[_ Old Earth _] Can science determine..

[GojuBrian]

What is evil?
What is right?
What is wrong?
What is moral?
What justice is?
Perfection?
Imperfection?
Sin?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Is there a difference between sin, evil, and wrong?

(Of course, I don't think you mean the use of the word 'wrong' as in 2+2=5 is wrong, but rather, morally wrong.)

SB

 

[Brah]

uhh..no.

I think you misunderstand what science is. The best description of science that i have heard came from one of my professors " Science is a process of developing models that describe aspects of the universe." when you have an accurate model you can tell what IS happening, what HAPPENED, and what WILL happen. However it could give some good theories as to why people feel these things.

Also considering justice is made up and the others vary widely from person to person and even christian to christian AND there being many different ways to interpret the bible i don't think there is any real way so you just kinda got to wing it.

 

[Nick]

I think I will move this topic to the Christianity and Science Forum. I think it is better suited there.

 

[Nick]

What is evil?
What is right?
What is wrong?
What is moral?
What justice is?
Perfection?
Imperfection?
Sin?

No, it can't. Also remember that justice and moral especially differ from person to person.

 

[GojuBrian]

uhh..no.

I think you misunderstand what science is. The best description of science that i have heard came from one of my professors " Science is a process of developing models that describe aspects of the universe." when you have an accurate model you can tell what IS happening, what HAPPENED, and what WILL happen. However it could give some good theories as to why people feel these things.

Also considering justice is made up and the others vary widely from person to person and even christian to christian AND there being many different ways to interpret the bible i don't think there is any real way so you just kinda got to wing it.

Sir, I know exactly what science is. That's why I posed the question.

I don't believe in 'winging it'.

 

[Barbarian]

Sir, I know exactly what science is. That's why I posed the question.

If you knew what science was, why would you ask?

 

[Nick]

If you knew what science was, why would you ask?

People don't always post questions to get answers for themselves. They might also want to get some discussion among the community, and to get others thinking on their opinions and views.

 

[GojuBrian]

Because truth is under seige by theistic evolutionists among us. :yes

 

[Barbarian]

Because truth is under seige by theistic evolutionists among us.

You misspelled "promotion." :yes

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Because truth is under seige by theistic evolutionists among us. :yes

Interesting...I'm not sure how one can be so sure what is truth in this area as scripture can be interpretted in many ways to support many different origin beliefs.

Back to your original question...I think Science has an important place in the world and helps us understand our world. Without science I feel the world would be in a very bad place. Can Science answer the questions that you present? Of course not although I am sure some scientists could present a model for answering this questions using a version of the scientific model.

 

[coelacanth]

What is evil?
What is right?
What is wrong?
What is moral?
What justice is?
Perfection?
Imperfection?
Sin?

No, but it is important to remember that science can help shed light on practical, real-world applications of philosophical beliefs about questions such as morality. For instance, if you deem it immoral to cause unnecessary suffering, science can shed some light onto whether or not or to what extent a living organism is capable of experiencing suffering, and also offer ways to mitigate or eliminate that suffering. In that capacity, science is useful within a moral framework because it helps you understand the world around you.

 

[Crying Rock]

What is evil?
What is right?
What is wrong?
What is moral?
What justice is?
Perfection?
Imperfection?
Sin?

No, but it is important to remember that science can help shed light on practical, real-world applications of philosophical beliefs about questions such as morality. For instance, if you deem it immoral to cause unnecessary suffering, science can shed some light onto whether or not or to what extent a living organism is capable of experiencing suffering, and also offer ways to mitigate or eliminate that suffering. In that capacity, science is useful within a moral framework because it helps you understand the world around you.

Like a lion eating your behind? Or, at war, an enemy tearing you apart? Survival of the fittest?

 

[coelacanth]

What is evil?
What is right?
What is wrong?
What is moral?
What justice is?
Perfection?
Imperfection?
Sin?

No, but it is important to remember that science can help shed light on practical, real-world applications of philosophical beliefs about questions such as morality. For instance, if you deem it immoral to cause unnecessary suffering, science can shed some light onto whether or not or to what extent a living organism is capable of experiencing suffering, and also offer ways to mitigate or eliminate that suffering. In that capacity, science is useful within a moral framework because it helps you understand the world around you.

Most of these are vague questions, but I'll try to decipher what you mean:

Like a lion eating your behind?

I was referring to human choices in morality, unless you know of lions that do scientific experiments with bum-biting ;)

Or, at war, an enemy tearing you apart?

Unnecessarily tearing someone apart in a literal sense would constitute torture. The active voice in your scenario is the one doing the "tearing apart" so I'm not sure why I am the recipient of it, unless you are trying to bring morality of self-defense into it. Is the person performing the "tearing apart" taking into account scientific knowledge of my capacity to suffer based on neuro-psychological mechanisms that have been shown to cause unpleasant sensations and attempting to neutralize me as an enemy while minimizing the suffering caused?

Survival of the fittest?

You are using a catch phrase for the process of natural selection. Please explain how you intend to apply this as well.



You seem to be looking for an example, so what I had in mind was, for instance, analyzing common ways that animals are treated by industry and trying to avoid animal cruelty in the way we treat livestock, pets, or animals used in scientific experiments. What we know about pigs, cows, chickens, etc should change the way we treat them in certain slaughterhouses. This information could be helpful to those with riding and training equestrian interests. Knowing a rat's capacity to experience pain could change how they are treated in a lab. The same applies in a very direct way to people when they are patients in a doctor's office or hospital.

 

[Crying Rock]

You seem to be looking for an example, so what I had in mind was, for instance, analyzing common ways that animals are treated by industry and trying to avoid animal cruelty in the way we treat livestock, pets, or animals used in scientific experiments. What we know about pigs, cows, chickens, etc should change the way we treat them in certain slaughterhouses. This information could be helpful to those with riding and training equestrian interests. Knowing a rat's capacity to experience pain could change how they are treated in a lab. The same applies in a very direct way to people when they are patients in a doctor's office or hospital.

I now catch your drift. If there is anyway to reduce suffering among any of God's creatures, I'm all for it. For example, while hunting, if I don't kill an animal right away, I immediately put a bullet through its brain. Then I eat it. When fishing I keep the fish alive in a live well until it's time to dress them, then I club their brains, and then dress them. Then I fry them up. I definitely agree to reduce the suffering of any of God's creatures.

Do you eat meat?

 

[coelacanth]

I am trying very hard lately to phase out meat from my diet as much as possible, but its tough when you're raised thinking that a meal is not complete without meat ;)

The same idea described above applies to environmental stewardship and morality. Knowing principles of geology and ecology and how things we do can destroy the beauty, biodiversity, and balance of the natural world, as well as harm human health can help us avoid and reduce our negative impact on ourselves and future generations. Science can be the advisor that we use to gauge what is best to do with waste products from industry and many other things.

My basic answer to your original question is this:
Science can make your conscience more informed, and your moral decisions can be wiser with greater knowledge gleaned from science.

It takes separate areas of philosophy to develop one's moral structure, although there is an innate sense of "right" and "wrong" in everyone (I have heard it claimed that sometimes an individual does not have such a sense, and find it intriguing, but have not investigated it enough to comment intelligently)

 

[B.A.C.]

(I have heard it claimed that sometimes an individual does not have such a sense, and find it intriguing, but have not investigated it enough to comment intelligently)

The scientific term for that would be "Psychopathic".

Concerning eating animals, they are here for us to eat. So whether you choose to eat them or not makes no difference morally or with your relationship with God.

 

[John]

Just don't eat companion animals

 

[coelacanth]

(I have heard it claimed that sometimes an individual does not have such a sense, and find it intriguing, but have not investigated it enough to comment intelligently)

The scientific term for that would be "Psychopathic".

Lol, but many people labelled "psychopathic" do feel that sense, or it has been muffled/silenced by traumatic experiences such as abuse, etc. I was speaking of a person who never has any sense of morality at all at any point in their life. People who are born and never understand the "conscience" that people talk about. It makes sense to me though, like a person who is born blind and is never able to truly understand the distinction between "red" and "blue" when people talk about it. I just don't like to make claims about the truth of scientific topics that I haven't researched.

Concerning eating animals, they are here for us to eat. So whether you choose to eat them or not makes no difference morally or with your relationship with God.

When you realize that only half the world could be fed at best if the whole world ate as average Americans do (think of the loss of energy through trophic levels), I would say there are moral implications. This becomes more pronounced as the world's population continues to grow exponentially...

When you believe in a creator God who gave you your body and you should take care of it, there are moral implications when we know (through science) that a diet overly dependent on animal products is very unhealthy.

And it is precisely the anthropocentric egoism displayed above that increases my disdain for creationism. Believing the earth and all the creatures living here are man's for the exploitation is remarkably shortsighted and silly.

 

[Crying Rock]

And it is precisely the anthropocentric egoism displayed above that increases my disdain for creationism. Believing the earth and all the creatures living here are man's for the exploitation is remarkably shortsighted and silly.

How so. Even TOE advocates the survival of the fittest. If I catch a fish and I'm hungry, sorry, but your butt is food.