Does science teach moral laws?

[JohnR7]

Many people believe that there are moral laws just the same as the law of gravity. If we break the moral laws, they feel that there will be consequences. The average person on the street believe that people will get what is coming to them. The buddist talks about Karma, the Christian talks about sowing and reaping and Jesus taught about the Golden Rule to treat others the way you want them to treat you. The early church fathers use to talk about how others will treat you the way you treat them.

So, we wonder, is there a right and a wrong, good and a bad, or even evil in this world? If there is does science have a responsability to teach it? If it is up to religion to teach the moral laws, then why don't people allow religion to do that? If we do not teach right from wrong, then can we expect people to know what is right and how to do that.

There are 2 million people in prison in this country. For the most part they do not think they did anything wrong. Unless of course they are conditioned to beleive they can get out sooner if they tell people what they want to hear. If for example they killed someone they will try to justify what they did. They will say the person had it coming to them. But it would seem that society does not agree that what they did was justified.

So pick and choose what you want to talk about. I have mentioned lots of different things we could work with here to give people some ideas.

 

[Split Rock]

Science does not teach moral laws any more so than engineering, architecture, or auto repair.

Next question.

 

[jwu]

Many people believe that there are moral laws just the same as the law of gravity. If we break the moral laws, they feel that there will be consequences

Just wondering...how do you suggest can i break the law of gravity?

 

[Data]

No. There isn't really anything more to say on the subject.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I’ve watched you participate on this forum for awhile now John and instead of learning a darn thing the only change in your pattern of behavior is to regurgitate thread after thread of ridiculous garbage like this one that stays safely away from legitimate discourse about C&E.

So, we wonder, is there a right and a wrong, good and a bad, or even evil in this world? If there is does science have a responsability to teach it?

You can’t possibly believe this is even a legitimate question. You know, as well as every other person on this planet, that the answer is no.

If it is up to religion to teach the moral laws, then why don't people allow religion to do that? If we do not teach right from wrong, then can we expect people to know what is right and how to do that.

First of all, religion is not necessary to teach someone right from wrong. Second of all, even if someone needs religion to serve as a moral compass then that fact has no bearing on the validity of science. I don’t even know how you can conflate these two highly disparate subjects.

There are 2 million people in prison in this country. For the most part they do not think they did anything wrong. Unless of course they are conditioned to beleive they can get out sooner if they tell people what they want to hear. If for example they killed someone they will try to justify what they did. They will say the person had it coming to them. But it would seem that society does not agree that what they did was justified.

Reading your post is like watching a drunken driver swerve all over the road. What can this possibly have to do with science?

Is the point of this entire post to make religion seem necessary since science doesn’t teach morals? Or are you trying to refute evolution by way of construing it as amoral (since it is part of science) and, as such, conflate it with atheism? Are you able to focus your attention long enough to even know what the point of this post was?

 

[Phred]

So, we wonder, is there a right and a wrong, good and a bad, or even evil in this world?

There is a perception of right and wrong, good and bad and evil. Without someone to perceive and interpret things they are not, by and of themselves, any of those things. You seek absolutes John. By doing so you show your desire to impose those absolutes upon others. That's the only reason anyone ever seeks out such things. Otherwise they're content with their own judgements.

If there is does science have a responsability to teach it?

Science is not a religion. Science is a method for learning about our universe. How in the world do you quantify "evil" so that you can examine it scientifically? When you figure that out, come back and ask the question again.

If it is up to religion to teach the moral laws, then why don't people allow religion to do that? If we do not teach right from wrong, then can we expect people to know what is right and how to do that.

Your religion doesn't do this? I'm surprised. You're being charged for moral guidance you should be getting it. Have you checked your receipt?

There are 2 million people in prison in this country. For the most part they do not think they did anything wrong. Unless of course they are conditioned to beleive they can get out sooner if they tell people what they want to hear. If for example they killed someone they will try to justify what they did. They will say the person had it coming to them. But it would seem that society does not agree that what they did was justified.

At any given time there are over 2 million people shopping at Walmart in this country. For the most part they're there to get bargains on toilet paper. But some will, of course, buy shorts and blank videotapes... </end similar nonsense>

.
​

 

[h2whoa]

Nope.

 

[JohnR7]

Science does not teach moral laws any more so than engineering, architecture, or auto repair.

I am not talking about teaching them more, only teaching them as much. They need to teach the moral and the physical laws.

 

[JohnR7]

Just wondering...how do you suggest can i break the law of gravity?
[/size][/color][/font]

There are consequences when you break a law. Just how far do you think you can fall without getting hurt? 10, 20, 30 feet? The law of gravity may not "break" your fall, but the ground sure will and it may break you also.

Moral laws are the same as physical laws in that there are consequences. Yet science does not want the moral laws taught to our young people.

 

[JohnR7]

You seek absolutes John. By doing so you show your desire to impose those absolutes upon others.

Not at all, what they do with it is up to them. Science is the one that want to force evolution on people. I am on a christian board with my beliefs and opinions. They want to go into our schools with their opinions. They want to force their beliefs on our children if tax paying christians like it or not.

How in the world do you quantify "evil" so that you can examine it scientifically? When you figure that out, come back and ask the question again.

So you admit then that science does not know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

I know the difference because God showed me in the Bible and we are told to teach the young people right and wrong, good and evil is. But it would seem that science wants physical laws taught in the school, but they are not willing to teach moral laws and they ban anyone that wants to teach moral laws.

Your religion doesn't do this? I'm surprised.

Religion does do this. But if you have not noticed we are banned from teaching religion in our school system. Young people are not learning because they are banned from learning the moral laws.

Someone forgot to tell them that it is wrong to shoot their fellow students. I think they are telling them that now though in a indirect sort of way. They tell them that it is wrong to take weapons into the schools now. If you prohibit the display of the ten commandments, then do not be surprised if people do not learn them and they violate the commandment not to kill others.

 

[JohnR7]

Are you really and truly going to try to argue that since science doesn’t teach morals that it’s against them in some way?!?

I never said I was against them. I said they do not teach them and the ban religion from teaching them.

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".

Do you think that we should not fight for our young people. Should not someone teach them right from wrong, good from evil?

Oh, there are a few, DARE, MADD, the fire department will always send a instructor out if you make a request. But it is just not enough.

 

[JohnR7]

You should receive moral guidance from your parents.

Where are the parents going to learn it from to teach the kids. How about if we give them Dr Spooks book, will he show the parents what to teach the kids? Do kids come with an instruction manual?

I am a little bit concerned with what they learn from their parents. Ever hear of Ma Baker, public enemy number one?
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/boney+m./ma+baker_20022495.html

 

[Tomk80]

Where are the parents going to learn it from to teach the kids.

How about their own parents?

How about if we give them Dr Spooks book, will he show the parents what to teach the kids?

They might try that, that is not the government's or the school's decision.

Do kids come with an instruction manual?

Kids and women. It's just that you'll have to learn by trial and error.

I am a little bit concerned with what they learn from their parents. Ever hear of Ma Baker, public enemy number one?
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/boney+m./ma+baker_20022495.html

That's all nice, but schools aren't going to fix that. The schools have the responsibility to teach knowledge and the application of this knowledge. The responsibility of teaching the children morals is the responsibility of the parents, not of the schools or the government.

 

[JohnR7]

How about their own parents?

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

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.

Medical doctors are suppose to set an example for the community. Medical doctors are suppose to be able to guide the parents in what they should teach their kids. 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.

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.

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

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

 

[Tomk80]

Science does not seem to know the moral laws. They rely on the court system to determine that for them. They do not seem to care one way or the other.

This is one of the most confused posts I have read here.

Science doesn't have moral laws, that is not an issue of science.
Science doesn't use the court system to determine moral laws, it does nothin with them.
Science does indeed not care, how can it? It's a tool, not a person. An axe also doesn't care about moral laws now, does it?

 

[kermit]

So you admit then that science does not know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

Of course it doesn't. Neither does accounting, archetecture or computer programmng. These are just displines to do not address such matters. Just as Chist never taught us about a Bill of Lading.

Religion does do this. But if you have not noticed we are banned from teaching religion in our school system. Young people are not learning because they are banned from learning the moral laws.

Do you really want someone whom you do know know who might not share your same beliefs teaching your child about religion?

Morals are taught in school to a certain extent, just not through religion. Teaching morality and religion is up to parents as it should be.

 

[JohnR7]

The responsibility of teaching the children morals is the responsibility of the parents, not of the schools or the government.

Then they are not going to get taught. The parents are NOT doing their job. It cost society huge amounts of money to put people in prison because no one is getting the job done.

There are to many examples of parents who are doing just the opposite from what they are suppose to be doing. Even to the point where the government has to go in and take the kids away from inept parents.

 

[Tomk80]

Then they are not going to get taught. The parents are NOT doing their job. It cost society huge amounts of money to put people in prison because no one is getting the job done.

That still doesn't make it the responsibility of the schools to teach morals.

There are to many examples of parents who are doing just the opposite from what they are suppose to be doing. Even to the point where the government has to go in and take the kids away from inept parents.

And so you just want to absolve them of their responsibility? Sure we can teach morals at schools, but which ones? And will that help? Most criminals know exactly what they're doing wrong, John. They just don't care, or do not see another solution to their problems. Teaching a morality class at school, even if people can agree on what should be taught, won't solve that.

And even then, science is still going to get taught next to that morality class, John. They'll just have one more class to go to. Morality is not going to be taught in science class, because science doesn't determine what is moral and what not.

 

[JohnR7]

Neither does accounting, archetecture or computer programmng.

Accounting does teach morals. If you break the law you go to jail. Archetecture does have to follow the physical laws. If you break the law the building will fall down.

Computers is another matter. You have the porno industry with a huge amount of money supporting the ACLU and that is having an impact on the laws.

Do you really want someone whom you do know know who might not share your same beliefs teaching your child about religion?

We are not talking about Religion, we are talking about MORAL laws. Yes, the various Religions do teach some moral laws. But according to Francis Collins the moral laws are just as established in the framework of this world as the physical laws and so they should be taught & followed accordingly. If you break the physical laws, there is a price to be paid, if you break the moral laws, there is a price to be paid.

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.

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.

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.

Of course they do learn morals, from MTV. If that is where you want your young people to learn them.

 

[JohnR7]

Sure we can teach morals at schools, but which ones? And will that help?

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.

The various churches actually get along pretty good with each other. It is a lot more standardized then people think it is and I am sure they will all get it worked out between them.