Epistemology: The Key Dispute

[Bill]

When we are considering questions pertaining to the existence of god(s), we must first consider the necessary prior question of "how do we know what is true, what is false, and what is presently unknown (or unknowable)?" Resolving this prior question is a key componant in predicting just what stance any particular person will take on the question of the existence of god(s).

Glossing over a lot of detail, there are three fundamental stances which are possible with respect to the question of Epistemology (the study of how we determine what is true or not true): Scientific Method: Virtually everybody who believes, as the Internet Infidels believe, that metaphysical naturalism is true will have adopted a set of epistemological principles which largely parallel scientific method. Scientific method deals perfectly well with the question of what is true or not true within the realm of of facts which can be accessed by way of human senses, or in modern times, human senses aided with instrumentation designed by human reason. Non-Overlapping Magisteria: The vast majority of literate humanity adopts this sort of a dualistic epistemology. In the realm of the natural world, scientific method is adopted as the arbiter of what is true or not true. But outside of the realm of the natural world, religious faith provides truth and denies what is untrue to its own faith. While this concept was popularized by Stephen J. Gould (http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/interesting/gould-magisteria.html), it has, in fact, been the working hypothesis for the Roman Catholic Church for a very long time. Faith Alone: People who wonder aloud just how humans could ever become Young-Earth Creationists haven't considered this third possibility: you reject scientific method on the grounds that it cannot recognize God's handiwork because, after all, God is all-powerful, and thus could easily have created the Earth to look 4.6 billion years old even though God created the Earth only a few thousand years ago. Unmoored from the methods of science, there is only one possible place to turn for anything resembling "truth," and that is to one's own particular brand of faith. Virtually all non-theists who participate in this discussion forum argue from the point of view of number 1, above. The vast majority of theists here argue from the point of view of number 2, above. A few argue from the point of view of number 3, above. We get all kinds of weird ideas on these discussion boards, but I would argue that at least 99% of those who participate on these boards argue from the point of view of one of the above epistemological stances.

Thus, the real argument here over wheter or not any god(s) exist(s) is which of the above three epistemological stances is the correct one to pick.

The small minority who choose 3, above, are easily dismissed as throughgoing hypocrites. They are perfectly capable of using the instrumentalities produced by scientific method (as "God's gift," presumably), but entirely reject the foundational premises which produce those very instrumentalities. (Does anybody here really believe that the Internet and all of the computers connected to it are really a gift from God and that scientific method had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of this vast instrumentality of modern communication?) This stance cannot be described in any other way than gross hypocrisy.

The choice between the first two epistemological stances is "where the action is" in this forum. The theists in this forum attempt to convince the non-theists that a magical realm exists outside of the natural world, and that their particular god-concept happens to inhabit that extra magical realm. The non-theists reply that scientific method fails to disclose one iota of evidence in support of the existence of any such magical (or "supernatural") realm, and that the fruits of religious belief are essentially useless to science and harmful to humans to some degree or another. This is, of course, my own stance in this regard.

Unfortunately for the theists here, the historical record is very much against the case they attempt to make. The theists argue that the harm alleged to flow from religious belief either was caused by Satan (who caused certain church leaders to do harmful things) or it wasn't very harmful after all (because God will somehow fix everything when the souls are transported from the natural realm of our natural world into God's supernatural realm where those souls who were mercilessly murdered by religious bigots here on Earth will be compensated by God for their suffering).

All theist arguments in support of the existence of some sort of a "supernatural realm" ring particularly hollow these days. The deeper understanding of our natural world that modern scientific method has produced leaves very little room for secret intrusions by supernatural forces (which have never been detected by any reputable scientific experiment). Nonetheless, most people want to believe that there is some all-powerful magical protector who is out there somewhere and who will protect at least their own personal interests in some sort of an afterlife. We non-theists see this phenomena as the grossest sort of "wishful thinking," and we ourselves wish that the vast resources now poured into the pursuit of magical afterlives were instead applied to deal with some of the real and serious problems which confront us right here, right now, on Earth.

When I look at just how little of the money collected by churches and other religious organizations actually goes to help people who need help, I cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a thoroughly immoral state of affairs for humanity. If a major secular charity, like the American Cancer Society, devoted so little of its funds to its actual charitible purpose, the population would be up in arms about this misuse of funds. But religious groups get a pass on this point, much to the moral shame of humanity.

Again, the vast majority of humans have no difficulty in acknowledging that scientific method produces "truth" for our natural world (albeit an imperfect "truth," ever subject to future revisions). But the joy of participating in religious exercises seems to convince a similarly vast majority of people that there is truth to the religious dogmas that they have been taught by their elders. While I am personally convinced that this joy is readily explainable by applying scientific method to its study (and, in fact, has been so explained, by people like Pascal Boyer (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=836)), the natural brainwashing which seems to be part and parcel of religious indoctrination seems to leave only a few of the religious vulnerable to logical arguments against religion.

==========

With all that said, here is my question to the religious who frequent this discussion forum: WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO PERSUADE YOU TO ABANDON YOUR BELIEF IN A SUPERNATURAL REALM?

I would really like to know, because whatever it is, if it is possible to provide that motivation towards disbelief, I'd like to have the opportunity to do so....

== Bill

[beastmaster]

Bill, thanks for this thread, which raises important questions about the differences between atheists and theists.

Although I do not belong to your target audience, I must comment on your set-up to your question.

I disagree that science is concerned with Truth. Science has no ability or interest in disproving any form of solipsism or belief that the universe is an illusion or Matrix or was created 6 to 10,000 years ago with the appearance of age.

Rather, science is concerned with Validity. Science formulates theories and laws that describe the relations among observed phenomena in order to form the bases for *valid* predictions about what the presently unknown past and future data will reveal.

No matter how reliable a scientific theory may be, there will remain a gap between that Validity and the ultimate Truth that cannot be bridged by science alone.

An important difference between atheists and theists is that, most atheists will deny that there is any reliable method for bridging the gap between Validity and Truth, whereas most theists claim that there is such a reliable method. Theists often claim that Religious Faith is just that methodology for bridging the gap.

By what criterion or criteria may one ascertain whether or not Religious Faith has successfully bridged the gap between Validity and Truth? Most atheists will say that there are no reliable criteria.

The New Testament's answer is that one can gauge the reliability of one's Faith based on its "fruits" -- i.e., the "Fruits" Test. (Another standard theist (especially Catholic) response is Reliance on Authority, but this circles back to the "Fruits" Test because the basis for differentiating between False Prophets and True Authority depends, according to Jesus, on their "fruits.")

Is the "Fruits" Test workable or reliable? Just what is a "fruit"? Some might say that the "fruits" of Xnty are that it makes the believer happy and confident and fills him or her with a joy for life and awe for the universe. Surely, Einstein did not base the "Truth" of the General or Special Theories of Relativity on his personal happiness, and no one would take him seriously if he did. Certainly science builds confidence in a theory based on a different kind of fruits -- firm objective verifiable results. But those fruits merely bring us to the Validity of that theory, not to its Truth. What are the fruits that move us beyond Validity and into Truth? And why should "fuzzy fruits" like subjective states of mind be more worthy of our confidence than the "hard fruits" of science, which get us no further than Validity? I cannot answer those questions because I am a mere atheist. Perhaps a friendly theist can lend some suggestions here.

It's very popular among theists to claim that atheism is just another religion and that everybody has Faith, including atheists. I firmly disagree. Atheism characteristically stops at what is Valid and rejects the availability of any reliable device for moving beyond that point. Therefore, I would define atheism as "the proposition that it would be unreasonable to withhold one's provisional assent to the *validity* of the inference that no gods (as presently described) exist, based on the known and knowable evidence and without speculating on any unknown and unknowable evidence." Of course, with such an unweildy forumaltion, it is more often preferable to use "lack of belief in god or gods" as a shorthand.

[Keith Russell]

beast, of course.

Science isn't interested in whether there is a 'God' (or not), science seems interested only in whether or not it is rational to believe in such an entity.

So far, science seems to be saying 'no', overall...

K

[beastmaster]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
beast, of course.

Science isn't interested in whether there is a 'God' (or not), science seems interested only in whether or not it is rational to believe in such an entity.

So far, science seems to be saying 'no', overall... Absolutely I agree: science seems to indicate that belief in god is not valid. Which raises an interesting question: can something be True and yet not Valid? I don't think we can *definitively* answer no, however, as an atheist, I think the overwhelming presumption has to be against it or else we can't say we know anything at all. Indeed, the hypothesis that something could be True and yet not Valid would qualify as an Extraordinary Claim in the strictest sense of the term.

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by beastmaster
Absolutely I agree: science seems to indicate that belief in god is not valid. Which raises an interesting question: can something be True and yet not Valid? I don't think we can *definitively* answer no, however, as an atheist, I think the overwhelming presumption has to be against it or else we can't say we know anything at all.

I don't agreebeastmaster. I think we need only presume the (nearly) tautological premise that we cannot rationally ACCEPT theories for invalid REASONS, even if certain aspects of the theory may turn out to be true.

[Xeno]

In my opinion, Gould was right. The scientific method and theistic beliefs are dealing with two very different concepts. Science has to do with explaining the natural laws of our universe. Theism has to do with coming to terms with the existence of a consciousness within the universe. Science has an objective flavor and theism has a subjective flavor. You can show me all the laws of the universe, the way light behaves during partial reflection, what happens at the centre of a black hole, how the double helix can evolve, etc., until I have the mind of god, but all that speaks nothing to the human condition. What good is knowing the intricate details of the double helix if I don't know enough not to lie to my brother? Lying to my brother is a human condition outside the bounds of science (aside from moral game theory), and the double helix is an objective hypothesis outside the bounds of the human condition (it does not matter what I feel, my emotion plays no role in the double helix evolving).

[Heathen Dawn]

"Never the twain shall meet" - but they do! What does it mean that we are situated on one planet among many revolving round one star among many in one galaxy among many? What it does it mean that we are another species of animal? What does it mean that mystical experiences can be triggered by stimulating particular areas of the brain? Surely those things mean something, do they not? From the start, I have never found non-overlapping magisteria convincing.

[Bill]

Originally posted by beastmaster
Absolutely I agree: science seems to indicate that belief in god is not valid. Which raises an interesting question: can something be True and yet not Valid? I don't think we can *definitively* answer no, however, as an atheist, I think the overwhelming presumption has to be against it or else we can't say we know anything at all. Indeed, the hypothesis that something could be True and yet not Valid would qualify as an Extraordinary Claim in the strictest sense of the term. Since I'm somewhat persuaded by the anti-realist school of things, I will take issue with your assertion on the basis of the anti-realist thesis.

Let us imagine for a moment that there is a fact that humans do not and cannot know because humans do not and cannot experience the truth of that fact. I will pick an arbitrary fact and assert it to be true by definition. Fact: On the third planet circling the star Alpha Centauri, there is a small red stone marking the spot where the complete memory banks of a quantum computer system are buried. Those memory banks contain the complete scientific knowledge of a now long-dead race of beings who once ruled in this corner of our galaxy. Now, it is obvious to everybody here that I cannot know the above fact except as an exercise in faith (lets say, I saw this stone in a vision, and I believe my vision to be true). If we assume, arguendo, that the above fact is true, it is nonetheless not valid. There is not now, and perhaps never will be, any scientific reason to know whether or not my hypothesis about the small red stone is valid.

But just because a hypothesis is clearly not valid, that does not mean that the hypothesis is not true. Because my hypothesis is not logically impossible, it cannot be argued to be false without any reasonable attempt at investigation. What can be argued, supported, and substantiated is that I have never had any possible human experience of that stone, and thus the conceivable truth (or validity) of the stone's existence cannot be known by myself, or by any human whatsoever.

The essential argument advanced by the anti-realists is that human experience places a limit upon what we humans can assert to be true (or valid). This is an entirely reasonable assertion, in my view, and upon that argument I have previously advanced a formal justification of agnosticism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/justified.html) (which the great Michael Martin took issue with (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martinag.html), but I need not divert this thread into that discussion).

==========

Philosophers (particularly 20th century philosophers, and presumably on into the 21st century as well) spend a great deal of time arguing over matters of language and interpretation. This objection that has been raised in reply to my initial post (above) is one based upon a linguistic distinction between "truth" and "validity." However, as somewhat of an anti-realist, I'm quite familiar with the argument over that distinction, and furthermore, several subtle layers of the meaning of the word "truth."

I believe that it is a mistake to constrain science to a mere instrumentality for the determination of validity. I would reiterate the statement that I made in my opening post: "Scientific method deals perfectly well with the question of what is true or not true within the realm of of facts which can be accessed by way of human senses, or in modern times, human senses aided with instrumentation designed by human reason."

By the above quote I meant to convey the idea that science is, in fact, interested in the search for truth. All real scientists know that we humans are limited in our ability to perceive ("experience" in the anti-realist sense) truth. But I don't think there is any respected scientist out there who has not dedicated his or her life to the search for increasingly better representations of "the truth" as the laudible goal of science.

Yes, scientific method makes better and better guesses as to what the real "truth" is through the process of validating (or failing to validate) various hypotheses advanced by various people. So, yes, the question of "validation" is clearly a key element of scientific method.

But again, I sincerely doubt that many real scientists see validation (or non-validation) as the end point of scientific inquiry. Instead, real scientists are always seeking to press onward towards an increasingly better understanding of "the truth."

==========

There are obviously many true facts out there in the known universe which are not now (and perhaps never will be) known to be true (or valid) by humans. But in spite of the truth of those facts, they cannot now be in any way claimed to be valid by any known human.

So, to answer your "interesting question," it is obvious to me that the answer is "yes." "Something {can} be True and yet not Valid!" Facts of that sort exist within the realm of matters which no human has experienced, and this is the main argument advanced by the anti-realists against the assertion of any such facts as being "true" (or "valid"). The counter from the realist camp is that facts which are currently unknown by humans are no less facts and no less true. There is an objective universe that exists out there regardless of what we humans think of that situation.

==========

Finally, let me reiterate, once again, science is most interested in searching out truth wherever it might be found. Validating hypotheses is merely one of the preferred methods for ascertaining what truth is. Scientists may well agree that any valid hypothesis might possibly fall short of representing "absolute truth," but that failure to fully represent what "absolute truth" actually is will not in any way prevent (or "demotivate") science from continuing to search for truth.

== Bill

[beastmaster]

Ack, I have to head out to christ-on-a-stick's party. Be back tomorrow.

[Bill]

Originally posted by Xeno
In my opinion, Gould was right. The scientific method and theistic beliefs are dealing with two very different concepts. Science has to do with explaining the natural laws of our universe. Theism has to do with coming to terms with the existence of a consciousness within the universe. Science has an objective flavor and theism has a subjective flavor. You can show me all the laws of the universe, the way light behaves during partial reflection, what happens at the centre of a black hole, how the double helix can evolve, etc., until I have the mind of god, but all that speaks nothing to the human condition. What good is knowing the intricate details of the double helix if I don't know enough not to lie to my brother? Lying to my brother is a human condition outside the bounds of science (aside from moral game theory), and the double helix is an objective hypothesis outside the bounds of the human condition (it does not matter what I feel, my emotion plays no role in the double helix evolving). First, I think that the majority of theists would assert that their theism is based upon objective truth. Calling theism "subjective" simply because it is difficult to disprove doesn't make it into a totally subjective matter.

Frankly, I'm strongly persuaded by arguments such as those advanced by Pascal Boyer (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=836). Science most certainly can study, from a perfectly objective viewpoint, exactly what religion (theism included) does for humans and vice versa. Frankly, the genesis of human religion would seem to be fear. Early humans lived in a world that they did not (and really could not) understand, so to cope with the fear that kind of an existence naturally creates, we humans developed all sorts of "imaginary friends" to help us get through our lives. The Gods of both Judaism and Christianity are merely advanced versions of these same "imaginary friends." And since science can clearly put all human religion under its microscope, and extract whatever objective facts might be discovered through that sort of study, does that not make science into the superior discipline for mankind? I would assert that it does.

==========

And then we have the moral argument, which I raise in in my other thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60275). The essence of my assertion there is that no one set of religious beliefs represents anything close to what the vast majority of humans believe is a set of overarching moral standards (such as anti-genocide rules). In that sense, we clearly place the common moral standards derived from recent human experience as being superior to the allegedly God-given moral standards of any set of religious beliefs. Frankly, one of the main reason that we need overarching moral rules against genocide is the strong predilliction of religious bigots for engaging in genocidal behavior as motivated by their religious beliefs! But again, human experience (which is also the foundation of scientific method) tells us that we need to override those moral holdings of any and all such religious bigots in order to adhere to a higher moral code based strictly upon human experience.

==========

Based upon the above, I would assert that Gould was more than merely wrong. Gould was morally wrong to cede control of the debate over moral standards to the adherants of any particular set of religious beliefs. Since World War II, the vast bulk of nations, no matter the main sets of religious beliefs that are observed within their own borders, have all agreed that these manmade standards against genocidal behavior are to be observed, with violations to be prosecuted by international courts and similar methods of external enforcement. While enforcement of these moral standards is clearly lacking, there is still no real disagreement as to the need for these manmade moral standards, and the eventual need for better methods of enforcement of those standards.

==========

So, on at least those two fronts (and, I would assert, on every other front that is subject to rational analysys), we can clearly show that manmade standards are superior to religion-made standards. Thus, I totally and emphatically disagree that it is proper to carve out any sort of an exception to the rule that rational analysis produces the best representations of what the real truth is, and that those analyses have created man-made objective moral standards to which all religions are obligated to subjugate themselves.

And it is on that basis that I totally reject Gould's plea for a declared truce with religion.

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by beastmaster
Ack, I have to head out to christ-on-a-stick's party. Be back tomorrow. I've heard that pescifish will be there too. Too bad that I'm on the opposite end of the nation this weekend. I'll be back in LA before too long, though....

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
From the start, I have never found non-overlapping magisteria convincing. I was persuaded by the idea before I really understood the issues in enough depth. Now, I feel I do, which is part of the reason for my starting up this thread.

Gould was a well-meaning man who had too many friends among the religious. (Note that Gould's own article (http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/interesting/gould-magisteria.html) discusses his relations with Roman Catholics.) So, Gould had a personal interest in promoting some sort of a declared truce between science and religion.

But The Warfare of Science With Theology (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html) has been going on forever, and frankly, science just can't bring itself to declare anything that looks the least bit like an objective fact to be "out of bounds" for scientific investigation. So, even after Gould's death, science continues to peer into the realms of religious experience and to determine exactly what biochemical mechanisms trigger the idea that God can be experienced by merely mortal humans. The more of this sort of a thing that science engages in, the more religion is relegated to a second class status, and of course, religion is very used to the power it exercises through its status as the First Estate (http://www.smfc.k12.ca.us/class/laurel/lalosh2/francepg1.html), where they got to tell even kings what to do.

Now, in my old age (OK, I'm only 56, but that's pretty old on these forums ;) ), I'm increasingly persuaded that religion is a bad thing for mankind. I guess you can say that, after digesting the ramifications of 9-11, I've become persuaded that, on balance, humans would be better off without religion (or at least, without traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, etc.).

== Bill

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Bill
First, I think that the majority of theists would assert that their theism is based upon objective truth. Calling theism "subjective" simply because it is difficult to disprove doesn't make it into a totally subjective matter.

It is based upon one important objective truth, that you have consciousness and identity.

Frankly, I'm strongly persuaded by arguments such as those advanced by Pascal Boyer. Science most certainly can study, from a perfectly objective viewpoint, exactly what religion (theism included) does for humans and vice versa. Frankly, the genesis of human religion would seem to be fear. Early humans lived in a world that they did not (and really could not) understand, so to cope with the fear that kind of an existence naturally creates, we humans developed all sorts of "imaginary friends" to help us get through our lives. The Gods of both Judaism and Christianity are merely advanced versions of these same "imaginary friends." And since science can clearly put all human religion under its microscope, and extract whatever objective facts might be discovered through that sort of study, does that not make science into the superior discipline for mankind? I would assert that it does.

Of course science can study objectively the value of religion, but science cannot provide that value unless it replaces the function of religion itself. At that point, isn’t science becoming a religion?

You contentions about imaginary friends and religion being based on fear might have some truth, but it is ignoring the main issue, dealing with the human condition is outside the realm of science.

And then we have the moral argument, which I raise in in my other thread. The essence of my assertion there is that no one set of religious beliefs represents anything close to what the vast majority of humans believe is a set of overarching moral standards (such as anti-genocide rules). In that sense, we clearly place the common moral standards derived from recent human experience as being superior to the allegedly God-given moral standards of any set of religious beliefs. Frankly, one of the main reason that we need overarching moral rules against genocide is the strong predilliction of religious bigots for engaging in genocidal behavior as motivated by their religious beliefs! But again, human experience (which is also the foundation of scientific method) tells us that we need to override those moral holdings of any and all such religious bigots in order to adhere to a higher moral code based strictly upon human experience.

Again, you seem to be emoting on a partial fraction of what theists might consider the theistic cause (genocide, expansion of religions by violent means). I think many theists would consider the ideal goal to be achieved through theism and theology is a state of mind of being moral. You can give the scientific reasons for not lying (and not committing genocide) by moral game theory, but that is hardly enough to motivate someone to be moral. It takes a framework of thought to know what is moral and what is not moral, and be sufficiently motivated against malicious actions. Science does not (and probably cannot) provide that framework at all.

Based upon the above, I would assert that Gould was more than merely wrong. Gould was morally wrong to cede control of the debate over moral standards to the adherants of any particular set of religious beliefs. Since World War II, the vast bulk of nations, no matter the main sets of religious beliefs that are observed within their own borders, have all agreed that these manmade standards against genocidal behavior are to be observed, with violations to be prosecuted by international courts and similar methods of external enforcement. While enforcement of these moral standards is clearly lacking, there is still no real disagreement as to the need for these manmade moral standards, and the eventual need for better methods of enforcement of those standards.

One of the main features of having a theological base to work from is the presupposition that god wants all people to adhere to and respect a certain set of rules. Those rules might not be well defined, and men might try to define them in the closest approximation of truth that they can (like in science, we can’t predict anything, only give a reasonable approximation of what should happen). The “should” in science and the “should” of theology are mutually exclusive. One is the human condition; one is independent of the human condition.

So, on at least those two fronts (and, I would assert, on every other front that is subject to rational analysys), we can clearly show that manmade standards are superior to religion-made standards. Thus, I totally and emphatically disagree that it is proper to carve out any sort of an exception to the rule that rational analysis produces the best representations of what the real truth is, and that those analyses have created man-made objective moral standards to which all religions are obligated to subjugate themselves.

Religious standards are man-made standards, so I don’t see your point.

Now, in my old age (OK, I'm only 56, but that's pretty old on these forums ), I'm increasingly persuaded that religion is a bad thing for mankind. I guess you can say that, after digesting the ramifications of 9-11, I've become persuaded that, on balance, humans would be better off without religion (or at least, without traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, etc.).

Careful, are the ramifications of 9-11 completely religious? People seem content to blame the actions of a few irrational Muslim heretics who’s cause is Allah, but could these same men be motivated to do the same action if they were living in mansions, in security, with their families? Most likely not, they would have too much to live for. An aspect of the cause might be religious, but I hardly think it’s fair (or even rational) to blame religion in its entirety for breeding such behavior.

[Jobar]

Xeno:
You can show me all the laws of the universe, the way light behaves during partial reflection, what happens at the centre of a black hole, how the double helix can evolve, etc., until I have the mind of god, but all that speaks nothing to the human condition. What good is knowing the intricate details of the double helix if I don't know enough not to lie to my brother? Lying to my brother is a human condition outside the bounds of science (aside from moral game theory), and the double helix is an objective hypothesis outside the bounds of the human condition (it does not matter what I feel, my emotion plays no role in the double helix evolving).

Not so, Xeno. We have anthropology, psychology, sociology, neurology- all these, and more, speak directly and intimately to the human condition.

I recall when I first read Gould's idea of non-overlapping magesteria- I wished it was true, but even at the time I realized it was not. If it were so, it would mean there was some place where an amicable and reasonable border could be drawn, where science ended and religion began; such a border, mutually recognized, would allow religion a fair and safe haven.

