "Religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

A rational atheist is one who acknowledges that morality is an abstract concept developed by man.

Science has, if anything, found better ways to murder rather than seek out a way to justify a law against it. No one can derive a moral code solely from the scientific method because the science does not concern itself with matters of philosophy or religion.

I disagree again.

Science has found better ways to murder, and people professing religion avail themselves of those means.

Treating your fellow man kindly, respectfully, does not have to be based on any religious or spiritual belief. Atheists, like all human beings, can hold abstract concepts, and one such concept would be to love one's neighbor.

Many if not most wars have a religious element. While Islam can be said to justify, even encourage war, the same cannot be said of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Yet, prayers to God through Christ routinely are made to protect men killing other men, and for a particular nation to be victorious in war.

Imo, your point is vacant swifty, not much different than the concept of a "Christian nation."

I have singled out science and stated that you cannot derive morality from science, that is the field of study associated with the scientific method.

When I said that morality is derived from religion, I still haven't seen anything that proves me wrong. The atheist has merely co-opted morality from the dominant religion of his or her society and cherry picked what they liked about it. But if you were question an atheist as to why morality exists to begin with, you won't get a straight answer. In essence, morality exists as a human concept to them, rather than a divine one. If there is no divine authority, if morality is an idea owned solely by humans, then it can change and bend to our whims, without consequence.

Look at what is happening now in Europe. Once Christianity was removed from the mainstream culture, people have turned back to paganism. There is no such thing as an atheist culture, atheism is just a parasitic belief on whatever culture it happens to pop up in.

swiftfoxmark2 wrote:I have singled out science and stated that you cannot derive morality from science, that is the field of study associated with the scientific method.

When I said that morality is derived from religion, I still haven't seen anything that proves me wrong. The atheist has merely co-opted morality from the dominant religion of his or her society and cherry picked what they liked about it. But if you were question an atheist as to why morality exists to begin with, you won't get a straight answer. In essence, morality exists as a human concept to them, rather than a divine one. If there is no divine authority, if morality is an idea owned solely by humans, then it can change and bend to our whims, without consequence.

Look at what is happening now in Europe. Once Christianity was removed from the mainstream culture, people have turned back to paganism. There is no such thing as an atheist culture, atheism is just a parasitic belief on whatever culture it happens to pop up in.

Here is what I see you saying without saying it:

• Loving one's neighbor has no rational basis
• Love itself has no rational basis
• Lying, stealing, killing, adultery, envy, dishonoring your mother and father, have a rational basis
• Left to reason alone, people will sink to the lowest levels

In this world, most of the worst excesses perpetrated have had a "moral" basis, Christianity included. What's happening in Europe has no logical basis. It's rooted in muddy-headed thinking and Greed, the desire by the few to have power over the many.

When "christianity" was strongest in Europe, the Europeans delighted in warring with each other continuously, and the leaders of each warring party told the led that God was on our side and the led believed it.

What began to lift Europe out of its centuries-long habits was not a religious revival, it was reason. It was not the Luthers and Calvins and Popes who ended Europe's carnage. It was the minds which flourished during the Renaissance, and the Age of Reason.

Religion and its attendant morality have been and still are cherry picked and bent to serve human endeavors primarily by making the enemy "immoral" and evil. Morality and religion are akin to fire: Fire can be used to keep oneself warm, cook food, or can be used to burn down your neighbors house and lay waste to his fields.

Religion and morality can benefit from the application of reason, and science ,,, or not. No hard and fast rules apply.

Who says God does not reason? Who says that religion is without rationality?

Who says that science has a monopoly on reason? Who says that non-believers are more apt at reason than believers?

I don't accept the premises of your initial arguments.

Whether they are sin or holy, actions are amoral as far as science is concerned because science studies the 'How' of life. Religion answers the 'Why' of life.

Science alone cannot create a moral standard by which to live. It merely will allow us to better understand the world we live in. There are limits to science, however. You cannot make appeals to things like natural laws because natural laws in science concern material things, not immaterial ideas about human interaction.

