People of science; lend me your ears?

Question

I heard an atheist say science is logic.

Logic is subjective from person to person. So if science (logic) was ever the sole basis of morality then would there not be disputes as to what is really right? Even on basic matters.

I'm sorry but as much as I love mankind I would not trust them alone to make a unanimous and righteous definition of morality without the aid of (even minimal) divine guidance. In fact, it would be impossible.

Am I right? Please, no smart a** answers to dodge my question. Would like some real answers.

Peace.

Answer 1

Logic is not subjective, but I understand what you're trying to say. There is a logical fallacy which atheists often fall into.

Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.

In other words statements of morality cannot be derived purely from statements of scientific facts. Moral statements must have moral presumptions. But value presumptions, like issues of morality, cannot of themselves be proven.

In other words Atheists cannot say that their morality is more valide than those based upon Biblical axioms, seeing as Atheists must themselves utilize axioms.

Answer 2

Logic is not subjective by definition. It is based on axioms and theorems and follows universally accepted rules of logical reasoning. You cannot be subjective at some point and say "Oh, 1x0 =1 in my opinion"

The concepts of MORALITY and RIGHT cannot be proven by logic because there is no universally acceptable axioms to begin with. If you accept that GOD EXISTS as a fundamental truth then you can start building theorems on that but what you usually end up is a religion rather than logic.

Science is not always right because in logic one must at times make assumptions since we don't yet know everything. At times older accepted theorems are proven wrong in the end. It is all very complicated and you would need a degree in logic and science to fully understand what is considered to be a scientifically correct proof or even a scientifically correct experiment or poll.

For example Science cannot tell you when an embryo represents a human life: at the time when the sperm and egg unite to form the first cell or when it is viable to live outside the womb. God only knows that and religions are useful to bolster one opinion over the other. The sanctity of life is not a logical concept. It is ethical or religious. If you believe there is no God, and if you have no moral or ethical compass, then life may have no meaning beyond your own pleasures, wants, needs, goals, and survival.

That is why ethics and morals cause us so many problems because science cannot tell us what is right and what is wrong.

And now please give me my ears back.

Answer 3

Two completely logical people can disagree. But their arguments would fall within a certain framework. Science is based on logic. So is mathematics. Logic is the most UNsubjective kind of thinking there is. Religious authority, on the other hand is probably the most subjective of all.

But if you don't feel confident that logic can be trusted because not all logical people are in complete agreement, then how can you presume they would be better off with something like "divine guidance?" Pope Innocent VIII was certainly divinely inspired when he launched a campaign of terror against witches, wasn't he? And weren't the Inquisitors divinely inspired? And the Conquistadores? And the Crusades? And the Pharisees? And Islamic Jihads?" Agreement among those who use divine guidance is far more tenuous than those who practice logic. And far less atrocious.

Answer 4

Logic is objective. People may use flawed logic, because they are only human, but that is not a condemnation of logic - just of the way it is applied.

Nobody I know says that science is or should be the sole basis of morality. I would say it is experience, relationships, cultural bias and tradition which make up morality. There is no scientific basis to morality. I don't know who told you that.

I find it bizarre thought, that you would reject logic because it has a small element of subjectivity in how it is applied yet you choose to rely on the totally subjective concept of divine guidance. How is divine guidance any different than imagination? It isn't.

Peace to you!

Answer 5

You really need to think about your question some more! Science is supported by logical thinking. So is theology, which is thoroughly un-scientific. But unlike theology, which bases it's logic on supernatural suppositions, science begins with facts that it can prove, or at least observe and predictably recreate, and proceeds (using logic, among other things like experimentation, and peer-review) from there. Science never tries to prove a case entirely by way of logic, when there almost always exists some way to test a hypothesis--even if modifications must be allowed for. To trust entirely on logic leaves way too much room for assumptions--sometimes wrong ones--to bias an outcome.

And I hate to break the news to ya pal, but if you think that God makes any moral decisions for mankind, you are only kidding yourself. Humans create morality, not God. That's why it's always humans who write all the bibles, and "interpret" all "divine" omens to mean what they want them to mean.

No, you're not right! And I don't think I've dodged even one of your questions or statements.

Answer 6

Science is based on the scientific method: Observation, Hypothesis, and Testing. It is a logical way of understanding the world. And it is the only proven way to do so.

Morality must be based on logic and reasoning, as opposed to faith. But both morality and philosophy are rather subjective, and can vary by person and culture. At the core, I would argue that morality is an extension of human genes, and is part of a need to improve oneself and to negotiate relationships with other people, as is needed in a social species. There may be some universals. For instance, a society that prevents murder will probably be more appealing to someone than a society that does not, for the simple reason that people want to live in peace.

I do not see gods in any part of the equation. In ancient religions such as Christianity, the texts often supported ideas like rape, murder, and warmongering, things that would seem unconscionable to us today. These people lived before the Enlightenment, and before any concept of religious liberty came into play or sincere discussions of morality (aside from the Greeks, but much ancient knowledge was lost after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire).

A belief in god did not improve the moral outlook of ancient religious groups, and I would argue that religion quelled dissent by cutting off discussion about morality (by preventing religious freedom).

As there are over 2,000 deities and all of them are based in faith, I would also argue that it is both illogical and impractical to include gods in the discussion of morality, as there is no way to prove any religion correct.

Answer 7

From an atheist's perspective:
Morality, righteously defined by the aid of religion as you claim, IS IN FACT without divine guidance, since religion is a man-made abstract of ideas, values, and experiences.

I wouldn't say that science IS logic, but who ever said that science has to be the basis of morality? We are fully capable of forming morals without consulting science OR religion.

Answer 8

Are you trying to say that you have to be religious to have morals and ethics? Because if you are, that is not the truth. I work for two atheists, one being a very well known person, and I have found them to be two of the most honest with ethics, people with morals I have ever had the pleasure of being associated with. I have also worked for some rather unpleasant individuals who claimed to be Christians. So I think you will need to rethink what you wrote. There are good and bad in all walks of life. I am a Christian, and I have been blessed to know these two people.

My brother-in-law who is one of the nicest people was trying to help the church he attends by putting the lighting and ceiling in the nursery. He went out to his truck to come in only to catch the preacher and another man talking about him. So much for setting an example. He was so hurt that he picked up his tools and put them in his truck and left. He and my sister will no longer attend church there.

Answer 9

I am sorry I can't agree with you!

I have seen the "Democratic" process in action during church business. Some churches are able to make decisions on their budgets, and who will hold church offices. Usually this is done by majority rule. If "Divine intervention" was involved in these decisions you sure could have fooled me! I have never in my life seen so much "Click Rule", back stabbing, or game playing in my life!

Theocracies don't work for the good of the people anymore that Communist governments work for the people!

How would you measure the level of "Divine Intervention" any way? There is no one in this wold who can truly say they know the mind of God!

Answer 10

1. No, science is not logic. Science uses logic, in part, to assure validity of an observation. Simply defined, science is objective observation.
2. Logic is not subjective from person to person. (This is not to say that logic can't be incorrectly applied, but one can say that about religion as well)
3. Who's to say that science does not have even "minimal divine guidance"? Many prominent scientists and doctors attribute their discovery of live-saving science to God.
4. What does morality have to do with science?

Answer 11

Science is not logic, however it tends to be logicAL. It also tends to be absolute, unless it is incorrect.

Morality is relative. There is also no "right" and "wrong", only the best choice in a given set of circumstances. Divine guidance is an illusion. There are too many competing religions all claiming "divine providence" over all mankind. Who can say which is best?

Christianity say's "thou shall not steal." Well, what about stealing food from a wealthy miser to feed a starving infant.

EVERYTHING is relative.