Look at the fear and outrage of the fundamentalists of all religions, and their hatred of our scientific world view. I think that many of them recognize, however vaguely, that our secular knowledge has come to supercede theirs so completely that they no longer have any valid contribution to make to human understanding. Ever since Galileo, religions have been fighting a rear-guard action- and losing. It becomes clear to them- and to us- that they are trapped between us and the deep blue sea- no haven, no place to stand.

And I fear that. I can but hope that the ones who would face Armageddon rather than divest themselves of their faith (no matter how irrational it is shown to be) cannot whip their followers into a frenzy so terrible that they are willing to instigate a reasonable facsimile of their final fire...

[Bill]

Originally posted by Xeno
It {theism} is based upon one important objective truth, that you have consciousness and identity. Well, that is clearly an insufficient basis for theism. Science is well along the way towards explaining "consciousness and identity" as emergent functions of a biochemcial brain structure that is peculiar to the human species. Of course science can study objectively the value of religion, but science cannot provide that value unless it replaces the function of religion itself. At that point, isn’t science becoming a religion? This is total gobbledygook.

Science has no difficulty at all in providing values for all sorts of measurements for all sorts of phenomena without ever coming close to "becoming" the phenomena under study (i.e., "becoming a religion"). Providing values for the measurement of a force does not mean that science "becomes" a force.

Frankly, you are equivocating the meaning of the word "value" here. You are construing "value" in the moral sense and/or the "meaning of life" sense while I am construing "value" in the sense of a measurement made of an objective fact. This is, of course a fallacy. You contentions about imaginary friends and religion being based on fear might have some truth, but it is ignoring the main issue, dealing with the human condition is outside the realm of science. Given your equivocation fallacy with respect to the word "value," above, I must presume that you are indulging in another similar fallacy here with respect to the phrase "the human condition."

Frankly, I can't conceive of "the human condition" being viewed as anything other than an objective state of affairs, but you must obviously assert that it is if you intend to assert that it "is outside the realm of science," so, once again, you are equivocating terms, and that is a fallacy. Again, you seem to be emoting on a partial fraction of what theists might consider the theistic cause (genocide, expansion of religions by violent means). I think many theists would consider the ideal goal to be achieved through theism and theology is a state of mind of being moral. You can give the scientific reasons for not lying (and not committing genocide) by moral game theory, but that is hardly enough to motivate someone to be moral. It takes a framework of thought to know what is moral and what is not moral, and be sufficiently motivated against malicious actions. Science does not (and probably cannot) provide that framework at all. This argument is far larger than merely science versus religion. In fact, you are asserting that philosophy cannot derive ethics. I do believe that the vast majority of philosophers would call that assertion of yours to be wrong.

Also, you've missed my main point with respect to morality. During the 20th century, mankind was forced by the events of that century to relegate theistic morality to second class status and to agree that a human-oriented set of moral standards must take precidence over all assertions of theistic morality. This is a great step forwards for mankind. Now, mankind merely needs to take the next step and the next step after that. One of the main features of having a theological base to work from is the presupposition that god wants all people to adhere to and respect a certain set of rules. Those rules might not be well defined, and men might try to define them in the closest approximation of truth that they can (like in science, we can’t predict anything, only give a reasonable approximation of what should happen). The “should” in science and the “should” of theology are mutually exclusive. One is the human condition; one is independent of the human condition. Maybe your "god wants all people to adhere to and respect a certain set of rules." It isn't the least bit clear that this is a required feature of all human gods. In fact, there are many I could name where the god(s) are largely unconcerned with the behavior of mankind.

And again, you equivocate your terms, such as "the human condition," as before. Religious standards are man-made standards, so I don’t see your point. Well, you are then disagreeing with those theists who believe that the moral code for mankind was passed down as a series of some number of commandments from God (10 or 613, it doesn't really matter just exactly how many commandments there were). If you wish to assert that these commandments are manmade, then all you do is admit my point (and reject at least Christian theology).

Again, my main point here is that modern moral codes have been placed at the peak of the agreed-upon human moral code. All theistic moral codes rate no better than second place in the overall heirarchy of moral codes. This point alone basically destroys the idea of theistic morality being based upon an objective foundation (generally, upon God's commands; or, as they say in philosophic circles, "divine command theory"). Careful, are the ramifications of 9-11 completely religious? People seem content to blame the actions of a few irrational Muslim heretics who’s cause is Allah, but could these same men be motivated to do the same action if they were living in mansions, in security, with their families? Most likely not, they would have too much to live for. An aspect of the cause might be religious, but I hardly think it’s fair (or even rational) to blame religion in its entirety for breeding such behavior. I did not say that "the ramifications of 9-11 {were} completely religious." What I said is that, after I personally digested those ramifications, I became "persuaded that, on balance, humans would be better off without religion." Not only were the hijackers largely motivated by their beliefs in religious jihad and the rewards they could expect from death during a religious jihad, but the response of the United States has been largely shaped using religious metaphors that continue to have a tendancy towards promoting further religiously-motivated violence. That sort of religiously-motivated violence ought to be avoided, and the best way to avoid it is to simply take the air out of religion.

Please do not read into what I said content which was never there in the first place.

== Bill

[Keith Russell]

beast said:
Absolutely I agree: science seems to indicate that belief in god is not valid. Which raises an interesting question: can something be True and yet not Valid?

Keith: Well, the only evidence humanity had for centuries supported a Newtonian view of the universe. Based on the evidence, it was rational (valid) to believe the Newtonian view. However, we now have enough additional evidence to know that Newtonian physics is not completely 'true'; thus it is no longer valid to believe in it, given all the evidence.

beast: I don't think we can *definitively* answer no, however, as an atheist, I think the overwhelming presumption has to be against it or else we can't say we know anything at all. Indeed, the hypothesis that something could be True and yet not Valid would qualify as an Extraordinary Claim in the strictest sense of the term.

Keith: Well, there are all sorts of claims that people believe, hoping to eventually discover enough evidence to make believing in them 'valid' (rational). I think its wrong (invalid/irrational) to believe in something until there is enough evidence to support the belief.

But, lots of people believe claims without any evidence to support them. I suppose its (at least marginally) better to accept a claim, while searching for sufficient evidence to support the belief...

K

[Vorkosigan]

:notworthy:notworthy

Some of the best posts I've read here this year, Bill. I especially like the way you take Gould to task for moral failure. You should definitely assemble them into an article for the library.

Vorkosigan

[Xeno]

Bill, you completely missed my point about morality and science being wholly seperate industries. Science speaks about objective facts but it is not something that anyone commits to as a moral worldview. People don't choose not to steal because of science, they choose it because of something else. Theism and theology are functions that aid to put people in the frame of mind where good and evil actions are seperated, identified, and understood. Science does not do this. Philosophy attempts to do this, but no one chooses not to steal after reading John Stuart Mill, or Bertrand Russell.

Aside from that, not everyone has access to the same amount of scientific information. How many kids living in the inner city even know about philosophers works on ethics, and who could digest the work without sufficient education in related areas? The Church, and other functions, are completely free and offer the building blocks of morality that actually can affect someone subjectively (with theology) as opposed to objectively (like science).

And again, about 9/11, it's easy to pin the motives of the hijackers on things you disagree with, but the real reasons are realisticly light years away from those things. Sure, you can say the hijackers did what they did in a moment of religious fervor, or you can realize that most people who are very religious don't indulge in such wanton acts of violence. Try to dissect the real reasons, and not the reasons you see that help your particular worldview.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Xeno
, but no one chooses not to steal after reading John Stuart Mill, or Bertrand Russell.

Is exposure to theology a necessary prerequisite before one can choose not to steal?

[Bill]

Originally posted by Xeno
Bill, you completely missed my point ... I do not doubt for a moment that I've missed your point because, to me, your point is incomprehensible. Lets see how good I do this time around. ... about morality and science being wholly seperate industries. Science speaks about objective facts but it is not something that anyone commits to as a moral worldview. Well, it would seem to me that you have missed my point.

I never advanced the idea of science "as a moral worldview."

I advanced science as a set of epistemological principles. The definition of epistemology (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#epis) is: "Branch of philosophy that investigates the possibility, origins, nature, and extent of human knowledge."

In turn, knowledge is defined (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/k9.htm#know) as: "Justified true belief."

I'm advancing the idea of scientific method as the only time-proven set of methodologies which produce human knowledge, or human "Justified true belief."

There is nothing inherent in the above proposal that makes scientific method into a specific for morality. However, let us look at the philosophical definition of ethics (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#eth): "Branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human conduct."

Whether you call it "morality" or you call it "ethics" makes no difference. Either is clearly "concerned with the evaluation of human conduct."

If I am evaluating human conduct, is it not necessary for me to arrive at some sort of a "Justified true belief" about human conduct? I surely hope that this is the case; that we would only evaluate human conduct in terms of "Justified true belief."

Therefore, science enters the picture by specifying the methods and procedures necessary for me to achieve a "Justified true belief" with respect to "the evaluation of human conduct."

To me, this is just basic philosophy, or Philosophy 101, if you will, so perhaps I didn't explain it fully enough. People don't choose not to steal because of science, they choose it because of something else. Theism and theology are functions that aid to put people in the frame of mind where good and evil actions are seperated, identified, and understood. Science does not do this. Philosophy attempts to do this, but no one chooses not to steal after reading John Stuart Mill, or Bertrand Russell. There are a number of fallacies in your statement, above.

First, you cannot separate science out of philosophy. Science is a product of philosophical thinking. There is even a special discipline, called the Philosophy of Science which deals with the specifics of how general philosophy relates to science.

Let us look at the definition of philosophy (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p5.htm#phiy): "Literally, love of wisdom. Hence, careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct. As an academic discipline, philosophy's chief branches include logic (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/l5.htm#log), metaphysics (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephy), epistemology (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#epis), and ethics (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#eth), and the appropriate aims and methods of each are the concern of metaphilosophy (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephi)." Science does not subsume philosophy, but clearly, philosophy subsumes science.

Second, just how do you know that "no one chooses not to steal after reading John Stuart Mill, or Bertrand Russell." That is quite a claim to make, and I challenge you to substantiate it.

Third, of course, it is specifically my thesis that the following is not exclusively true: "Theism and theology are functions that aid to put people in the frame of mind where good and evil actions are seperated, identified, and understood." You seem to be claiming that ONLY theism and theology allow people to "put people in the frame of mind where good and evil actions are seperated, identified, and understood." I specifically and completely DENY that this is the case, and I offer up philosophy as the overarching system of knowledge which does exactly that. Yes, science is contained within philosophy.

But so, too, is religion (theology; theism; etc.) contained within philosophy. I have to presume that you've heard of Philosophy of Religion? Religion is just one more branch of philosophy because religion, too, claims to provide at least part of the knowldege that seekers after wisdom will "love."

There most certainly is a great ongoing debate in moral philosophy over whether or not religion is necessary to morality. The thought that God is necessary to morality is something that is built into Christian theology. But, as we study more and more non-Christian tribes and civilizations, we can increasingly discern that God is not the least bit necessary to morality. Instead, moral behavior is something that is caused by the passing down of certain mental memes as part of the transmission of culture from one generation to the next. Some moral behavior is based upon some god concepts and other moral behavior is based upon other than god concepts. Thus, god concepts are not necessary to morality. Aside from that, not everyone has access to the same amount of scientific information. How many kids living in the inner city even know about philosophers works on ethics, and who could digest the work without sufficient education in related areas? The Church, and other functions, are completely free and offer the building blocks of morality that actually can affect someone subjectively (with theology) as opposed to objectively (like science). I wonder if you even understand the thesis you are presenting here. To me, it appears that you are asserting that because the churches don't cost the government anything (which, of course, is a lie; churches receive enormous tax breaks as nonprofit groups and as land owners), the rest of society should allow these clearly flawed institutions to continue to propagate their lies so that poor people will grow up with some sort of a useful sense of morality.

Would not free education be better? Why not require the churches to teach philosophy along with religion? Or better yet, why not remove the tax breaks that churches have and use that money to fund better education for the poor?

Frankly, you are advocating "fear of God" as a subjective concept to fill the heads of otherwise uncivilized poor people. I can't tell you how demeaning I find that idea to be. Of course, it is an idea that is frequently attributed to the deist, Voltaire, who is supposed to have commented that religion was good for his servents because otherwise they would steal his silver.

Obviously, we won't know within the lifetimes of any of us whether or not it is possible to have a good society that is entirely god-free. But I don't think that you can legitimately advance these a priori concepts without justification. And again, about 9/11, it's easy to pin the motives of the hijackers on things you disagree with, but the real reasons are realisticly light years away from those things. Sure, you can say the hijackers did what they did in a moment of religious fervor, or you can realize that most people who are very religious don't indulge in such wanton acts of violence. Try to dissect the real reasons, and not the reasons you see that help your particular worldview. You make no sense here, most likely because you continue to fail to understand my own point in this regard.

I view religion as an enabling factor to the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. I surely do not claim that their religious beliefs were the only factor in causing that disaster.

In other words, if the hijackers had been filled with a sense of the overarching idea that genocidal conduct was a bad thing, I doubt that they would have engaged in a genocidal terrorist attack. But they were, instead, filled with the idea that "killing infidels" was a good thing, so it did not matter that these were innocent civilians who were going to be killed. They were infidels or, at least, supporters of infidels, and as such, they deserved to die for the greater glory of the Islamic faith.

Frankly, I'm not the least bit certain that any of us can say exactly what Osama bin Laden's secular objectives are. He runs a terrorist group, and most terrorist groups don't have much in the way of actual secular objectives. That is, in part, why terrorist groups are so scary and difficult for moral people to comprehend: there isn't any way to appease them short of one's own self-destruction. And of course, nobody will consent to one's own self-destruction merely to appease some terrorist group.

Generally speaking, atheists don't go on suicide missions. It generally takes a strong religious belief to motivate suicidal behavior "for the greater glory of X" (where you can substitute whatever you wish for "X"). Even when atheists perform activities that risk death, and they surely do that, they are most likely personaly convinced that they will find a way to survive. To me, those atheists, like Bruce Monson (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=376) (an atheist Colorado firefighter), are the real heroes of this world. They do what they do out of entirely selfless motivations, without relying upon motivations from some theology.

== Bill

[premjan]

Wasn't he an atheist?
Aren't Communists atheists?

[Bill]

Originally posted by premjan
Wasn't he an atheist? Because Hitler is a despised person, and because Christians despise atheists, many Christians will allege (without any justification) that Hitler was an atheist. Here are some links to various articles on the Secular Web that discuss the religion of Hitler: Was Hitler an Atheist or a Theist? More Importantly, Who Cares? (http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/violence.html) The Atheism Web: Hitler's religious beliefs (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-hitler.html) HITLER AIMS BLOW AT 'GODLESS' MOVE (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html) (newspaper article, from the Lansing State Journal newspaper (Lansing, Michigan) of February 23, 1933.) The Religion of Hitler (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html) Morality and Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html) ("Along the way, Krueger refutes Copan's assertions that Hitler was an atheist and that morality "points" to theism.") Aren't Communists atheists? Generally speaking, yes, but I'm not the least bit certain that this is a requirement. For instance, there have been many accusations of "communist" leveled at (for instance) Roman Catholic priests.

== Bill

[xorbie]

I personally feel that organized religion is very bad for society. However, I don't see your problem with Buddhism.... I might not agree with some of the mystical portions of it or with some of the philosophy but overall they seem like a nice crowd. You would be hard pressed, IMO to find Buddhist terrorists anywhere, and violent crimes by Buddhist are pretty much nonexistent. The world could use more, not less.

[Bill]

Originally posted by xorbie
I personally feel that organized religion is very bad for society. However, I don't see your problem with Buddhism.... I might not agree with some of the mystical portions of it or with some of the philosophy but overall they seem like a nice crowd. You would be hard pressed, IMO to find Buddhist terrorists anywhere, and violent crimes by Buddhist are pretty much nonexistent. The world could use more, not less. Well, just perhaps, the Buddhists I ran into in Vietnam back around 1968 or so weren't representative of Buddhists everywhere, but they sure seemed to be just as ready to die for their beliefs as anybody else. Protests by self-immolation seem particularly ghastly to me.

== Bill

[Xeno]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Is exposure to theology a necessary prerequisite before one can choose not to steal?

Certainly not. Billions of Chinese people do not have a natural disposition to stealing. But what of the people who never knew not to steal? Are they a lost cause? What system would you recommend to the person who grew up to be immoral?

[Bill]

Originally posted by Xeno
Certainly not. Billions of Chinese people do not have a natural disposition to stealing. But what of the people who never knew not to steal? Are they a lost cause? What system would you recommend to the person who grew up to be immoral? You cannot consider out of context a situation like this: "the person who grew up to be immoral?" OK, so what is the context here? Just how did the person happen to grow "up to be immoral?" And just whose standard of morality is being applied to even call them "immoral" in the first place?

Frankly, there is good scientific understanding of several related phenomena. Some people just seem to be born sociopaths. You can't recommend any philosophical OR theological path to recovery to a born sociopath and have any real hope that they will follow it for anything other than purely selfish reasons. The greatest predictor of how well-behaved adults will be is how they were raised as children. There isn't a very good correlation with religious belief because religious belief is actually stronger in those classes and communities where crime is actually the highest (which tends to explain why the percentage of religious believers is much higher in prisons).

But of course, these are scientific findings. All they do is tell us what produces good results and what does not.

== Bill

[wordsmyth]

wordsmyth: Is exposure to theology a necessary prerequisite before one can choose not to steal?

Xeno: Certainly not. Billions of Chinese people do not have a natural disposition to stealing. But what of the people who never knew not to steal? Are they a lost cause? What system would you recommend to the person who grew up to be immoral?

I asked this because from your earlier post you made it sound as if exposure to theology was a necessary prerequisite of learning morality. Specifically, to choose not to steal.

Can you further explain what you mean by "the person who grew up to be immoral?". An example, perhaps.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Bill
Generally speaking, atheists don't go on suicide missions. It generally takes a strong religious belief to motivate suicidal behavior "for the greater glory of X" (where you can substitute whatever you wish for "X"). Even when atheists perform activities that risk death, and they surely do that, they are most likely personaly convinced that they will find a way to survive. To me, those atheists, like Bruce Monson (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=376) (an atheist Colorado firefighter), are the real heroes of this world. They do what they do out of entirely selfless motivations, without relying upon motivations from some theology.

== Bill

Do you consider patriotism a religion? If not, then you have a serious amount of history to read before I continue any discussion with you. This whole argument is an immature finger pointing game of "Look at the bad guys who also happen to be theists" which you should well know can be done on both sides of the fence (you might be surprised to learn that atheists have no trouble doing suicide missions too, but I'll leave that to the history lesson you seem to be missing).

To me, people who care about others and are motivated to help them no matter what the cost to their own lives are heroes; not atheists, not theists, but those people with that frame of mind. Science is in no place to put people in that frame of mind, all science can do is tell facts. If some scientific study says that it is to my advantage to steal from my brother .01% of the time, I'll say "That's nice, who cares", as most moral people would. If it is not science that gives the moral framework, then what is it? It is something outside of scientific studies. I, for one, don't consider a person who grows up believing in hedonistic and amoral practices to be a lost cause, I believe it is possible to put that person in a frame of mind where the person realizes there are certain wrong actions. You can't get those answers from scientific studies or objective facts. It is a subjective commitment to be moral.

[Bill]

Originally posted by Xeno
Do you consider patriotism a religion? If not, then you have a serious amount of history to read before I continue any discussion with you. This whole argument is an immature finger pointing game of "Look at the bad guys who also happen to be theists" which you should well know can be done on both sides of the fence (you might be surprised to learn that atheists have no trouble doing suicide missions too, but I'll leave that to the history lesson you seem to be missing). First, all I have been attempting to do is to draw out from you enough explanation from you so that I could understand what it is you think you are asserting here. So far, you haven't made yourself clear to me, and with this post, you would seem to be resigning from trying.

Also, I should add that ad hominum attacks are frowned upon on these discussion boards, and so please don't go there (I'm particularly concerned in this regard with your "immature finger pointing game" remark).

I never said that atheists could not go on suicide missions. I only said that "generally speaking" they do not. One of the exceptions to that general rule would be when an atheist has been convinced to support some movement or another (like Communism) and the leaders of that movement convince the atheist to go on a suicide mission. Again, I never said it was impossible to convince atheists to go on suicide missions; only that it is generally a lot more difficult. To me, people who care about others and are motivated to help them no matter what the cost to their own lives are heroes; not atheists, not theists, but those people with that frame of mind. I do not believe in the unjustified waste of human lives no matter how great the cause. Your statement, above, without more "conditions," is a description of an insane obsession. People who do not do some sort of a cost/benefit analysis before risking their lives are, in fact, insane.

But some sorts of insanity seem to be bred into the human condition (through genes or memes; I don't know and don't care which) because most adults will unthinkingly risk their own lives to save the lives of children whose lives are "at risk." You are welcome to call those people "heroes" if you wish, and I won't disagree, but I would still assert that it isn't sane to engage in any activity that risks your own life without any sort of a good and sufficient cost/benfit analysis (and the number of lives that are lost wastefully every year in this sort of a circulstance gives clear testamony to what I'm saying here). Science is in no place to put people in that frame of mind, all science can do is tell facts. If some scientific study says that it is to my advantage to steal from my brother .01% of the time, I'll say "That's nice, who cares", as most moral people would. I do not disagree that science merely provides facts. That is, in fact, one of my own points. But without facts, you have no basis upon which to make any decision whatsoever. In other words, facts are necessary to the making of moral judgments. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. If it is not science that gives the moral framework, then what is it? It is something outside of scientific studies. This, then, would seem to be the crux of our disagreement.

I would agree that the thing that gives the moral framework is something that exists "outside of science," but it is not something that exists "outside of scientific studies." We essentially have a subject/object disagreement here.

Science is a process that produces knowledge of facts. I presume that we agree to at least that much.

The assertion of the knowledge of the "thing" (whatever it is) which "gives the moral framework" to mankind would be a fact, and that fact would be discoverable through the employment of scientific method. That is my assertion. Not that science IS the "thing" which "gives the moral framework" to mankind, but that science can declare as a fact exactly what is the "thing" which "gives the moral framework" to mankind.

If you ask me to define exactly what is the "thing" which "gives the moral framework" to mankind, I'd have to hedge a bit, because I'm no scientific expert in this arena. But I would assert that morality is a meme that is evolved from our shared empathy for other human beings. The more shared empathy there is, the more moral people are towards each other. Something like that, anyway. I, for one, don't consider a person who grows up believing in hedonistic and amoral practices to be a lost cause, I believe it is possible to put that person in a frame of mind where the person realizes there are certain wrong actions. First, your use of the word "amoral" is circular. That which is "amoral" only exists in opposition to that which is "moral" and it is the definition of exactly what it is to be "moral" which is most at issue in this thread.

Second, most people believe "in hedonistic ... practices" to one degree or another, and most people reject the idea that it is immoral to engage in acceptable forms and degrees of "hedonistic ... practices." And frankly, I would suggest that at least most of those people who purport to avoid all forms of "hedonistic ... practices" (such as monks and nuns) are, themselves, indulging in the height of personal selfishness. It is merely that some people prefer (for reasons of their own personal happiness) to foreswear "hedonistic ... practices." If it makes them happier to do that, I have no problem with that, but I don't see that as a question of morality at all.

Third, none of this has to do with whether or not any particular person "realizes there are certain wrong actions." Even those people who do engage in "hedonistic ... practices" (and most people do) will still be among those people who also "realize there are certain wrong actions." It is just that the vast majority of people do not necessarily equate all "hedonistic ... practices" with "wrong actions." I'm frankly surprised that you would advocate that this is the case! You can't get those answers from scientific studies or objective facts. It is a subjective commitment to be moral. It is a personal commitment to be moral, and you are probably correct to call that commitment "subjective." However, beyond that, I would assert that I can too get many answers about morality from employing scientific method. And among the answers I can get would be to tally the "subjective" answers of a sufficiently large group of people so as to be able to predict what changes can or should be made in order to increase the likelihood of moral behavior by the maximum number of people.

This is really not much different than running public opinion polls. Each person has their own subjective answer. However, it is clearly a scientific discipline to tabulate and correlate those answers so as to be able to make very meaningful and useful predictions about the population as a whole, and that is exactly why science is useful in the study of "subjective" matters, including morality.

== Bill