Greg Koukl: Morality from Science?
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, “Can we discover morality through science?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
Mr. Koukal, As always you give very interesting talk.
To Weston;
Where emotions are processed and where they originate are not one in the same… the paleomammalian brain is the hardware and if things such as individual thought, emotions and freewill are more than mere illusory there has to be a source of software outside the biochemical body. If freewill is mere illusion there is no point to you or I claiming any knowledge of truth via deductive reasoning when all we reason within is determinism …
The goal of science is to accurately model the world around us. If the data is falsified, or the scientists are dishonest in their evaluations, then the goal is not reached. I don't see this as a question of morality, but just a question of efficacy.
I also don't see why a scientific approach can't be used effectively to model morality.
Because without integrity and honesty in one's scientific pursuit and findings, the data can't be trusted. Integrity and honesty are moral enterprises. It has to first be established that being truthful in scientific matters is "right" or "good". That happens before the science begins.
What is your definition of a 'soul'? Why do emotions exist in this soul, and not in the Limbic system as the evidence suggests?
If science isn't answering moral questions, why would it 'depend' on morality?
Science depends on morality before it can even begin to operate. There is nothing in the scientific enterprise that can suggest that some action is right or wrong. Science might point out what things increase survival, but cannot tell you if survival itself is "good" or "bad"
Morality is a product of our evolution as a social animal. Morality encourages cohesive social structures which dramatically increases our survival. It is readily explained through evolution. Scientific method is the perfect tool for helping us clarify our own inherent morality.
The science of moralities in mankind only dwell in the very souls of humanity as in love, hate, envy, pity, sympathy, empathy, hope and faith. Without the scientific study of the spirit in which these things only manifest from; science can't pretend to have any answers because the question of where these things are derived from and dwell from has never been studied. A universe and life without intent is the only science we study today.
~No one can claim some reasoning in an obligation to follow any moralities as a value system via science nor can natural selection and equality coincide, to except one is to reject the other. How can evolution bring a value of moralities and equality in mankind via natural selection, a non-equality process? How can such evolutionary process create such a notion by random chance then have some claim as to an obligation to follow such feelings in moralities by only existing by dumb luck?
@AtheistInTheHat "but I would argue that that does not preclude moral judgement on others," that's it You would argue! This is for God to judge and you to accept that He has other agendas for others "within there own little Wu Li dance with God." When you judge we have the problems. That is why kings are not to partake of alcohol because they forget the law. In our Society we leave all the laws to do with morality up to god to judge. Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society
@philochristos
We do not vet scientists via any basic understanding of any set of moralities in Judgment on even given subject or field of study, ever! We never give then any sort of a a limpness test as such. What is the assurance that any set of moral standards is being followed in any field of science? Should there not be accountability that basic moral standards are being followed? Knowledge alone does not assume good moral practices at all. The proof of this is in animal testing…
@philochristos
Have you ever heard just once the moralities of a scientist presented as further evidence of expertise in any given subject like abortion to make some judgment as to if abortion is morally humane or not ? I have never heard not one case in which science as brought any moral expert to any of such cases regarding morality, have you????
I agree. Thank you.
@AtheistInTheHat I don't think applying a moral judgment upon someone else falls within the realm of morality. I see my own morality as a product of my environment, culture but there is also a definite "predisposition," or genetic? quantity to it. Many times siblings growing up in the same environment have totally different moral values. Nice thoughtful topic
@philochristos
Let me explain more, morality is instinctive, is is much easyer for a layman to understand the science than the immoral to make sound judgement in morality even if the science is 100% understood. A good sample of this is the Nazi human experimentations, these were lead by some of the top leading German medical scientist of the time during World War II. Knowledge alone is no guarantee of assistance in moral judgement.
@philochristos
The only way one can be "in a better postion" to make some "moral judgment" is to have better moral judgement. Someone with 95% good moral judgment and 10% knowledge of the scienific subject is better off than someone with 10% good moral judgement and 100% knowledge when morality is a risk. Just because someone is an expert on a scientific subject does not offer any proof or evidence of their moral compass but you think it does?
Thanks Greg Koukl, there are indeed some people who ,without realization, say that science creates morality based on its results. The same people will, almost always, criticize the barbaric experiments of the Nazis or Japanese in WW2. After all, "it was done for science", yet every person knows that its wrong to make someone suffer, even if they won't admit it.
@AtheistInTheHat
Greater knowledge of certain details of a science field does not assure or even assist any particular scientist to have a good moral compass to "reflect" on any set of moral choices. Your assumption that one with more information may or will "reflect" somehow more moral on anything is a fallacy and the second point he is trying to warn all not to assume. More information has no bearing on moral judgment unless you know the individual has good moral judgment to began with.
I've always seen Science as an answer to the question of How? rather than the a question of Why? I think the question of Why should be reserved for Philosophy. I really like your presentation of this topic. Very clear. I look forward to watching more videos.
Another fantastic job with your STR Videos, Greg! Keep tubing that TRUTH…!
Agreed Mr. Koukl and something I have been trying to explain to many for a long time. I wrote this asking science this question; There is no science of morality. Only humanity has ate of it's fruit. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature?