Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

  1. #1 Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?
    No. Certainly much less than blancmanges or calendars.
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    The Scientific Method seeks to bracket [fence out] meaningfulness.
    I disagree completely. There is no fencing out, there may be a fencing in, but not of meaning. If your thesis is based upon this statement you will need to offer much more evidence and argument to justify it.

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    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.
    Dear me. A grade school logical flaw.
    Some men are murderers.
    Coberst is a man.
    Therefore Coberst is a murderer.

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Religion seeks to bracket human critical thought.
    That would account for the Jesuits, then?
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Epistemology is about comprehension.
    No it isn't. At least not exclusively as you imply. Comprehension is only one aspect of a complex and convoluted concept. (Why do you make these sweeping generalities that have no practical use and are inherently flawed?)

    As for the rest.... :?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    John

    Disinterested observation is a key ingrediant in the scientific method. Disinterested observation requires that one bracket their own bias and beliefs and just gathers the facts, "just the facts mam".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I do not see any connection between whay you have just written and your earlier points. Can you explain more clearly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I do not see any connection between whay you have just written and your earlier points. Can you explain more clearly?

    “It is our organic flesh and blood, our structural bones, the ancient rhythms of our internal organs, and the pulsating flow of our emotions that give us whatever meaning we can find and that shape our very thinking.”

    Our Western philosophical culture and our Christian religion deny this very obvious fact. We try desperately to think of our selves as gods with minds that float above our body with its nasty old anus.

    Descartes, one of the first philosophers that the young philosophy student learns about, informs us that “my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking being…I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing; and on the other hand I have a distinct idea of body, in so far as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing.”

    Our Christian culture, our Western philosophical tradition, and our naïve common sense perceptions all seem to work in concert to instill this erroneous mind/body dichotomy upon our comprehension of reality. All of these factors lead us to place a positive evaluation upon freeing our self from our body. When we die and our mind/soul/spirit goes to heaven our body decays into dust where it came from. And we are forever free of its unpleasant burden.

    SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) challenges this traditional and common sense inherited duality of mind/body. This new paradigm for cognitive science targets the disembodied view of meaning that results from our objectivist philosophy.

    Traditionally meaning is associated with words and sentences. Meaning in this traditional sense is about propositions and words, but SGCS considers this very limited view of meaning; this disembodied view is far too narrow. “Meaning traffics in patterns, images, qualities, feelings, and eventually concepts and propositions.”

    Objectivist philosophy recognizes two fundamentally different kinds of meaning: descriptive and emotive meaning. This is an illusory demarcation that led certain philosophers of language to retain focus upon the conceptual/propositional as the only meaning that mattered and that emotive meaning had no meaning in rigorous testable modes of knowing.

    SGCS argues “for the central role of emotion in how we make sense of our world. There is no cognition without emotion, even though we are often unaware of the emotional aspects of our thinking.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •