Can science be a base of morality or religion is the only viable

>>1486768

Ask Johnathon Haidt and Sam Harris
http://www.moralfoundations.org/
https://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape

>>1486768

Seems like a false dichotomy. Why would it need to be science or religion? There has been plenty of academic work done on moral philosophy that is not based on either.

>>1486768

Religion isn't a viable choice, since religious people have no basis for their morality beyond "it says so in this book". At least scientific attempts have some basis in objectivity, no matter how flawed they might be.

>>1486768
Science tells us how the world is, in now way can it tell us what to do with it.
All humans however, except for sociopaths and psychopaths, have an inherit disdain towards what general consensus calls evil. Things like murder, and generally inflicting pain on others we have grown to dislike, since it's not evolutionary advantageous (meaning humans prone towards violence die out).
So in a sense some morality comes naturally.
As for additional moral values, things like ideology and upbringing, amongst others, are all things that shape our values and morality. Religion just adds another level by promising either punishments or reward depending on how much one lives in accordance to it's moral teachings.
Though I would like to point out, that religion's tendency to make it's teachings unquestionable is not healthy. One must be able to consider if the enforcement of some values leads to less or more overall human suffering, which as I mentioned before virtually everyone inherently disagrees is a bad thing.

>>1486803
>>1486768
This guy gets it. It's kinda irritating when people say stupid stuff like "but if you're an atheist, why don't you just steal stuff when it benefits you?" and similar. The reason is that a more stable society is good for most people; so most people act to preserve a stable society: the violent are generally ostracised. Even on a more personal level, ignoring law or looking at a time before law, a known thief or murderer is subject to retribution from the victim and/or the victim's associates. Additionally, a known thief or murderer or rapist or what-have-you, or even just a liar, is considered generally to be more dangerous and less worth helping or associating with (possibly largely due to the fact that trusting a murder is likely to get you removed from the gene pool).
This all contributes to a person wanting to be "good," the "bad" people breeding less, and an evolutionary tendency for people to prefer the "good."

>>1486803
>Science tells us how the world is, in now way can it tell us what to do with it.
That's just stupid. Everything we do with the world is thanks to scientific input.

>>1486831
You mean everything we can do with the world is due to scientific input, science itself does not produce the will to do anything. Science allows you to cure typhoid and build weapons of mass destruction, it does not, and cannot tell you to do which.

>>1486839
>Science allows you to cure typhoid and build weapons of mass destruction, it does not, and cannot tell you to do which.
Physics is the one that tells us how to build weapons of mass destruction. Biology tell us how to cure typhoid, also coupled with the insights from psychology and sociology, it does tell us what to.

If nothing, using the scientific method, we can figure out what to do.

>>1486768
>>1271255
so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:

-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and terrorize you, since the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position

the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)

>>1486894
>the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance.
>what is empirical evidence

>>1486894
I wish I could tell if this is satire

First you define morality. If this morality deals with actual things that could possibly be studied and known - for example well-being - then scientific inquiry forms a perfect basis for making moral judgments.

If you define morality as something vague, subjective or purely culturally guided, then of course it becomes a shitfest of religious nonsense.

>>1486942
What is unempirical knowledge and nonnaturalistic moral realism. Not that I agree with said stance.

>>1487001
>What is unempirical knowledge and nonnaturalistic moral realism.
Spooks

>>1487006
That's it everyone, you can go home now, this guy solved metaethics and epistemology in one swing.

File: max.png (94KB, 348x437px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 348x437px

>>1487010

>metaethics and epistemology

Those are just spooks, my property.

>>1486881
Excuse me for categorizing Physics and Biology under science, it did not seem relevant to make the distinction.
But how would learning about human behaviour make you behave a certain way?

>>1486803
>All humans however, except for sociopaths and psychopaths, have an inherit disdain towards what general consensus calls evil. Things like murder, and generally inflicting pain on others we have grown to dislike, since it's not evolutionary advantageous (meaning humans prone towards violence die out).

Doesn't the existence of psychopathy tend to challenge this idea, though? Psychopaths for a very long time probably produced more children, because their unrestrained violence and cunning left them free to kill rivals and take possession of women to impregnate and bear children. It's only post-Enlightenment really that this has begun to change, and that was an environmental change created by humans, even moreso after WWII. Furthermore, psychopaths are known to be charming, so they can still readily produce children.

You could argue, we'll it takes some time for evolution to get to wherr it needs to be where this will be bred out, but that assume that the current state of things, where violence is abhorred, will remain the same.