Does science teach moral laws?

[notto]

But when you ban religion from the schools, then the students are not learning all of what they should be learning. They are not getting a well rounded education.

Students are taught about religion in schools. To suggest otherwise is simply claiming a falsehood.

Take creationism. The constitution was never designed to ban creationism from being taught in the school. It was designed to ban a individual theory over another belief. For exampe, OEC, YEC, GAP, TE should all get equal representation.

But not in science class. They are not science. There are also several other creationion myths that by your logic should receive equal time. Of course, none of these relate to 'moral' teaching so I'm not sure why you are dicussing them in this thread.

Science should be taught in science class. If they do not feel there is any basis for scientific creationism then they have nothing to teach. It should then be taught in the religion class or the morals class.

An they are taught in religion classes. Many, if not most public schools offer comparative religion classes and world history classes that teach about various religious and political frameworks. Not sure what would be taught in a morals class. State dicated morals would not be very well received by most parents. Who would decide what is moral or not? That is not a function of public schools. Civiility and personal heath, maybe, but not morality. Consequences of personal choices on heath and legal consequences, maybe, but not the morality of such choices.

Can you name one moral that you think should be taught in school that isn't that would be universally accepted by all? You seem to think that something specific is lacking. What specifically is it?

You can't hold the schools accountable for people ending up in jail. They can't enforce what they teach and demand that a students mind is changed. If they could, we wouldn't see such poor logic and understanding of science demonstrated by the products of the school system. For instance, we wouldn't see people confusing morals with religion, religions with science, science with politics and tools with the misuse of those tools.

 

[notto]

Everyone that wants to be represented should be represented and given a vote accordingly. Churches far outweigh other organizations so I would think that it would end up all the various churches having to get together and fight it out and come to some sort of an agreement as to what should be taught. If they want to be a part of that.

Considering that for a long time slavery was considered moral, I think I'll pass on any consensus of a committee determining what is moral and what is not. When groups of people come forward to categorically claim something as immoral, it usually is on a list of things that they aren't guilty of and the list usually doesn't include the immoral things they are guilty of.

I think it is immorral to teach students lies about science and to claim falsified ideas are true. I certainly wish that I could find agreement in a committee on this but as history has shown, creationists have no problem with this immoral act.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

science is descriptive not prescriptive.
the error that you can derive what ought to be from what is, is the naturalist's fallacy.

ethics, morality, right and wrong are inaccessible to science for they are not about how the world is but how we think it ought to be and therefore in a sense, imaginary and not real existing in the minds and imaginations of people, which looks a lot like an issue of taste or choice.

i appreciate these quotes on the topic:
is not really to establish the scientific credibility of evolutionary theory, but to prevent its alleged moral implications from being accepted by the population pg 20
using the Bible as a book of factual truths about the universe as opposed to spiritual insights marred the history of Western religion throughout the Middle Ages and Renassance. pg 22
Scientific findings...ought to be judged on their own merits, regardless of the ethical connotations some people might see in them. Ethical choices, OTOH-while they should certainly be informed by the best science available-are too important to be left only in the hands of scientists. ... This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is of course based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works. By the same token, the, scientific discoveries must describe not only how the world is, but how it should be. This is perhaps the single most tragic mistake repeatedly made by both sides of the debate, though much more often by the religious side than the scientific side. pg 25

from: Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science by Massimo Pigliucci

 

[Gracchus]

Why send them to school then, perhaps their parents can teach them about science also.

But some parents don't know anything about science worth teaching. I can't think of any examples right now, but maybe you can.

My dad was a medical doctor for 50 years. But he was a idiot when it came to teaching me what a father is suppose to teach his son.

Give him a break. Maybe it's hereditary.

Medical doctors are suppose to set an example for the community.

Medical doctors are supposed to heal, if they can, or at least do no harm. Everyone is supposed to set a good example.

Medical doctors are suppose to be able to guide the parents in what they should teach their kids.

Certainly they should give instruction in medicine. "Doctor" means "teacher". I believe clergymen claim the expertise to teach morality.

He could set a broken bone, stich up a cut, treat a burn. It was amazing all he could do to save a arm, or a leg or even a life.

But you blame him because you grew up to be the monster you are today?

I got news for you, the parents are not getting the job done or there would not be 2 million people in our prison system today.

So some parents aren't getting the job done. Neither are the churches.

You should look at a Dr Spook book to see how pathetic it is.

Dr. Spook? Any relation to the Holy Ghost?

Oh, maybe for a tummy ache or a runny noes, but nothing on how to teach a child and train them up in the way they should go. The way the Bible tells us.

So we have "Dr. Spook" to teach pediatrics and the "Holy Ghost" to instruct us in morals. I don't see the problem.

Science does what science does and religion does what religion does and they need to get out of each others way so they can get their job done.

But you want science to teach morality and religion to instruct us in science. It sounds to me as though you are the obstructionist, JohnR7.

 

[XTE]

Hi JohnR7, I am a Theistic Evolutionist Christian. I think I might be able to help solve a problem that you actually started just starting this post in this sub-forum.

This isn't a Science issue at all by a slightly limitted definition(I can't quantify it.) What can Science TELL US about Morals is more the issue here. It woudn't be able to teach us HOW TO BE moral, it would teach us WHY WE ARE moral. Science extracts data and builds theories and laws from that.

I expected the Atheist here to tell you at some point that the Bible's moral laws are just "common sense." I have to admit, that part of me does look back at my life and say, "I feel like I knew those regardless of the Bible." This is a Christian talking, but the reinforcement doesn't hurt either.

Let me go into what Science CAN TELL US about moral behaviour, but just a bit. The field is relatively new, it's called Evolutionary Psychology.

It assumes that we are dependent, and the product, of our brains(matter) like psychology presupposes but respects origins at the same time. It's intent is to tell us WHY WE ARE this way based of WHAT WE WERE in the day. I think it shows promise myself.

Using this it takes the model that we have "mental organs." These are essentially regulators that help us FEEL our way around life. The two meanings for feel seem to come together now. It throws this on a backdrop of understanding pre-evolved man(when he didn't have emotions, regulators, and the like.) It's really hard to explain without an example and the easiest one that might help you would be showing you a less evolved(by our standards) "animal."

My dog doesn't read the Bible and probably doesn't worship anything other than me. I take him to the park and he get's along fine with other dogs and plays with them and get's what he wants at that time. Later though, if I threw my dog a bone and one of those friendly dogs came up to take a peice he'd get upset over it. You start to see a bit of selfishness when that time comes where his genes have assigned him regulators(emotions) that tell him he needs to eat this and no one else so that his genes live on. Because his genes do this, his genes are more likely to carry on and so those genes DO carry on. This didn't just start with him, it started with his decendants but it started at some point.

What we have evolved into is an Altruistic understanding of needs. We realize that "no man is an island" and so if I feed 10, 10 are working for our good. Instead of being overstretched by doing 10 things, we use altruism to share, and specialize at the same time increasing yield over the long run.

Now back to the dog. My dog gets angry at other dogs over the bone because he doesn't NEED them to be fed. He doesn't NEED them period, just for a little play. But what about "less evolved" dogs, the ones we haven't influenced by artificial selection? Those are wolves, foxes, and coyotes. The "wild" animals. These animals don't just play together, THEY WORK TOGETHER, to conserve energy on a kill and then SHARE that kill showing the same Altruistic behaviour you feel only the Bible can teach us, without the Bible.

I hope that answered more questions than it raised. I am kind of using this to pass off some ideas I hold and it's theraputic right now too.

Praying for ya brother and pray for me

 

[Pete Harcoff]

FWIW, some science classes do touch on ethics. When I took a genetics class we discussed ethics to do with certain issues (i.e. genetic engineering, prenatal genetic screening).

And in an accounting class we learned about ethics regarding accounting and the legalities pertaining to it.

But as others have pointed out, the ethical part is not inherent to science or accounting or whatever. If a person wants to commit accounting fraud, it is not the accounting methodologies that are the problem. It's the person.

Likewise, science is just a tool and the ethical issues of using that tool are independent of the tool itself.

And FWIW, kids are taught morals even if they aren't taught religion. John seems to have fallen into the same ol' trap of equating religious teachings with moral teachings. Like anything else, though, morals and religion can be independent (as world politics/conflicts atest).

 

[JohnR7]

It throws this on a backdrop of understanding pre-evolved man(when he didn't have emotions, regulators, and the like.)

That is exactly what the GAP theory would say. They don't even care to try and sort out what was a monkey and what was a "pre-evolved" man, because to them it does not matter. The only thing that makes a difference is that something took place 6,000 years ago with Adam. Adam became the first to receive the Spirit or the breath of life and God never did before with any "pre-evolved" man. They had a soul like the animals, but they did not have the breath of life.

For me I like to study the "pre-evolved" man and learn what their "markers" were. For example did they have fire? Did they have simple tools, did they have simple art with charcoal and chalk and so on. Or were they pretty much just a monkey.

 

[notto]

Or were they pretty much just a monkey.

Ape, not monkey.

 

[Apos]

JohnR7 just dated himself. Dr. Spock's book hasn't been a hot topic since several decades ago. Dr. SPOOKS' book, on the other hand, sounds like something out of a blaxploitation movie.

