Scientific Rationalism is Morally Neutral

[Rockinghorse Winner]

That is why, science by itself will not lead to a better future. It
is also why morality must come to bear on science every step of the
way.

There are some who seem to think that there is no place for morality
and religion in science. This is a false premise: science is a tool.
It depends for its judicious use on the moral character of the
individual or society that uses it.

Science can never replace religion, for this same reason. Religion
informs the individual about moral choices, including the choices to
be made with scientific knowledge. If religion does not inform
science then science can become a curse rather than a blessing to
mankind.

--
Terry

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:02:40 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>That is why, science by itself will not lead to a better future. It
>is also why morality must come to bear on science every step of the
>way.

Amen to that.

>There are some who seem to think that there is no place for morality
>and religion in science. This is a false premise: science is a tool.
>It depends for its judicious use on the moral character of the
>individual or society that uses it.

>Science can never replace religion, for this same reason. Religion
>informs the individual about moral choices, including the choices to
>be made with scientific knowledge. If religion does not inform
>science then science can become a curse rather than a blessing to
>mankind.

Very good.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[M Purcell]

On Apr 13, 5:02 am, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:

Religion tends to curse anything it doesn't agree with or understand,
including other religions.

[Dare]

Seems "Religion(s)" could also be replaced with "Humans."

[M Purcell]

Perhaps you mean humanitarianism, religion replaces moral choices.

[M Purcell]

I've always wondered about moral value of confession:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc

Seems to be a lot of cognitive dissonance out there but what the hell
if you are incapable of telling the difference.

[James]

M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com>

The "one faith" religion of the Bible (Eph 4:5) takes in all that true
science has to offer. Because God is the creator of all the natural
sciences. Science and the true religion are in full harmony.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[M Purcell]

On Apr 13, 2:48 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com>

And of course you would deny that there are other faiths that claim to
be the "true religion" and that very few would attempt to contradict
science.

[M Purcell]

But the RCC does seem to be attempting a better harmony with science
in the election of a Jesuit Pope, despite his contradiction.

[Dare]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message news:5877e29f-4428-46d3...@gh3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 13, 8:09 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 7:58 am, Dare <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Religion tends to curse anything it doesn't agree with or understand,
> > > > including other religions.
> >
> > > Seems "Religion(s)" could also be replaced with "Humans."
> >
> > Perhaps you mean humanitarianism, religion replaces moral choices.
>
> I've always wondered about moral value of confession:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc

(I haven't viewed the video yet)...
It seems to me the RC church often curses the field of psychology...
some priests discourage members from talking to a psychologist so
they will depend on the church/priest for help by means of confession
and absolution (with the required penance, etc.)
Of course if confession/absolution is used as an excuse to be able
to continue the questionable behavior instead of offering an incentive
and opportunity to make "better" ethical choices, seems it could
be counterproductive.
Are they in a sense also "cursing" other Christian denominations
along with other religions by not offering the "sacrament of reconciliation"
to non-Catholics?

[M Purcell]

On Apr 14, 6:48 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:5877e29f-4428-46d3...@gh3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

The video addressed rationalizing cheating in order to retain a
positive self-image. But there is a point, the what the hell point,
were the rationalization breaks down when the person realizes they are
not a good person and might as well cheat. Confession "wipes the slate
clean" restoring a positive self-image. Those RSA videos are very
interesting and I would recommend "Smile or Die" to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

It discusses the problem of an enforced positive attitude.

[Dare]

"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message news:almarsoft.2137...@news.astraweb.com...

Can Philosophy provide an ethical guide in the use of science?
Is there a distinction between ethics and morality...or do you
consider them as referring to the same concept?

It seems to me there will always be instances in which some...
or possibly all... may not benefit from advances in science...
even religion can't ensure "morally informed" choices will have
an beneficial/ethical outcome.

[Dare]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message news:8945fd32-8599-4c06...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 14, 6:48 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:5877e29f-4428-46d3...@gh3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>

> The video addressed rationalizing cheating in order to retain a
> positive self-image. But there is a point, the what the hell point,
> were the rationalization breaks down when the person realizes they are
> not a good person and might as well cheat. Confession "wipes the slate
> clean" restoring a positive self-image. Those RSA videos are very
> interesting and I would recommend "Smile or Die" to you.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo
>
> It discusses the problem of an enforced positive attitude.

Thank You....I will watch it.
(I admit, I have a low bandwidth connection, to video downloads
take a fair amount of time.)

