5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

Sam Vimes · 29-07-2009 11:18AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

That's all I am really saying.

We have learned to pursue our knowledge seperately from determining the ethics & consequences of this pursuit.

There is a much greater efficiency to the process by sidelining away all the 'soft' gray issues to pursue the empirical black and white ones. But given the power of so many of the discoveries being pursued is this good enough? The moral questions are passed on to other specialists (in the areas of ethics or morality) but true understanding of the discoveries may be beyond these people.

The tower of Babel analogy comes to mind. People are pursuing knowledge down narrower and narrower areas of study with more and more disconnect from a main stream. We don't understand what the guy beside us does on the project never mind have an overview of where the project might lead. So how are we going to be able to understand what is safe/moral to pursue and what isn't?

We are to understand it through regulation, scrutiny and the publishing of findings, the same as we've always done. We are capable of destroying the planet right now but it hasn't happened because of these controls.

It sounds to me like you're saying "Human learning should stop right now because not everyone is capable of understanding or is inclined to try to understand what is being learned".

Where exactly is the line to be drawn? I use things every day that I don't understand and couldn't make myself, be it a computer or a car or a plane or anything really. Would you rather live in a world without all of these advances because you were too afraid to allow people to discover and invent them?

kiffer · 29-07-2009 11:31AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We are to understand it through regulation, scrutiny and the publishing of findings, the same as we've always done. We are capable of destroying the planet right now but it hasn't happened because of these controls.

No we are not capable of destroying the planet... The most we could do is kill everything on the surface, ruin the atmosphere and oceans leaving nothing but the little wiggly worms around black smokers and a few other weird extremeophiles... Man we suck we can't even destroy a planet yet... Come on science we should be cracking open planets for their tasty tasty iron nickel cores so our deep space sleeper ships can spread us through out the galaxy ... They we need to start worrying about escaping the heat death of the universe...

Flamed Diving · 29-07-2009 11:43AM

kiffer wrote: »

No we are not capable of destroying the planet... The most we could do is kill everything on the surface, ruin the atmosphere and oceans leaving nothing but the little wiggly worms around black smokers and a few other weird extremeophiles... Man we suck we can't even destroy a planet yet... Come on science we should be cracking open planets for their tasty tasty iron nickel cores so our deep space sleeper ships can spread us through out the galaxy ... They we need to start worrying about escaping the heat death of the universe...

What are you talking about? I read a couple of thousand year old book, written by a bunch of desert savages that said four guys on horses would end the universe.

pts · 29-07-2009 11:47AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What are you talking about? I read a couple of thousand year old book, written by a bunch of desert savages that said four guys on horses would end the universe.

They're working on it. Any day now.....

marco_polo · 29-07-2009 11:49AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

That's all I am really saying.

We have learned to pursue our knowledge seperately from determining the ethics & consequences of this pursuit.

There is a much greater efficiency to the process by sidelining away all the 'soft' gray issues to pursue the empirical black and white ones. But given the power of so many of the discoveries being pursued is this good enough? The moral questions are passed on to other specialists (in the areas of ethics or morality) but true understanding of the discoveries may be beyond these people.

The tower of Babel analogy comes to mind. People are pursuing knowledge down narrower and narrower areas of study with more and more disconnect from a main stream. We don't understand what the guy beside us does on the project never mind have an overview of where the project might lead. So how are we going to be able to understand what is safe/moral to pursue and what isn't?

I am not sure that you will find two many people who would disagree with that to a point. And certainly no-one would advocate the practice of Science in the absence of any ethical guidlines etc. I don't believe that Science has ever operated in an ethical void, and I believe that the vast majority of Scientist are concious of their responsibilities, even if you get the odd nutter trying to clone Humans etc.

However if you start to go down that line you are suggesting ultimately you could argue that Marie Curie was responsible for what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima 40 years later, as her work enabled the detailed probing of atomic structures used ny Rutherford and others. I don't think that anyone would agree that she should not have persued her theory of radioactivity.

The quest for knowledge and the ethics surrounding subsequent application of that knowledge are two seperate issues in my view.

toiletduck · 29-07-2009 11:52AM

Húrin wrote: »

cos atheists don't have any beliefs?

There's no "atheistic belief system". A strawman which surely signals absolute tripe to follow.

Flamed Diving · 29-07-2009 12:05PM

toiletduck wrote: »

There's no "atheistic belief system". A strawman which surely signals absolute tripe to follow.

Balderdash!

I can assure you that there is an intricate system to my non-stamp colecting.

robindch · 29-07-2009 12:23PM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

We have learned to pursue our knowledge seperately from determining the ethics & consequences of this pursuit.

How exactly did you conclude this? Are you involved in research yourself and are worried about where your work is leading?

DJ Dodgy · 29-07-2009 02:27PM

robindch wrote: »

How exactly did you conclude this? Are you involved in research yourself and are worried about where your work is leading?

