Do Science & Religion Conflict Over Morality?
Not all humans are of course moral, so that's not a universal. Many other animal species are moral or have ethical qualities. In fact on average I'd suggest animals tend to be way more moral in their intra-species behavior than humans are. Regardless, that suggests that there has to be some evolutionary advantage in adopting a 'golden rule'. When it comes down to survival, being moral and not pissing someone else off more likely as not will result in a benefit to you when the fertilizer hits the fan and you need an ally. Many an atheist is an upstanding citizen; many a religious believer can inflict the worst of cruelties on their fellows - do I really have to give you a history lesson to point that out? Just consider those 'moral' humans that are part and parcel of the so-called Islamic State. So, there could be a lot of dispute about our moral compass.
We only have one example of Planet Earth and one example of the human body, so suggesting that Earth or the human body has intricate complexity is arguing from a single data point. Complexity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some mathematics are highly complex to me; not complex at all to someone who has devoted years of work mastering the subject. Basic arithmetic is something incredibly complex to my cats. No doubt they must think arithmetic is a gift from the gods because only a god could invent something so complex.
The Earth and the human body are as complex as is needed to be in order to exist in the way that it does - no more and no less. It isn't too difficult to imagine the Earth and the human body as being vastly more complex than they are. But anyone who has played around with computer programming generating 'artificial life' knows full well that from very simple starting parameters one can generate incredible complexity. No deity need apply for the job. From quarks and electrons you can naturally generate atoms of hydrogen and oxygen; from hydrogen and oxygen you can naturally generate water; from water you can naturally generate ice and vapor; oceans and icebergs and rain. There's nothing supernatural required.
It is not a universal, therefore not a simple truth that we (as in 100% of us) yearn for all of the same things. If everyone yearned for the exact same things, however deep and important they may be, well that would be the state of our civilization. It would be pretty boring if all of us were monks of eastern religious faiths or philosophers or hippies and seekers of altered states of consciousness. Not all of us wish to know how many angels (not that there are angels of course IMHO) can dance on the head of a pin.
As for giving and getting, would you rather get a pay-check or give your money to the tax-man?
As a bit of a postscript, with respect to whatever degree of morality we humans have, it certainly didn't derive from God. God's own morality is non-existent if you believe the Old Testament. God is the greatest super-villain ever conceived of by humans, which is not at all unlikely given that God was created in the image of man. What's a good camp-fire tall tale without a villain to make the narrative interesting? Fortunately, the Biblical Old Testament is just a camp-fire tall tale. It's just myths and fairy-tales penned and told by grown-ups for grown-ups. There is no causality between the lack of morality in the fictional tales of God and the on-again, off-again morality of the human species.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.On the subject of morality, has anyone read Peter Voss' views on Optimal Living? Not the Nazi Peter Voss, but the Futurist, AGI Developer, atheist, and entrepreneur. He has some interesting ideas about morality: [medium.com]
sfvpool
Level 7
Dec 28, 2018
0
Science does not address morality. It splits the atom, but does not say whether the atom SHOULD be split or in what circumstances and for what purposes. That would be the role of philosophers and ethicists, not scientists, although scientists should certainly provide input for those decisions and should listen to and respect the resulting moral decisions, assuming they are properly made and supported.
Morality is a work product of society -- it is the formal and informal consensus around what will sustainably create and facilitate the kind of society most of us want (civil, respectful, safe, stable). It is an understanding of what actions are harmful or beneficial to those ends, and how we will encourage or discourage them. Such things are not the concern of science, but should be the concern of scientists (and, perhaps even more so, of technicians).
mordant
Level 8
Dec 28, 2018
0
If by science's view of morality, you mean philosophy, science and religion do conflict. One is a well thought out reasoned view, and the other is what someone said and preached to people and wrote down in a book. Of course, religions vary widely over how they arrive at their morals. Some are more well reasoned than others.
Stephanie99
Level 8
Dec 28, 2018
0
@johnprytz Yes.
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and conflict between humans who are defending their precious worldviews, but those arguments are meaningless. Neither side has the slightest idea of what they’re talking about.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Dec 28, 2018
0
And there’s a host of others who would agree with me totally. In fact, studies show that about half of all scientists believe in God.
@johnprytz I should have said “half of US scientists. IIRC the question was “Do you believe in God?”
Here’s a worldwide study. Both studies are somewhat out of date.
I don’t mind getting flak from both sides. IMO there ought not be any sides to begin with. Neither side knows anything. I myself don’t know but one thing and that thing is that I don’t know but one thing. The warring parties don’t even know that.
IMO spirituality is not about holding beliefs. If you asked a spiritually aware person if she believed in God she’d probably want to qualify her response.
It’s like asking someone if they believe in art, or in the universe or something like that. It’s not a subject for belief.
@johnprytz I was referring to the US study, If a person says they believe in a universal spirit or higher power how is that any different than saying they believe in God? It’s quibbling IMO. The figure is 33% BTW. Don’t trim it down. Whether a third or a half of US scientists believe in God depends on how you define the undefinable, but either way the conclusion is the same. A significant percentage of scientists say they believe in a higher power, and that confirms my statement that science and religion are not in conflict. The only conflict is between those with a blind and dogmatic childlike faith in materialism and scientism and those with a blind and dogmatic childlike faith in church doctrines. Apparently, since you seem to be in conflict you belong to the former group. Am I right?
For high level, deeply aware and intelligent people there is no conflict.
KIP THORNE:
"There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God [...] There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God."[13]
(Wikipedia)
ALBERT EINSTEIN:
“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.”
WERNER KARL HEISENBERG:
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
Finally, there are many faces to Hinduism . In the Hindu tradition there are various gods and goddesses. Over all that is Brahman or Ultimate Reality, which encompasses everything there is. No one is expected to “believe” in Ultimate Reality in order to worm their way into heaven. The idea is ludicrous. The goal in both Hinduism and Buddhism is, through contemplation and meditation, to become enlightened or aware of the tenuous nature of the world of perception and of the magnificence and grandeur of the profoundly mysterious reality beyond of which we are an extension. My opinion only.
“Okay, here's the bottom line. Scientists are way, way, way more likely NOT to believe in a God, god, higher power, universal spirit, etc. relative to the general population. There is definitely a correlation between education levels and religious beliefs. Just deal with it.”
Okay, I’m dealing with it, and I already knew that, so there’s nothing to deal with anyway.However, you don’t learn truth by taking an opinion poll. That said, your belief that there is a basic conflict between science and religion would certainly be better supported if 100% of scientists rejected the concept of a higher power.
As I keep saying, the conflict is only conducted by those carrying the flags of religion or science. Those with the true spirit of religion and science are not in conflict—they are the same people in fact.
Morality has much to do with the ethics we are taught over the years all through our lifetime. Morality is always changing just like swim suits over the last 50 years. None of this has anything to do with gods.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Dec 28, 2018
1
I strongly recommend reading the essay The Ethics of Belief by philosopher William K. Clifford. Written in 1877, the essay gives an argument that any belief relying on faith is immoral. The essay is stunningly relevant today in the age of Twitter and Facebook.
Buxx
Level 7
Dec 28, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.