Posted on 12/29/2008 5:19:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Seems to me that many don't have a problem using science to settle moral matters in favor of eliminating morals. I wonder if the New Scientist would have criticized him for using science to support homosexuality.
Somehow I don't think so since it's being done by others already.
“What’s with this notion of homosexuality as hard-wired?”
This claim is useful to the “gay community” and their supporters. They say gays are just like women, just like blacks; they are born that way. They claim they are discriminated against due to innate traits. They claim gays are a minority that has been discriminated against because of who they are, not what they do.
Burglars, pickpockets, purse snatchers, rapists, murderers, bigamists, and pedophiles are criticized and prosecuted for their actions. Historically, men who have sex with men have been criticized for their actions. Their actions have been described as sodomy. They have been called sodomites in the same way people who lift wallets are called pickpockets. It is descriptive, not an identity. Now if “science” claims there is a sodomy or the pickpocket gene, it paves the way for the claim that they can’t help themselves, they are a misunderstood and long suffering minority that faces discrimination from a conservative, religious society.
It’s all bunk of course. Sometimes people are tempted by a course of action that they know to be wrong. Sometimes they give into temptation.
The common claim that gays are just like women and blacks is bogus. There is nothing wrong with being a woman or being black. It there were something wrong, it is true that they have no choice in the matter. There is something wrong with sodomy. People who are tempted by sodomy can refuse the temptation. Sodomy is like stealing or murder. Sodomists are not like blacks or women.
So much for keeping the supernatural out of science. That non-scientific part of man is what's passing judgment on science; deciding what science is and interpreting it.
“What is your actual position on the use of science in the realm of morality?”
This wasn’t addressed to me. I hope you don’t mind if I offer my 2cts.
My academic background is economics (economic theory). This kind of question sometimes comes up when addressing social policy. I was taught that value judgments and questions of what ought to be done are not part of science. Science can address the consequences of actions.
Here is an example. Let’s say we want to help the poor. If a particular government program is advanced to help the poor, economics can try to answer the question “will it work?” Economists predicted that Aid to Families with Dependent Children would provide an incentive to break up families and to have additional children without marriage. These economists were criticized as being heartless and uncaring. That was not true. It turns out that the economists were right and AFDC destroyed many families. AFDC drove the illegitimacy rate among blacks from where it was, near the national average, to something like 85%. This was entirely predictable. Economists could see that AFDC would have effects contrary to what was intended.
Let’s not get carried away here—this isn’t “science” or “New Scientist” disagreeing with the Pope. This is just the online news editor at New Scientist, whose job probably requires him to generate a certain number of blog posts a week. The story here is “some guy who works at New Scientist disagrees with the Pope.” Big deal.
Thanks for the many good posts. I agree with you that science “is the wrong tool for deciding morals and setting political policy.”
I’m taking on naturalism these days for a few reasons. First, I think it has been oversold. By this I mean that there has been indoctrination and acceptance that go way beyond it’s merits. The second reason is that I suspect it is hugely influential and has the wrong aims and consequences.
I am beginning to lump naturalism in with Freudian psychology, Marxism, and possibly evolutionary theory as programs that are not good science but serve to undermine Judeo-Christian morality, society, and religion - for some people that is the intent.
I apologize in advance if some of this seems a little amorphous, vague, or even paranoid. But I believe that some pseudo-scientific programs have agendas that are sometimes hidden or denied. Many innocent people have been taken in. I think that is the point of the programs. These duped individuals may have no agenda, but they advance an agenda nonetheless.
Briefly. I think Freudian psychology with its emphasis on sexuality in determining human nature undermined Christian teachings and beliefs. Evolutionary theory undermined religion for many people. Marx was an atheist who attacked religion while advancing his economic and political program. These people and their programs have been addressed by others at length. Naturalism attempts to banish any and all religion or religious thinking from science and to force a false choice - religion or science. Naturalism should come under the same intense scrutiny and de-construction as Marxism, Freudian psychology, evolution, and global warming.
Related article.
Nice examples at your link. Thanks.
You make several good points.
I’m using the term “naturalism” is a special way.
From Wikipedia:
Philosophical naturalism is, as a position, the idea that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
From Conservapedia:
Naturalism is a philosophy that rejects the possibility of supernatural phenomena, describing such phenomena as misunderstood natural phenomena or falsehood.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Naturalism
From Answers.com
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
http://www.answers.com/topic/naturalism
Here is a good quote from an unfamiliar source:
Naturalism - Philosophical and Theological Disposition
Naturalism, commonly known as materialism, is a philosophical paradigm whereby everything can be explained in terms of natural causes. Physical matter is the only reality — everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Naturalism, by definition, excludes any Supernatural Agent or activity. Thus, naturalism is atheism. Naturalism’s exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Philosophers agree, without God there is no universal moral standard of conduct.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/naturalism.htm
A somewhat different approach:
Naturalism is an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively a priori project of theorizing. For much of the history of philosophy it has been widely held that philosophy involved a distinctive method, and could achieve knowledge distinct from that attained by the special sciences. Thus, metaphysics and epistemology have often jointly occupied a position of “first philosophy,” laying the necessary grounds for the understanding of reality and the justification of knowledge claims. Naturalism rejects philosophy’s claim to that special status. Whether in epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, or other areas naturalism seeks to show that philosophical problems as traditionally conceived are ill-formulated, and can be solved or displaced by appropriately naturalistic methods. Naturalism often assigns a key role to the methods and results of the empirical sciences, and sometimes aspires to reductionism and physicalism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/naturali.htm
I selected these quotes to present one coherent meaning to the word naturalism. However, many of the sites make additional distinctions. For example, philosophical naturalism claims much more than does methodological naturalism.
I meant to include this also:
Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
VERY WELL SAID!
Wow...very informative! Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.