No thankfully not facing that problem currently. I do, however, work where science/engineering meets medicine so ethical concerns are a primary part of daily activity.

robindch · 29-07-2009 04:21PM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

I do, however, work where science/engineering meets medicine so ethical concerns are a primary part of daily activity.

Well, do you get the feeling that people in your area don't ever consider the consequences of their actions?

Do they design or build things which fall to bits or harm people, or how exactly does this lack of care manifest?

Tar.Aldarion · 29-07-2009 04:52PM

Was just reading the start of this thread and the debate on behaviour and morality, haven't read most...

Anyway, thought this was interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZLDt3YBIpI

DJ Dodgy · 29-07-2009 05:00PM

I resent your flipancy. Of course they don't.

Fine I have tried to introduce something that is difficult to explain in an enviroment where many are just looking to duck in for a cheap quick one two and back off giggling.

It's not something that I have worked out into what the alternative might be in any way. It just appears there is always someone else to blame. I only invented it it's not my responsibility, I only make it its not my responsibility, I only sell it etc etc.

'God' sorted alot of that out into one commonly understood framework. In his absence there appears to be no moral impertive left other than the pursuit of money along scientifically valid lines (with a sprinkling of good community citizenship for the folks in marketing).

Mark Hamill · 29-07-2009 07:04PM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

I resent your flipancy. Of course they don't.

Fine I have tried to introduce something that is difficult to explain in an enviroment where many are just looking to duck in for a cheap quick one two and back off giggling.

It's not something that I have worked out into what the alternative might be in any way. It just appears there is always someone else to blame. I only invented it it's not my responsibility, I only make it its not my responsibility, I only sell it etc etc.

'God' sorted alot of that out into one commonly understood framework. In his absence there appears to be no moral impertive left other than the pursuit of money along scientifically valid lines (with a sprinkling of good community citizenship for the folks in marketing).

I imagine all "god" did was make the actual people who used things like the atom bomb feel justified in doing so.

Zombrex · 29-07-2009 09:12PM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

I resent your flipancy. Of course they don't.

It is hardly flippancy. You make a general statement that scientists have abandoned ethical considerations and then are contradicted by the very place you work.

The biggest problem here is that no one is accepting your central premise, that in the modern age ethics and morality have been sidelined in the pursuit of knowledge.

In fact I would say the exact opposite has happened, the ethics and morality have advanced in leaps and bounds since the Enlightenment on the back of greater understanding of humanity and the universe.

robindch · 29-07-2009 10:11PM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

Fine I have tried to introduce something that is difficult to explain in an enviroment where many are just looking to duck in for a cheap quick one two and back off giggling.

Well, as Wicknight has pointed out, you've suggested that all of the researchers currently working have abandoned ethical considerations in favour of money, and only behave socially for the purposes of marketing. Now, that's a pretty serious accusation to make, particularly in this forum, where there are a number of posters working in research of one kind or another.

If you feel that you're not being taken seriously, then it's almost certainly because you've not backed up this very broad accusation with anything more substantial than your own personal feelings. If you do offer some convincing evidence that cynicism, amorality and avarice is rampant amongst the world's researchers, then we can look forward to a good, interesting debate.

DJ Dodgy · 30-07-2009 10:02AM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is hardly flippancy. You make a general statement that scientists have abandoned ethical considerations and then are contradicted by the very place you work.

Firstly I would defend my charge of flippancy. Someone on this forum questioned if my workplace was behaving unethically. That is a personal comment to me. If I had offended anyone before hand it was inadvertently through generalisation. I am speaking of the history of science and it's emergence and segregation from other fields of philosophy in the last few hundred years. It's difficult not to generalise.

Secondly I did not make the statement that it is not the job of scientists to determine the ethics or consequenses of their pursuit of knowledge. Several of the contributors on your side of the arguement have made that statement. I argue that responsibility must lie with the instigator of the research but wonder if science/engineering et al gives us the tools required to make these determinations. Otherwise the thing will be invented first and we will ask questions later. We're tapping into dangerous areas of research for that to be the approach.

How much time do science educational institutes give over to lectures on the philosophy of science, ethics or morality lectures? It certainly is not a core topic. In days gone by that would have been justified by the fact that that was religion's role. With the death of God what replacement is there.

Do we behave ethically because of who we are, our existence as subjective beings, rather than cold objective robots. I question if this ethics is supported by a scientific method that pushes towards the objective view. My moral background was hugely developed by the religion I have since left. I can say there is no God but can't access the programming I have recieved to determine why I think something is right or wrong so some of it was recieved wisdom from the religion I grew up in.

Some hold that these questions have no place in discussions of science, the pure pursuit of knowledge. I feel an ethical/moral filter is a prerequisite prior to the pursuit of knowledge. No offense intended.

