Hi Tipsters,
Jim Clark wrote:
> First, the basis as I mentioned is a commitment to truth and
> reason, rather than to a belief in things because our ancestors
> say so, because some holy book says so, because they make us feel
> good, because they allow us to justify our less positive actions,
> and so on.
While some of these apply to some religions, they do not necessarily apply to
all. One should not condemn all religion based on limited knowledge of one or
two belief systems.
This list appears to be more of a reflection of stereotypes about religion some
of which may be grounded in truth about a particular religion.
> Second, as to the moral dictums that follow, these could be quite
> varied and are not by any means set in stone at this time (after
> all, they weren't actually written in stone as is claimed to be
> the case for some other moral systems).
This also assumes that all religions are stagnant entities.
> I would say that science and reason lead to a well-founded belief
> in our shared humanity and equality. After all, we have no basis
> in science, as opposed to religion, for concluding that anyone is
> fundamentally better than anyone else in an _a_priori_ moral
> sense. That is, science does not generally teach us to hate and
> even kill some people because of their beliefs and lack of proper
> religious values and practices.
This is not inherent in most religions that I am aware of. That does not mean
that people don't use religion much like they might use science as a rationale
for hatred and war.
Certainly, it seems like there is a bias against those who don't seem to hold
the proper scientific values (a bit infused in this discussion), cultures less
scientifically advanced are perceived as primitive and have been sometimes
subjected to scientific study and experimentation, efforts have been made to
bring the cultures "into the Twentieth Century" whether they want to or not,
and much of the cold war was in response to threats of "my science is more
advanced than yours".
> Science and reason teach us not to inflict suffering on other
> people for unfounded and questionable reasons. For example, we
> would not think it appropriate to mutilate young girls so that
> they, purportedly, will be less promiscuous or because our
> ancestors did it. If there is suffering then it must be
> justifiable on the basis of some other generally accepted good
> (e.g., the pain of a smallpox inoculation being justified in
> terms of preventing death at a young age).
No doubt, FGM is abhorrent.
However, I should add that science is not harm free. In the United States and
other countries, we might declare it unethical (although this is not
guaranteed) However, the harm of subjects has and continues to occur. For
example, while extreme, we have the Japanese biological and chemical testing
during WWII, the CIA studies, the U.S. radiation experiments, and the Tuskegee
study. While less extreme, harm still occurs and informed consent is not an
absolute in some current medical drug testing today. For example, the testing
of new antipsychotic drugs (or corresponding placebo) on hospital admissions of
active psychosis (informed consent in questionable at best), the testing of
Alzheimer's drugs, or the paid drug trials for cholera, typhus, etc on homeless
individuals (folks who are essentially making a living off of drug trial
payments). Of course, in the latter case, we have the potential for additional
harm because of the unique nature of the subject population and their
propensity for not being entirely truthful in completing all health related
questionnaires.
Additionally, some might argue that the withholding of treatment (ie. the
placebo) during drug trials represents harm if indeed the new drug works. This
issue has certainly been raised in regards to AIDS trials. Some might also
argue that the reason we design trials this way is because of scientific
tradition. Clearly, an inadequate explanation but many religions might argue
that the tradition argument (as Jim described above) is also inadequate.
> Science and reason lead, I believe, to a principled commitment to
> "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rather than
> to some blind acceptance because some supreme being told us we
> should do that.
Interestingly, Hitler argued against the principle of "do unto . . . . "
because it was grounded in religion, specifically Judaism. He argued against
it as it was not scientific. His ideology was based on "scientific racial
theory" as proposed/practiced in Germany and other parts of the world in the
1930s (including the United States). Many scientist including psychologists
advocated for and provided the research "data" to support Hitler's agenda.
> Science and reason entail a commitment to openness and truth in
> our dealings with people and with ourselves. There are occasions
> for "white lies," I know, but we do not feel that lying as a
> basic form of interaction is warranted, even when we are dealing
> with people from other religious or cultural groups. Lying is
> inappropriate because it tends to lead to inaccurate views of the
> world (even our personal world) and such distortions are in the
> long run destructive.
Of course, some religions would say that only focusing on the visible and
measurable in the perceived world is a distortion and inaccurate view of the
world (both perceivable and what is currently unperceivable).
> Science and reason lead to an appropriate humility in our
> dealings with people and the physical world.
Okay, a show of hands . . . . . anyone know any pompous, arrogant, etc.
scientists? Anyone know any scientists who go beyond their data and attempt
to tell people the most appropriate way to live?
My guess is that we find individuals at both ends of the spectrum coming from
both religious and scientific backgrounds and perspectives.
>
> Anyway, I think this gives the gist of what I have in mind. Of
> course, lacking a master book makes it somewhat more challenging
> to determine what are the moral stands that science and reason
> lead to.
I thought Walden II was the master book ;-)
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