 

[JohnR7]

Ape, not monkey.

Ok, sense you brought it all up, the stage is all yours. How can we tell the difference between an Ape and a Monkey. Also if we find a skull or a skelton then how do they determine what is a monkey, what is ape and what is humanoid?

As far as I know the monkey is the small and the ape is the big version. Just like in nature it is so common to see big and small and sometimes everything in between.

 

[Silent Bob]

How can we tell the difference between an Ape and a Monkey.

Ape or Monkey?

Apes are not monkeys. Apes are larger, have fewer young (and spend a longer time raising them), spend more time upright, and depend more on their eyes than on their noses. And unlike monkeys, apes do not have tails. But the most important difference is that apes are more intelligent than monkeys. Their brains are larger and more developed, and apes can learn and pass along information.

Source: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/ape1.html

Took about 0.17 seconds to google that and 1second to load the page.

 

[JohnR7]

ok

 

[Abongil]

Technically it is the Theory of Gravity, so I dunno, you can teach all the thoeries you would like. Whether they stand up or not is the question.

 

[XTE]

That is exactly what the GAP theory would say. They don't even care to try and sort out what was a monkey and what was a "pre-evolved" man, because to them it does not matter. The only thing that makes a difference is that something took place 6,000 years ago with Adam. Adam became the first to receive the Spirit or the breath of life and God never did before with any "pre-evolved" man. They had a soul like the animals, but they did not have the breath of life.

For me I like to study the "pre-evolved" man and learn what their "markers" were. For example did they have fire? Did they have simple tools, did they have simple art with charcoal and chalk and so on. Or were they pretty much just a monkey.

You've completely isolated 1 percent of my original post and made a new forum out of it. I'm taking it that you don't realize what you are doing. What you are doing is taking 1 percent you CAN disagree with and DOING THAT! I'd ask you to stop because it shows me bias and that you'll ONLY view my side disfavorably. Demonization might have something to do with that.

I'm not even gonna discuss Gap Theory here because it has nothing to do with your OP. Maybe you can discuss that other 99 percent or give someone else here the courtesy they deserve attempting to answer YOUR post.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[XTE]

WHAT DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH MY ANSWER ATTEMPT is that you brought Ape and Monkey into it. If it were either of those then I would have said something like, .....ape or maybe monkey, WHO KNOWS! But I think I said Man. Pre-evolved man when it comes to "regulators, emotions, and stuff like that."

Key word is MAN.

We don't have to look back far to see the differences in behaviour. Man was most definetly man when he discovered fire and fire acted as a catalist to boost the speed of mental evolution in MAN. We can look back 6000 years ago and seeing warrior tribes WAS THE NORM! What made it so normal? Was it just set that way by those in charge or were the mental organs not developed enough to practice Altruism without too much paranoia?

 

[JohnR7]

What you are doing is taking 1 percent you CAN disagree with and DOING THAT

That means I agree with most of what you said. I did not feel any need to comment on it. There was nothing I could do to add to it in any way.

I am not even sure we disagree on the "1%" that I did comment on. But that was the area I felt like I could add something to what you said.

 

[XTE]

That means I agree with most of what you said. I did not feel any need to comment on it. There was nothing I could do to add to it in any way.

I am not even sure we disagree on the "1%" that I did comment on. But that was the area I felt like I could add something to what you said.

That's Evolution buddy.

Welcome to the fold!

 

[h2whoa]

IT's funny you know. I was reading the manual for assembling the new closet I got from Ikea the other day. In it it only told me how to assemble the closet. No other kind of guidance. So I went over to my flatmate and killed her by drilling into her brain with my cordless drill that I'd been using.

D'oh!

Turns out, that was a bad thing to do. Now it looks like I might be in a bit of trouble with the police.

But this shouldn't be too much of a problem. The police turned up just after I'd finished installing a new motherboard in my computer. I'd been following the instructions in the manual. Again, no other kind of instructions in that manual. The police burst in so I picked up the screwdriver I'd been using (with a magnetic head, no less) and I proceeded to brutally stab to death 3 officers.

So all in all a bit of a strange day.

But the point to this is this: I wouldn't be in this horrendous mess if only the manual for my closet and my new motherboard had just given me some moral guidance.

Neither of them told me not to kill. One only focused on a closet, the other had something to do with computers. WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?

 

[Tomk80]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to h2whoa again.
​

 

[c'mon sense]

The stage is all your though. Show us your lesson plan, show us where right and wrong, good and evil are being taught in our schools. Show us the question on their graduation exam where it says: "Thou shall not kill".

Yeah, teach them the double standard also. For fairness' sake.