Sam Vimes · 30-07-2009 10:29AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

How much time do science educational institutes give over to lectures on the philosophy of science, ethics or morality lectures? It certainly is not a core topic. In days gone by that would have been justified by the fact that that was religion's role. With the death of God what replacement is there.

Of course it's not a core topic. As I keep saying, science and morality are separate disciplines. You learn ethics from your parents, your peers and your teachers and in science class you learn how to do science

You're pretty much making a "there's no morality without God" argument using the example of science aren't you?

What exactly does God bring to morality that can't be got anywhere else?

edit: Atheists are of the opinion that there is no God and there never was, so any morality that exists today has stemmed solely from human beings. Keeping that in mind, an atheist sees no difference between a world where people believe in god and one where they don't in terms of morality. People think they get their morality from God but they actually get it from their instincts (evolution), their parents, their peers and society in general. If they got it from religion they'd still be stoning homosexuals to death and instructing women to keep silent

DJ Dodgy · 30-07-2009 11:22AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course it's not a core topic. As I keep saying, science and morality are separate disciplines. You learn ethics from your parents, your peers and your teachers and in science class you learn how to do science

So we are relying on our children to pick up their morality ad hoc but know exactly what we want to teach them when it comes to science.

I think this is having very real effects. The public opinion of scientific research is that it can be spun by whatever agenda seeks to manipulate research in it's favour. As professional 'pillar of society' after professional 'pillar of society' (priest, politican, doctor, banker, regulator etc) fails the standards the public had expected of them do we not need to incorporate those standards into the core of our education systems.

robindch · 30-07-2009 11:49AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

So we are relying on our children to pick up their morality ad hoc but know exactly what we want to teach them when it comes to science.

Yes. Would you like your kids -- if you have any -- to be taught that being gay is an "objective moral disorder", or would you prefer to instruct your own kids in what's right and wrong? And leave the teachers to teach what we can agree upon?

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

The public opinion of scientific research is that it can be spun by whatever agenda seeks to manipulate research in it's favour.

Unfortunately, the public reads about scientific research in newspapers and on the telly, rather than reading up on the actual primary research itself. The media sentationalize or simply misreport virtually everything and the problem lies with the media and people's uncritical trust of them.

If you're interested in how the media distorts research, then I recommend you get a copy of Dan Gardner's excellent The Science of Fear or have a poke through Ben Goldacre's Bad Science.

In comparison to the levels of spin that the media puts on research, the bias of researchers is quite tiny, though you'll rarely see a newspaper or telly program say that (for quite obvious reasons).

robindch · 30-07-2009 11:56AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

Someone on this forum questioned if my workplace was behaving unethically. That is a personal comment to me.

I asked you how you had concluded that every researcher in the world was cynical, amoral and greedy. I assumed that you would have had personal experience of this, and asked if this was through work.

There was no implication that your workplace was behaving unethically, I'm simply trying to establish why you hold the extreme opinion you hold, and what's the evidential basis.

Sam Vimes · 30-07-2009 11:58AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

So we are relying on our children to pick up their morality ad hoc but know exactly what we want to teach them when it comes to science.

No, not ad hoc. You can teach children morality and ethics, you just don't tell them that it came from the sky fairy. Do you think that the idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would be any less valid if it didn't come from the sky fairy?

robindch wrote: »

I asked you how you had concluded that every researcher in the world was cynical, amoral and greedy. I assumed that you would have had personal experience of this, and asked if this was through work.

He concluded that because he thinks God is the only source of morality

DJ Dodgy · 30-07-2009 12:17PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He concluded that because he thinks God is the only source of morality

I have already said I do not believe in God as an entity but I do believe that if you want to access the recieved moral wisdom of the last thousand years of human experience then it is the religions of the world that it will be stored.

For a case in point the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' you mentioned in a previous post is a translation of a quote from the New Testament attributed to the son of God, Jesus Christ.

Sam Vimes · 30-07-2009 12:21PM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

I have already said I do not believe in God as an entity but I do believe that if you want to access the recieved moral wisdom of the last thousand years of human experience then it is the religions of the world that it will be stored.

Religions usurped morality. Morality existed before relgion but then it was written down in their holy books and they claimed they had it first.

You should take a look at the Jefferson Bible. It's the moral teachings of the bible but with all the supernatural elements taken out. You don't have to teach children that there's a sky fairy to teach them morality and you don't have to throw out everything the bible has to say just because God doesn't exist

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

For a case in point the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' you mentioned in a previous post is a translation of a quote from the New Testament attributed to the son of God, Jesus Christ.