I did come from one of those families where my father _always_
had to show the world a positive image of a "big, happy family"...
despite three marriages and a collection of scattered half-related
off-spring. The reality at home....not so much.
I now realize he did the best he could based on his life experience
as a child...he worked very hard to be "good enough"....though
I fear he never felt comfortable with himself...or "forgave" himself
for some of his behavior to his "loved ones."
I struggle constantly with an overwhelmingly negative outlook.
I'm sure I also project a false positive attitude towards life.
I doubt if it fools anyone....especially myself.

[James]

M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com>

On the contrary, many churches accept the theory of evolution. But the
Genesis account says that God created the life forms as full and
complete; dogs as dogs, cats as cats, human as human. (as the fossil
record shows) You can't mix the two, as some churches try to do. The
true religion goes solely by the Bible, and believes the Bible's
version of things.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 14, 7:40 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:8945fd32-8599-4c06...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

The video points out that an overwhelmingly negative outlook is just
as false as a positive one, there's a disconnect with reality.

[M Purcell]

Which translation? There are very few organized religions that still
adhere to creationism but please list the ones you are refering to.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:25:39 -0400, "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.2137...@news.astraweb.com...
> > That is why, science by itself will not lead to a better future.
It
> > is also why morality must come to bear on science every step of
the
> > way.
> >
> > There are some who seem to think that there is no place for
morality
> > and religion in science. This is a false premise: science is a
tool.
> > It depends for its judicious use on the moral character of the
> > individual or society that uses it.
> >
> > Science can never replace religion, for this same reason.
Religion
> > informs the individual about moral choices, including the choices
to
> > be made with scientific knowledge. If religion does not inform
> > science then science can become a curse rather than a blessing to
> > mankind.


> Can Philosophy provide an ethical guide in the use of science?
> Is there a distinction between ethics and morality...or do you
> consider them as referring to the same concept?

Sure, but if it is not a philosophy of transcendent morality, it is
probably of limited use. _Everyone_ to a greater or less extent has a
moral philosophy. The point of religion is to say this _must_ be
followed; this musn't be done - to universalize it. So as long as the
philosophy has this transcendent element in it, yes it can be of use,
imho.

> It seems to me there will always be instances in which some...
> or possibly all... may not benefit from advances in science...
> even religion can't ensure "morally informed" choices will have
> an beneficial/ethical outcome.

That is true. Bad outcomes frequently result from good intentions.
That is why it is my belief that while morality should inform
science, it must not get ahead of the facts of science, through
wishful thinking or the like. Moralists are sometimes too earnest.
Even so, facts are stubborn things, and often the law of unintended
consequences has the last word.

--
Terry

[Dare]

On 4/14/2013 10:57 AM, M Purcell wrote:
> On Apr 14, 7:40 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:8945fd32-8599-4c06...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Apr 14, 6:48 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:5877e29f-4428-46d3...@gh3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> The video addressed rationalizing cheating in order to retain a
>>> positive self-image. But there is a point, the what the hell point,
>>> were the rationalization breaks down when the person realizes they are
>>> not a good person and might as well cheat. Confession "wipes the slate
>>> clean" restoring a positive self-image. Those RSA videos are very
>>> interesting and I would recommend "Smile or Die" to you.
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo
>>
>>> It discusses the problem of an enforced positive attitude.

>>....

>>
> The video points out that an overwhelmingly negative outlook is just
> as false as a positive one, there's a disconnect with reality.

Thanks...that's encouraging!? :-)

[M Purcell]

On Apr 14, 8:30 am, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:25:39 -0400, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass.super...@gmx.com> wrote in message

Transcendent morality? Are you attempting to transcend not only a
personal determination of morality but morality itself? BTW there is a
difference between ethics and morality in that ethics is codified, as
with religion.

> > It seems to me there will always be instances in which some...
> > or possibly all... may not benefit from advances in science...
> > even religion can't ensure "morally informed" choices will have
> > an beneficial/ethical outcome.
>
> That is true. Bad outcomes frequently result from good intentions.
> That is why it is my belief that while morality should inform
> science, it must not get ahead of the facts of science, through
> wishful thinking or the like. Moralists are sometimes too earnest.
> Even so, facts are stubborn things, and often the law of unintended
> consequences has the last word.

I have to agree, this points out a weakness of utilitarianism.

[M Purcell]

If your personal sense of worth must be determined by other people, I
believe you to be a decent person capable of self-improvement. However
it really is up to you.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

I mean something like the former. :)

> > > It seems to me there will always be instances in which some...
> > > or possibly all... may not benefit from advances in science...
> > > even religion can't ensure "morally informed" choices will have
> > > an beneficial/ethical outcome.
> >
> > That is true. Bad outcomes frequently result from good intentions.
> > That is why it is my belief that while morality should inform
> > science, it must not get ahead of the facts of science, through
> > wishful thinking or the like. Moralists are sometimes too earnest.
> > Even so, facts are stubborn things, and often the law of
unintended
> > consequences has the last word.