As for the Enlightenment that so many revere, it had it's own string of ugly wars and wanton acts of genocide. The French Revolution featured so many deaths, the oppression of religion, and an air of fear brought to the French by Robespierre.

Don't cling to reason as the means by which men make peace. I could reason myself into making war with other nations when such actions would be wholly unnecessary. It is true that religion has not guaranteed absolute peace, but neither has reason and enlightenment. In truth, it is our base human nature that drives us to violate the moral codes we all accept as fact, though we have no reasoned them into existence.

Who says God does not reason? Who says that religion is without rationality?

Who says that science has a monopoly on reason? Who says that non-believers are more apt at reason than believers?

I don't accept the premises of your initial arguments.

Those aren't the premises of my initial argument. Perhaps I've not communicated well.

I refuse to create a dichotomy when none is required. It isn't reason or morality. It isn't science or religion.

Reason can develop a moral code. Religion can develop a moral code. No inherent conflict of values exists between reason and morality. In fact, each can benefit from a relationship with the other.

Take as an example the conflict we see played out regarding the environment. On the one hand, humanistic "environmentalists," who excise God from the equation, create "solutions" which impinge upon personal liberty as they further enlarge and empower government.

On the other hand are "religious" people who, in their political zeal for personal liberty and smaller government, knee-jerk dismiss environmental issues and naively "trust" all greed-driven capitialists to properly care for the environment, which is btw God's creative work.

So, we have a "battle" between the two camps which is pointless and fruitless. Having "our side" and being a member of it, which requires sustaining a false dichotomy, becomes far more important than learning from the "other side," and coming to agreement, and actually caring for God's creation, or from scientific view, actually caring for the ecosystem which sustains life on Earth.

I am tired of this false dichotomy. I feel like a freaking alien sometimes because I don't and cannot sympathize with either "side," as I grow weary of the continual effort by both camps to sustain this false dichotomy.

Morality is a natural law. It can be appreciated in a spiritual way, or in a rational way. There is no essential difference between the two.

Where does 'natural' law come from?

It doesn't come from nature, that's for sure.

As far as environmentalism is concerned, you'll find that if we all honored property rights the way we all seem to accept free speech rights, most environmental problems wouldn't exist. People don't pollute in places that they own or if they do, it's done in a way that doesn't interfere with other people's property.

Government has no regard for property rights. This is why they can allow some companies to pollute while forcing all of us peons to buy crap that doesn't work because it's environmentally safe.

As a Christian, I recognize that this is God's domain, that he owns everything. What we have is allowed by God for the purposes of managing His Creation. I trust the individual to make better decisions in this regard over the government because the individual will only obtain as much property as his or her abilities and skills allow. The government just takes stuff, regardless of the need, and demands we smile along the way.

Government has no regard for property rights. This is why they can allow some companies to pollute while forcing all of us peons to buy crap that doesn't work because it's environmentally safe.

Sure, I understand that point. But, you've left a lot of ground uncovered.

Greed, swifty, that's why capitalism doesn't work, why some capitalists can be counted upon not to respect property rights.

The computer in front of you and me created toxic waste in its manufacture. Government didn't force you or me to by it.

Your position is one that I mentioned: Taking a stance based on religion, expressing political zeal for personal liberty, smaller government, and property rights as you knee-jerk dismiss that any rational person who does not accept God will pursue environmental issues at the expense of personal rights, as you note that greed-driven capitalists should respect property rights, and from that will flow a proper respect for the environment.

In an ideal world, this would be so. In an ideal world, greed-driven, me-first capitalists wouldn't exist. Clearly, we don't live in an ideal world, so swifty, your point is moot.

I maintain no inherent conflict exists between science and religion. Science seeks to uncover natural laws. I maintain that those who insist that such a conflict exists do so for political reasons. And I maintain that all of us are worse off for creating this politically driven dichotomy.

Swifty, this teaching better explains my position.

Luke 10

...30 A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.