Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: November 30, 2015 07:23PM
KOLOB: Your premise is false; science (or a "scientific worldview," whatever that is) does not "deny" either morality or choice.
COMMENT: Science is mechanistic; i.e. it is based upon physical law and related facts, and physical causal relationships, as opposed to metaphysical facts, statements, or beliefs. There are no physical facts that explain either morality or genuine freewill. One needs mental facts and psychology. What is "morally right" or "morally wrong" cannot be explained through scientific evidence. Neither can science explain what "morality" is through physical facts. Moreover, genuine freewill transcends physical cause and effect relationships, so it is also not explainable in scientific terms. Thus, science proper denies that these "facts" are within the realm of science, i.e. that they are explainable in scientific terms and by scientific evidence. Your posts consistently insist that beliefs must be based upon scientific evidence to have validity, and you dismiss any such beliefs that do not.
__________________________________________
KOLOB: Your second premise is also false -- I don't do "beliefs." Claims of fact require evidence to be considered factual. I made no claim of fact above.
COMMENT: Does that mean you have no beliefs? So, your moral choice as described in your post does not involve a belief in any facts as related to either morality or freewill? Upon what then, was this "hard" moral choice based upon?
___________________________________________
KOLOB: We determine what our subjective "morality" is, and we can make choices (that's a fact, backed up by the scientific method).
COMMENT: So your "subjective morality" does not involve objective scientific facts. O.K. then why is it so hard? Why not just flip a coin? Why deliberate over moral choices at all? If morality is scientifically meaningful, it must involve objective facts, such that some actions are morally right, and others morally wrong. The problem is that there are no objective scientific facts, based upon scientific evidence, to support such moral facts. (No moral ought from a physical is!)
KOLOB: We can use the facts we learn from the scientific method to inform our choices, including "moral" ones (or not), but they're still our choices, and whatever "morality" we go by is still subjective.
COMMENT: Where are the scientific facts that support "our choices" (genuine freewill)? According to science, the brain is deterministic and mechanistic. We are solely products of the brain. Our choices are nothing more than algorithms of the brain that are instantiated by causal relationships between neurons (however complex). There is no room for genuine freewill in this scenario. Thus, genuine freewill is entirely a metaphysical concept, outside of science and scientific evidence. There is no such thing in science as "our choices" except in the practical or psychological sense.
KOLOB: And YOU seem to be the one "insisting" that science "includes" such things. Not me :)
COMMENT: No. I am telling you what you have insisted that science is about, physical facts and evidence. Therefore, to the extent you believe in objective morality and/or genuine freewill you are outside of science, and scientific evidence, and are engaged in metaphysics. I personally do not find that objectionable. But your posts have repeatedly denigrated any beliefs that are not strictly scientifically supportable. Yet, you yourself have at least two such beliefs, i.e. morality and freewill--unless you are merely feigning such beliefs to get through daily life.
KOLOB: Hopefully you've understood your error by now. See above.
COMMENT: The error is yours, as I have demonstrated with clear language. And to repeat, you cannot provide me with ANY scientific facts that support either a belief in morality per se, or a belief in genuine freewill. Yet, you clearly believe in both. Apparently there are some beliefs that are justified even though they are not supported by scientific evidence. (Which I would agree, and think is quite obvious.)
KOLOB: Why is this a "moral choice?" What differentiates a "moral choice" from a regular choice?
We made our choice based on facts AND emotions. The facts, science provided. The emotions, we provided (based on our experiences, mostly).
COMMENT: So, it was not a moral choice, just a regular choice? You did not consider what the "morally right" decision would be? It was all about pragmatic effects? Other than your non-morally-related emotions (brain states), morality was entirely irrelevant? O.K. So, then why was the choice so hard?
KOLOB: I don't have a "worldview."
COMMENT: NONSENSE: A worldview is essentially how one views the world (universe) and one's place in it, and how one formulates beliefs and determines appropriate actions. You most certainly do have a worldview which is expressed repeatedly on this Board. It is a hardcore scientific worldview, which leaves little room for intuitive beliefs about metaphysical facts--except now we know that the exception is morality and freewill.
KOLOB: Once again, I don't see why this was a "moral choice." Are you calling it that just because it involved a topic that some people consider to be "owned" by some imagined god-thing?
This was a choice about our lives, and the potential life of our potential child. It was a practical decision. It was also our decision to make, and nobody's else's business, no matter what "morality" they claimed to have or follow.
COMMENT: Forget the "god-thing" reference. This post is not about God. The whole post was about moral judgments in the context of abortion, which in general is what the whole abortion debate is about. Your reference to "the potential life of our potential child" is laden with moral values which clearly affected your decision. Now, maybe that is only about practical effects and emotions, and does not translate into what may be "right" and "wrong" from an objective moral perspective. But, it appears to me that your consideration of a "potential child" suggests that such a consideration has moral implications over and above what you and your wife happen to feel, or happen to deem is in your own best interest. It seems you are invoking moral value in a non-existent life, and inquiring about the right moral choice given such value. That consideration assumes objective morality in some sense. But there is no science here.