> I have to agree, this points out a weakness of utilitarianism.

Yes it does.

--
Terry

[M Purcell]

On Apr 14, 9:24 am, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:

I can not agree to a deferral of personal responsibility.

> > > > It seems to me there will always be instances in which some...
> > > > or possibly all... may not benefit from advances in science...
> > > > even religion can't ensure "morally informed" choices will have
> > > > an beneficial/ethical outcome.
>
> > > That is true. Bad outcomes frequently result from good intentions.
> > > That is why it is my belief that while morality should inform
> > > science, it must not get ahead of the facts of science, through
> > > wishful thinking or the like. Moralists are sometimes too earnest.
> > > Even so, facts are stubborn things, and often the law of
> unintended
> > > consequences has the last word.
> > I have to agree, this points out a weakness of utilitarianism.
>
> Yes it does.

Another weakness of utilitarianism is the justification of the means
by the result; life is a process, not an end. And I find the Christian
(and Islamic) emphasis on an afterlife very troubling. As to the
header of this thread, the ultimate goal of science is to benefit
humanity through an accumulation of knowledge.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

You are still responsible for giving your assent to a moral structure
that was already in place. Personal responsibility doesn't
neccessarily mean you have to create a moral system from scratch. :)

That is your overlay on it. It wasn't what the Nazis thought about
it. It's commendable that you've brought to bear your worthy moral
insights, but how does this relate to someone who doesn't share your
ethics? Are they bound by your beliefs?

--
Terry

[M Purcell]

On Apr 14, 11:43 am, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:

I am capable of distinguishing right from wrong for myself.

I am affected by other people, such as those killed by Islamic
fundamentalists.

[James]

M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com>

There are many 'good' Bibles out there that get across the Bible's
main doctrines. Some are better than others in certain areas. I
personally have my favorite of the NWT. (New World Translation) I am
not partial to that Bible just because I am a JW, but I have compared
it to many Bibles, and find it superior.

For example, God's name in the OT is found in the form of the Hebrew
Tetragrammaton YHWH. Some transliterate it as "Yahweh". The most
popular is the Latinized form "Jehovah". (that form was around before
JW's came on the scene) The Tetragrammaton is found around 7000 times
in the OT.

So what? Guess how many times it is found is most modern Bibles; 0,
zero, naught. Thus those Bibles start out with around 7000 translation
errors in their Bibles. Here is one example taken at random. Psalm
1:6:

-- King James
Psalms 1:6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way
of the ungodly shall perish.

-- New King James
Psalms 1:6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way
of the ungodly shall perish.

-- American Standard
Psalms 1:6 For Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous; But the way
of the wicked shall perish.

-- Living Bible
Psalms 1:6 For the Lord watches over all the plans and paths of godly
men, but the paths of the godless lead to doom.

-- New International
Psalms 1:6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but
the way of the wicked will perish.

-- Revised Standard
Psalms 1:6 for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way
of the wicked will perish.

-- Romanized
Psalms 1:6 kiy-yowdee`a Yahweh derek tsadiyqiym wderek rshaa`iym
to'beed.

-- New American Standard
Psalms 1:6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the wicked will perish.


-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Psalms 1:6 For Yahweh watches over the path of the upright,
but the path of the wicked is doomed.

-- New American with Apocrypha
Psalms 1:6 The LORD watches over the way of the just, but the way of
the wicked leads to ruin.

As you can see, only two Bibles here attempted to translate the
Tetragrammaton. Here is how the NWT renders it:

"For Jehovah is taking knowledge of the way of righteous ones,
But the very way of wicked ones will perish."

The word "Lord" is a title, not a name. Thus to insert that word into
the Bible, is tampering with the Bible. And demeaning God who put His
name into the Bible for a reason. How would you like your name chopped
out of a semiautobiographical book you had written?

[M Purcell]

You must be very use to the responce "Not interested".

[James]

M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com>

Yes, a lot of people ignore the evidence from the Bible. But that is
their choice.

[Paul Duca]

Better than sitting around waiting for God to feel like making things better...

Paul

[M Purcell]

And the JW's try to change that choice, repeatedly, every Saturday.
Couldn't they come around just once a year?

[James]

M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com>

It varies when JW's come around, depending upon how many JW's live in
a locality. They come around because they believe it is life-saving
work, based on Mt 28:19,20. They are also the only ones fulfilling Mt
24:14. If you want, the next time they come around ask them what God's
kingdom is, based on Mt 24:14.

[duke]

Yes, you JWs do.

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[M Purcell]

I'd rather they told me about it first hand.