Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

[coberst]

Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

The Scientific Method seeks to bracket [fence out] meaningfulness. The scientific method hates bias and bias is one form of meaning. Bias causes the individual to often distort “truth”. In the lab bias is the enemy, i.e. meaning is the enemy.

Religion seeks to bracket the “word”, i.e. to create a fence protecting the “word” from outside influence. Religion seeks to bracket human critical thought. I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns. I learned quickly that to “entertain” impure thoughts (thoughts about sex) or questions about my religion were sinful and had to be confessed to a priest in the confessional.

What is meaning?

Meaning is not a thing: meaning is a creatures’ association with an object.

Meaning and epistemology (what can we know and how can we know it) go together like a “horse and carriage”. Epistemology is about comprehension.

Comprehension can be usefully thought of as being hierarchical and formed like a pyramid. At the base is awareness followed by consciousness. Awareness is the beginning of comprehension; it begins with preconceptual and unconscious happenings in our brain. Consciousness adds to awareness the focus of our attention on this object that results from awareness. We are aware of much and we are conscious of little. When I walk in the woods I am aware of much and become quickly terrified by the consciousness of a shape that makes me think bear.

Knowing follows consciousness on this pyramid. Knowing is followed by understanding. Understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid of comprehension.

Meaning follows comprehension side by side. Meaning begins with awareness and grows with consciousness and knowing. At the pinnacle of the pyramid is the creation of new meaning through the process of our understanding, which organizes into a gestalt that which is known. The understanding at the pinnacle of comprehension is that rare moment of eureka when all becomes clear after a great struggle to understand a complex matter. Understanding is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where our knowledge are the pieces of the puzzle.

Understanding is a far step beyond knowing and is significantly different from knowing. Knowledge seeks truth whereas understanding seeks meaning. The following analogy signifies the stages of comprehension as well as the stages of meaningfulness:

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.

The instinctive force that provides us with the momentum to survive has driven us to seek out a niche for humanity that rests between the gods and the animals. We need a supreme being to provide a means for immortality and we cannot but recognize our animal nature. Our problem has been to create a place for the human species that rests between heaven and earth, between the gods and the animals.

In the process of creating this in-between resting place we have overemphasized our “cool reason” and underestimated our “imagination and heated passions”. We have placed cool reason; devoid of imagination and animal passion, on a pedestal and in so doing we have tried to disassociate our imagination from our reason. We have failed to recognize the essential role of imagination plays in all aspects of thinking and “reasoning”.

In this process we have forced our self to deny that reason has a central role in morality. We deny reason as being a gestalt with feeling, imagination, and passion, i.e. our embodied rationality, a fundamental role in learning how to “get-along and reason together”.

Empathy is at the core of morality and imaginative rationality is at the core of empathy.

“Robert Unger describes as passionate “the whole range of interpersonal encounters in which people do not treat one another as means to one another’s ends.” Passion is the basis of our noninstrumental relations to others, and it takes us beyond fixed character, social roles, and institutional arrangements.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

To answer this question both of these need to be defined.

Religion which I will assume you mean organized religion is an institution that relies on the beliefs of others to thrive.

Science is a process that is used to figure out how things work.

These 2 cannot even be compared like this.

===

I do believe that religion does the most harm to society. People who subscribe to them in a lot of cases adopt the rules and moral standing of the group. However the real harm comes from the absoluteness of your faith when combined with these views. Because these views are absolute there is no room for question and debate and the goal of every religion is to recruit the entire globe to adopt these views.

In regards to science which is a process has always maintained what it's function is for which is to figure things out and advance the species. In reality the world we live in today is all attributed to the scientific process. The computers we use, the lights in the church, the medicine we take for ailments, vehicles and so on. The goal of the process is to move forward nor backward.

As for 'morality' this is really on a viewpoint, no ones personal moral standing is identical to the next we all have our own take on what's moral and not.

[coberst]

As for 'morality' this is really on a viewpoint, no ones personal moral standing is identical to the next we all have our own take on what's moral and not.

Here is one of our major problems, we have only a Sunday school comprehension of morality. We badly need to develop a science of morality.

[Leonardo]

Here is one of our major problems, we have only a Sunday school comprehension of morality. We badly need to develop a science of morality.

There can be no 'science of morality' (unless you are talking of ethics?) in the sense you seem to be suggesting, Coberst, as morality is subjective to the individual and/or situation - as Deceptikon already stated. Behavioural studies/science would be what you wish to look into if you wish to understand how morality has developed.

It has been suggested there is a 'natural morality' (read Hume), and this may be more ubiquitous than the morality imposed through human systems of codified behaviour. I recommend you research morality a little more before making statements such as 'we only have a Sunday School comprehension of morality', though.

Here is one of my favourite philosophy sites and I have linked to the descriptive discussion of morality there.

[coberst]

Why is grooming, as displayed by monkeys, an indication of moral emotions?

Emotions are instincts; they are something that is part of our genes. They are part of our genetic makeup because they were necessary for the survival of the social species. Some species are loners but some are naturally social. The social species needed emotions that facilitated social unity. Mutual grooming is one means for bonding between individuals and the group.

Would morals count as knowledge? Do emotions count as knowledge? Directly I must say that the emotion of fear is not knowledge. The emotion leads to a feeling and the consciousness of the feeling becomes knowledge. Morality is about relationships, i.e. certain instincts make a social group possible.

Without social cohesion social groups cannot survive. Reasoning about facts. i.e. science, is a human means for survival and thriving. The more we know and understand about relationships the better will be our lives. In fact, because we have developed such powerful technology and thus have placed in the hands of people such power that if we do not do a better job about relationships our species cannot long survive.

[Leonardo]

Why is grooming, as displayed by monkeys, an indication of moral emotions?

Emotions are instincts; they are something that is part of our genes. They are part of our genetic makeup because they were necessary for the survival of the social species. Some species are loners but some are naturally social. The social species needed emotions that facilitated social unity. Mutual grooming is one means for bonding between individuals and the group.

Would morals count as knowledge? Do emotions count as knowledge? Directly I must say that the emotion of fear is not knowledge. The emotion leads to a feeling and the consciousness of the feeling becomes knowledge. Morality is about relationships, i.e. certain instincts make a social group possible.

Without social cohesion social groups cannot survive. Reasoning about facts. i.e. science, is a human means for survival and thriving. The more we know and understand about relationships the better will be our lives. In fact, because we have developed such powerful technology and thus have placed in the hands of people such power that if we do not do a better job about relationships our species cannot long survive.

Are you looking to redefine morality to suit the argument you are proposing, Coberst?

Morality is about intentional and unselfish (with a caveat) thoughts or actions of a group or individual which cause no harm to another and may, in fact, bring mutual benefit. In light of this can you see why grooming is an indication of moral behaviour?

The caveat in moral behaviour is the expectation (or hope) of the group or individual that moral behaviour will be returned. This is selfish to a degree.

Knowing what morality is, can you also see how Science and Religion are not enemies of morality?