Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully?

[Maine farmer]

Interesting, Granpa, but isn't even civility a moral concept?

 

Even the Hypocratic Oath taken by physicians is an oath of morality, is it not?

[Maine farmer]

Like I said in my post above, science is amoral. It doesn't matter whether you use it to destroy a planet or save it. The same E=mc^2 is responsible for the gigawatts of nuclear power produced each year and the complete decimation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of WWII. The same technology that has brought people all over the world closer together and sent a man to the moon guides the missiles that kill fighter pilots. A famous quote (I don't remeber who from, does anyone know?) goes, "Science is not good or bad. That comes from how you use it."

I agree, Polymath, so the question then becomes one of morality used in the application of scientiffic knoledge, and perhaps if should we limit access to certain knowlege, or make sure everyone has the same knowledge to use for defensive purposes. Would science save is via "mutually assured destruction", or doom us because there are too many religios nuts who think they will die as martyrs and earn an eternity in heaven.

[joekgamer]

morality is a purely psychological thing and whats moral for me may not be moral for you.

 

Psychology is a field of science. As are sociology and many others like it.

 

science should leave morality alone and only deal with 'civility' instead.

 

Science does leave morality alone, because, as I said earlier, it is inherently amoral.

[joekgamer]

doom us because there are too many religios nuts who think they will die as martyrs and earn an eternity in heaven.

 

And that is another problem. Science does not readily inspire fanatics/extremeists, because there is nothing to be an extreme of, while religous groups sometimes even cultivate them. For every person that you can find that is willing to kill someone over whether or not protein 523 does x or y you could find hundreds, even thousands of people willing to kill someone over who did what 2000 years ago.

[granpa]

I didnt mean that psychology isnt scientific.

I just meant to say that morality is different for different people.

[joekgamer]

Correct. Morality is different for each person because each person can come to their own conclusions. If religion was a major driving force behind morality, then wouldn't thaat be untrue?

[granpa]

Yes I believe that there is an objective right and wrong but it is, at its ultimate root, psychological.

 

You would have to carve peoples heads open to determine whether their actions were motivated by right or wrong impulses.

 

I personally dont advocate that sort of thing.

 

civilization has a right to protect itself but in my opinion it should try to leave morality out of the equation.

 

civilization should content itself with enforcing 'civility'.

[joekgamer]

How would you define civility then? Is it going out of your way to be kind to others? Or is it letting them live their own lives? Sounds a lot like moraity to me.

[granpa]

In the context in which I am using it, 'civility' would be that part of morality that is clearly necessary for civilivation to function.

[joekgamer]

Then what are a few examples of civility?

[granpa]

Yes I believe that there is an objective right and wrong but it is, at its ultimate root, psychological.

 

You would have to carve peoples heads open to determine whether their actions were motivated by right or wrong impulses.

 

I personally dont advocate that sort of thing.

 

civilization has a right to protect itself but in my opinion it should try to leave morality out of the equation.

 

civilization should content itself with enforcing 'civility'.

 

For the record, the psychological and the physical are, in theory, under ideal circumstances, supposed to coincide perfectly.

in reality of course, they dont.

 

on some boards, I speak as though they did coincide because that is how everyone there thinks.

on this board that would be pointless and counterproductive.

 

its complicated.

thats why I prefer to stay away from morality discussions.

[joekgamer]

For the record, the psychological and the physical are, in theory, under ideal circumstances, supposed to coincide perfectly.

in reality of course, they dont.

 

on some boards, I speak as though they did coincide because that is how everyone there thinks.

on this board that would be pointless and counterproductive.

 

its complicated.

thats why I prefer to stay away from morality discussions.

 

It seems that the issue here is semantic. Before any discussion can happen, all parties must understand the meaning of the terms being used. Normally this is not a problem (it's what language is for), but I see you using familiar terms in unfamiliar ways, which leads to confusion (see 'psychological' and 'physical' above). Could you define the main terms in argument, specifically:

 

1) pschological

2) physical

3) civility

4) morality

5) religion

6) science

 

These are all terms that you seem to have used in (in my experience at least) nonstandard ways. Could you clarify on how you are using them?

[granpa]

morality is a purely psychological thing and whats moral for me may not be moral for you.

 

science should leave morality alone and only deal with 'civility' instead.

I didnt mean that psychology isnt scientific.

I just meant to say that morality is different for different people.

In the context in which I am using it, 'civility' would be that part of morality that is clearly necessary for civilivation to function.

Yes I believe that there is an objective right and wrong but it is, at its ultimate root, psychological.

 

You would have to carve peoples heads open to determine whether their actions were motivated by right or wrong impulses.

 

I personally dont advocate that sort of thing.

 

civilization has a right to protect itself but in my opinion it should try to leave morality out of the equation.

 

civilization should content itself with enforcing 'civility'.

For the record, the psychological and the physical are, in theory, under ideal circumstances, supposed to coincide perfectly.

in reality of course, they dont.

 

on some boards, I speak as though they did coincide because that is how everyone there thinks.

on this board that would be pointless and counterproductive.

 

its complicated.

thats why I prefer to stay away from morality discussions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive

In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive ("Todestrieb") is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic: 'the hypothesis of a death instinct, the task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state'[1]. It was originally proposed by Sigmund Freud in 1920 in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where in his first published reference to the term he wrote of the 'opposition between the ego or death instincts and the sexual or life instincts'[2]. The death drive opposes Eros, the tendency toward survival, propagation, sex, and other creative, life-producing drives

 

in theory actions motivated by libido should always lead to civilization and actions motivated by thanatos should alway lead to destruction of civilization.

in reality of course that isnt what happens.

people feel shame for all sorts of stupid little things that have nothing to do with anything.

 

moreover, even if they did coincide perfectly it would still be impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt whether any given action was motivated by the one or the other.

we shouldnt be worried about what is going on in other peoples heads.

we should just establish a set of basic laws necessary for civilization to function and leave the rest alone.

[joekgamer]

in theory actions motivated by libido should always lead to civilization and actions motivated by thanatos should alway lead to destruction of civilization.

 

What if it is simply that eros overpowers thanatos?

 

And what about people who commit suicide? Aren't they being influenced more by thanatos than by eros?

 

people feel shame for all sorts of stupid little things that have nothing to do with anything.

 

This is subjective, but yes, people do tend to overreact. But what does it have to do with the topic?

 

moreover, even if they did coincide perfectly it would still be impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt whether any given action was motivated by the one or the other.

 

This is correct. You can't really tell what someone is thinking unless you can read their mind.

 

we shouldnt be worried about what is going on in other peoples heads.

 

Agreed.

 

we should just establish a set of basic laws necessary for civilization to function and leave the rest alone.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

So again, how do you define the terms you mentioned earlier? Doing so would make your arguement much clearer and would therefore make it easier for me (and quite likely many others) to understand what you are saying.