It's also a major rule in Buddhism and Hinduism and pretty much all religions and all secular ideologies. It's just common sense and the fact that Jesus said it too does not mean he has a monopoly on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

* 3.1 Global ethic
* 3.2 Buddhism
* 3.3 Baha'i Faith
* 3.4 Christianity
* 3.5 Confucianism
* 3.6 Hinduism
* 3.7 Islam
* 3.8 Jainism
* 3.9 Judaism
* 3.10 Sikhism
* 3.11 Taoism

edit: it's more commonly called the golden rule

DJ Dodgy · 30-07-2009 12:29PM

that's three books and half a ton of wiki links that you've lined up for me so I might take a few days/weeks to get back to you. Slán

GothPunk · 07-08-2009 11:32AM

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

How much time do science educational institutes give over to lectures on the philosophy of science, ethics or morality lectures? It certainly is not a core topic. In days gone by that would have been justified by the fact that that was religion's role. With the death of God what replacement is there.

I realise the discussion may have moved on from this statement, but I just wanted to add that I have just completed the first year of my PhD, during which I took modules in Ethics, 'Science and Society' and the Philosophy of Science. This may be the exception to the rule study wise but there is at least one research program in this country that recognises that it is important to consider the implications of our work and engaging the public in science.

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

Some hold that these questions have no place in discussions of science, the pure pursuit of knowledge. I feel an ethical/moral filter is a prerequisite prior to the pursuit of knowledge. No offense intended.

No offense intended, but do you know many researchers? I mean you talk about us as if we really are a group of unthinking robots and don't actually consider the implications of our work. If this were true, Nature and Science etc would not have editorials and 'Letters to ...' discussing such issues at great length. The interaction of politicians and scientists in drawing up legislature relating to topics like stem cells demonstrates that science does not operate in isolation; although perhaps only in recent times.

I would have always thought that the 'objective view' of science is in relation to the observation and interpretation of experimental data - not towards the implications and importance of the science itself. No person is an island, neither is Science.

Flamed Diving · 07-08-2009 11:50AM

GothPunk wrote: »

I realise the discussion may have moved on from this statement, but I just wanted to add that I have just completed the first year of my PhD, during which I took modules in Ethics, 'Science and Society' and the Philosophy of Science. This may be the exception to the rule study wise but there is at least one research program in this country that recognises that it is important to consider the implications of our work and engaging the public in science.

I can predict the response.

Yeah, but were they core modules?

GothPunk · 07-08-2009 02:50PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I can predict the response.

Yeah, but were they core modules?

To be fair to DJ Dodgy, I think they are making some good points, they have just chosen to jump to conclusions and assume their generalisations match the actual facts of what researchers are taught. The wealth of 'Ethics for PhD students' courses in universities across the world are testament to this. Whilst I agree that we should consider the consequences of our research, I think it is wrong to suggest that scientists put down their pipettes and turn off their particle accelerators for fear of what one might discover. It's one thing to not trust people with power but to let that distrust build into fear and wish the whole world would just stand still and ignore their innate curiosity is going too far. Surely a much better use of that energy would be to campaign for better public understanding of science or the transparency of ongoing research. That way society can have more input; surely society as a whole decides what is moral and immoral anyway.

Sam Vimes · 07-08-2009 02:57PM

Really the problems with his position can be summed up in these two posts:

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

Science has done some much. We now can feed everyone on the world twice over, cure the vast magority of diseases that are out there and prevent practically all the remainder.

Unfortunately now that science has killed God we appear to lack the motivation.

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

I have already said I do not believe in God as an entity but I do believe that if you want to access the recieved moral wisdom of the last thousand years of human experience then it is the religions of the world that it will be stored.

For a case in point the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' you mentioned in a previous post is a translation of a quote from the New Testament attributed to the son of God, Jesus Christ.

He's under the impression that morality can only come from religion and that if you prove that the religion does not come from God the morality contained in it is no longer valid or important. He didn't realise that religion had simply usurped morality and pretended they thought of it first. Once I pointed out that the golden rule of ethics exists in every major religion and in all secular ideologies because it's just common sense and that Jesus was just one more person who said it, I think he realised that we don't need to believe in the Christian God to be good

Flamed Diving · 07-08-2009 03:15PM

I have already said I do not believe in God as an entity but I do believe that if you want to access the recieved moral wisdom of the last thousand years of human experience then it is the religions of the world that it will be stored.

Like selling your daughter to her rapist. That's a good 'un.

For a case in point the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' you mentioned in a previous post is a translation of a quote from the New Testament attributed to the son of God, Jesus Christ.

Poor Socrates...

bnt · 07-08-2009 04:59PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you think that the idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would be any less valid if it didn't come from the sky fairy?

The "golden rule" did not come from Christianity at all. There's something like that in the Talmud (via Hillel), and the Analects of Confucius (c. 500BC) contains this:

What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others.

I prefer this "negative" formulation - "do not do unto others" - to the Christian "positive" version - "do unto others" - since it discourages evangelism or any other kind of interference in the lives of others. Or, as George Bernard Shaw put it:

Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

Comments