Scientists and Atheists Should be Moral Absolutists

[russ_watters]

A recent thread on moral absolutism/relativism got me thinking about the issue again, and rather than do the usual arguments, I'd like to take a slightly different angle at the issue.

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests). But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. Ie, scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe. And yet, when it comes to morality, it seems a great many scientists and athiests are moral relativists. They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science? We've had many discussions on this board about such issues as 'what is beauty?' and 'does chemistry/biology negate freewill?'. And the answers to these questions lie in the universal laws of science. What I consider beautiful is mostly a matter of chemistry and biology, as are the "forces" governing my actions. It's chemistry and biology that make me like a tight butt and flat stomach, but it is also chemistry and biology that make me feel bad if I hurt someone. And that - your conscience - is a matter of biology dictating morality.

In addition, a great deal of morality is straightforwardly logical - mathematical (ie, game theory). Critics tend to point to the more complex situations as evidence that logic alone can't be used, but the failure to pin down a precise answer to some questions - indeed, the nonexistence of a precise answer to some questions - hasn't stopped QM from being consdidered a highly successful scientific theory, and it shouldn't prevent the scientific analysis of morality.

It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here.

So...opinions?

 

[nazgjunk]

Some weeks ago we started ethics in philosophy class. I actually think it is more logical for scientists to be moral relativists. Why? Let's start with the opposite: believers. More specifically, Christianity. In christianity it is believed that Moses got down from mount Sinai with God's Ten Commandments. These are a rather excellent example of absolute rules. After all, I don't expect the Pope (especially the current one) to say the commandments aren't in effect for muslims, or native americans.

If there is one group of people in the world that does not believe in absolute rules, I think it would be the scientists. After all, scientists need to constantly review their conclusions. Physicists had been working with Newton's gravitational laws for centuries when Einstein came up and showed them there was more.

>Nazgjunk

 

[russ_watters]

I actually think it is more logical for scientists to be moral relativists.

Ok...

Let's start with the opposite: believers. More specifically, Christianity. In christianity it is believed that Moses got down from mount Sinai with God's Ten Commandments. These are a rather excellent example of absolute rules. After all, I don't expect the Pope (especially the current one) to say the commandments aren't in effect for muslims, or native americans.

Ok, that's true, but so what? You stated a fact there, but didn't make an argument. What you seem to be implying is that because a religion has an absolute moral code, non-religious people must be relativists. So aren't you just applying the logical fallacy I cited in the last paragraph of my opening post?

Can you try to remove religion from the issue and see if the logic holds? (as I was saying in the last paragraph of my post) Can you make a logical argument as to why moral absolutism fails to be compatible with science/logic?

If there is one group of people in the world that does not believe in absolute rules, I think it would be the scientists. After all, scientists need to constantly review their conclusions. Physicists had been working with Newton's gravitational laws for centuries when Einstein came up and showed them there was more.

But that isn't what is meant by absolute rules - and scientists most certainly believe they exist for physical phenomena (as stated in the 1st postulate of Special Relativity). Theories are theories and are always subject to review - and moral theories are no different. But that does not mean both the scientific ones and the moral ones can't be our best approximations at the current moment of the absolute rules that scientists already believe exist for the realm of physics and chemistry.

 

[nazgjunk]

OK, good point.

Allright, i give in. I usually think I'm pretty damn good at this stuff, but that's at school. I have only had philosophy for three months now, so i can hardly be ashamed.

Oh wait, i got something.

Logic is not always perfect. In fact, empirism is at least another half of science. It's great to know logic doesn't agree with moral relativism, but we can see moral rules are not the same everywhere.

I think the only way for me to explain myself right in this case is by writing a paper about it. I must admit, I have usually been a rather stubborn moral relativist, but I am beginning to think otherwise.

>Nazgjunk

 

[daveb]

If there is one group of people in the world that does not believe in absolute rules, I think it would be the scientists. After all, scientists need to constantly review their conclusions. Physicists had been working with Newton's gravitational laws for centuries when Einstein came up and showed them there was more.

>Nazgjunk

Actually, this is in error. Scientists believe in absolute laws (QCD, QED, etc.); they just disagree on what some of those laws may be (the apparent incompatibility of QM with GR).

 

[nazgjunk]

Actually, this is in error. Scientists believe in absolute laws (QCD, QED, etc.); they just disagree on what some of those laws may be (the apparent incompatibility of QM with GR).

QED usually is used in maths, especially algebra. Algebraic rules are essentially made up, i.e. they are no absolute truths in any way. People made them up and agreed upon them. I can hardly believe that to be the case in ethics.

 

[daveb]

A great logical treatise about moral absolutism is Kant's Grounding for Metaphysics of Morality. It eliminated the need for a higher being (God, whatever) as the basis for morality. So (assuming Kant's basic conjectures are true) atheists should be moral absolutists.

 

[nazgjunk]

Funny, i just did a thing on Kant for school. Unfortunately, I do not fully agree with him. For the time being, my disagreement is mostly in the details (such as "one may never lie, whatever the circumstances may be").

Ah, you are mean. You basically brought up the most famous abolutist ever, but I don't now a single famous relativist.

 

[russ_watters]

Allright, i give in. I usually think I'm pretty damn good at this stuff, but that's at school. I have only had philosophy for three months now, so i can hardly be ashamed.

It's a start. Personally, I don't think enough logic and ethics is taught in schools (high school and college) these days.

Logic is not always perfect. In fact, empirism is at least another half of science. It's great to know logic doesn't agree with moral relativism, but we can see moral rules are not the same everywhere.

Well, that's something I didn't really address in my posts, but morality can certainly be tested. The reasoning behind an awful lot of laws (ie, the legal system) is experimental data and the test of a new law (or leader) comes from things like the change in poverty rate or crime rate resulting from the policies/laws.

I must admit, I have usually been a rather stubborn moral relativist, but I am beginning to think otherwise.

In my experience, that is a common position for moral relativists to be in.

A great logical treatise about moral absolutism is Kant's Grounding for Metaphysics of Morality. It eliminated the need for a higher being (God, whatever) as the basis for morality. So (assuming Kant's basic conjectures are true) atheists should be moral absolutists.

It's been a while and I should probably reread some of that - I rely on my own logic a little too often, when sometimes the experts have already weighed-in on the issue...

 

[turbo]

How about we look at this as an issue of ethics, and not morality? Morality implies adherence to a set of laws imposed by an outside force, while ethical behavior comes from within. You do not need to be a religious person to be an honest, decent person.

Please note that some people (including some prominent politicians) seem incapable of ethical behavior, then when they get caught, they cover themselves by saying that they didn't do anything wrong, or at least they broke no laws and shouldn't be punished. This illustrates the difference between ethics and morality.

On another 'board (different subject entirely) my signature was:

"The ethical mad does what is right.
The moral man does what he thinks his God will let him get away with.
God has a very warm place reserved for moral men."

 

[quantumdude]

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Have you considered that the word "law" is frequently used in two completely different senses? When we say "scientific law" we are usually referring to descriptive laws that attempt to account for the way in which things actually do happen. But when we say "moral law" we are usually referring to prescriptive laws that dictate the way in which we believe things should happen.

If you are using the word "law" as I am supposing then the argument by analogy at which your question seems to point falls prey to the fallacy of equivocation[/URL]. In this case, the scientist would not be logically or rationally compelled to admit to an absolute set of moral laws.

But maybe you don't mean to use the word "law" in the two different senses described above. Maybe you are referring to "laws of morality" as though they were [i]descriptive[/i] (IOW, the way moral decisions are [i]actually[/i] carried out as opposed to the way in which they [i]should be[/i] carried out). If that is the case then I would put it to you that the task of finding such laws has been and is still undertaken by those in the field of psychology.

 

[ahrkron]

If one starts with the assumption that there is a supreme being and a well-defined "universal order", then moral laws become descriptive laws.

Scientists do not usually consider morality absolute because they do not assume the existence of a predefined set of "moral principles", but rather view morality as a result of cuture- and group- dependent sets of prescritive laws, and their interaction with individuals' motivation and behavior.

 

[quantumdude]

If one starts with the assumption that there is a supreme being and a well-defined "universal order", then moral laws become descriptive laws.

That doesn't sound right at all. At least, not based on what I learned in my former religious days. We did believe in a supreme being whose moral laws are undeniably true (which would impose the universal order). But those laws were definitely prescriptive. They clearly do not describe the way moral decisions are actually carried out, but rather how they should be carried out.

The religious person would say that the moral laws of his preferred code are prescriptive, and he would explain the failure of those laws to be descriptive by appealing to his belief in man's power to choose between right and wrong.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Minor nitpick here: do you mean the "areligious" rather than "atheist?" Buddhism is technically "atheist," and, to my understanding does include a morality that is uniform (sorta "absolute") to one degree or another.

"What" about the existence of an "absolute morality" has failed to capture the interest of the scientific community?

1) The "prescriptive-descriptive" question that's been mentioned.
2) The failures of psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, psychics, astrologers, philosophers, palmists, and all the other soothsayers to date in divining/describing such.
​

(snip)In addition, a great deal of morality is straightforwardly logical - mathematical (ie, game theory). (snip)..., and it shouldn't prevent the scientific analysis of morality.

I'll go along with this. You didn't use the word "absolute" here, and I'm presuming that wasn't an oversight. Did you want to look at individual morality or cultural morality? That is, are you willing to entertain the possibility that moralities are cultural constructs? "A house divided against itself..." vs. "You can't cheat an honest man" for example?

It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here.
So...opinions?

So, hypothetically we look for characteristics of moralities, identify common properties, and discuss the possibility that there may exist some as yet unidentified absolute principles?

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, this is in error. Scientists believe in absolute laws (QCD, QED, etc.); they just disagree on what some of those laws may be (the apparent incompatibility of QM with GR).

Yes! This is critical to my point. For some reason people think that stating that there are absolute laws of morality implies that those laws have been discovered, when the same is not true in science. This is another logical fallacy and aother reason I think people reject the idea of moral absolutism. People (correctly) are suspicious of those who think they have all the answers, but just being a moral absolutist does not imply that a person thinks they have all the answers.

How about we look at this as an issue of ethics, and not morality? Morality implies adherence to a set of laws imposed by an outside force, while ethical behavior comes from within.

But my argument was that nothing truly comes from within. Ie, what you are saying comes from within is really just a consequence of your biology.

You do not need to be a religious person to be an honest, decent person.

On that, I am glad I have gotten some agreement.

Tom - yours is going to take some more thought. I'll be back...

 

[turbo]

But my argument was that nothing truly comes from within. Ie, what you are saying comes from within is really just a consequence of your biology.

You're going to run into some trouble, here, I fear. I am not religious in any way, nor do I feel any compulsion to follow any moral laws set out by any creed. I do, however, try to treat everybody as fairly and as well as I can, because I could not be happy with myself otherwise. I expect that a lot of other people feel this way, and are nice to others not because their religion tells them that they have to, but because they want to. Clearly, there is something from inside driving this behaviour.

Could it be as simple as some aspect of brain chemistry? Perhaps, but it sure is internal.

As for moral absolutism: A telling example of this comes from the life of Jesus. He was busy preaching that every man could have a relationship with God and that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves (ethics) while his detractors tried to trip him up with moral absolutism (if an ox falls in the well on the sabbath, do you pull him out?). This is one of the most loaded questions that someone living in Palestine could face. One the one hand, you have a very large and valuable animal that needs help immediately, and if the ox dies and fouls the well, you will lose your source of the most precious commodity one could imagine (clean water). On the other hand, if you do something that is in the best interest of yourself and other people in the village (save the ox and preserve the well), you run afoul of the law forbidding work on the sabbath.

The Judaic religious leaders of the day (who interpreted the laws) were intent on imposing their interpretation of these laws from the outside to regulate peoples' behaviour. Jesus wanted people to find the truth from the inside (ethics, not morality) - that's what made him dangerous to the establishment. Buddah was similarly a danger to India's ancient caste system, when he taught that all men are capable of enlightenment. The guys at the top of any government, religion, etc, are quite fearful of any attempt to "level the playing field" in this way, and traditionally downplay the importance of ethics as it relates to morality or lawfullness. Moral absolutism favors the powerful.

When I was a sophomore in college, I heard that the head of the Philosophy department was going to offer a course on metaethics, and that much of the course would revolve around critiquing his ideas on the subject, since he had a book in development. I asked to attend the class and was told that since I had not yet having taken even one course in philosophy, I certainly wouldn't qualify - most of the participants would be grad students and seniors majoring in philosophy. Undaunted, I approached Prof. Skorpen and asked if I could have a few minutes of his time. He was between classes and said I could drop into his office during lunch hour and he'd give me a few minutes. I did so, and we spoke until late in the afternoon. I not only got to take the course for full credit, I was thereafter exempted from taking any of the "101" level courses in philosophy and only took advanced courses after that. That was the most exciting course I ever took, and I never missed one class. Every class, we proposed and debated questions like "is there an ethical good that exists absent morality?" "does ethics transcend race, ethnicity, language, and culture?" "how does one resolve conflicts between morality and ethics?" etc. I think you would have liked that course.

 

[russ_watters]

Have you considered that the word "law" is frequently used in two completely different senses? When we say "scientific law" we are usually referring to descriptive laws that attempt to account for the way in which things actually do happen. But when we say "moral law" we are usually referring to prescriptive laws that dictate the way in which we believe things should happen.

You're right, but I don't think that has much of an impact on my idea here. Good to clarify it, though...

To keep the logic consistent, the things I'm calling "moral laws" are really analogous to the physical setup of a scientific experiment. The "descriptive law" is the scientific theory you are looking for that predicts what will happen if people do/don't follow the "moral law". Ie, the effect of a national law against canabalism:

A law against canabalism tells people how they should [not] act. But a scientific moral theory would be a description of what happens if people do or don't partake. It's easiest to describe what happens if everyone partakes: people kill and eat each other until few are left and society breaks down. That description/prediction would be what could qualify as a theory.

Broader theories include things like "American capitalism causes prosperity" - and the experimental setup of such a theory lies in the national laws of the US that set up our economy. The data you use to evaluate the theory comes from history.

If that is the case then I would put it to you that the task of finding such laws has been and is still undertaken by those in the field of psychology.

Psychologist, political scientists, economists - yes, I agree. But I know a lot of physical scientists don't have a lot of respect for the idea that the bsocial sciences really can/should be investigated scientifically.

 

[russ_watters]

Minor nitpick here: do you mean the "areligious" rather than "atheist?" Buddhism is technically "atheist," and, to my understanding does include a morality that is uniform (sorta "absolute") to one degree or another.

Ehh, I'm not real up on Buddhism.

"What" about the existence of an "absolute morality" has failed to capture the interest of the scientific community?

1) The "prescriptive-descriptive" question that's been mentioned.
2) The failures of psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, psychics, astrologers, philosophers, palmists, and all the other soothsayers to date in divining/describing such.
​

Well, that's just it: why would you say psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, etc. (leave out the pseudoscientists...) have failed thus far? Has society not improved dramatically because of their contributions in the same way technology has improved society? [with Tom's clarification of prescriptive vs descriptive] Their contributions to progress can be summed up as setting up the conditions for the experiment, then accurately predicting what will happen.

I'll go along with this. You didn't use the word "absolute" here, and I'm presuming that wasn't an oversight. Did you want to look at individual morality or cultural morality? That is, are you willing to entertain the possibility that moralities are cultural constructs?

Individual moralities are, most certainly, cultural constructs. But have you considered why moralities contain so many cross-cultural similarities and what causes the downfall of cultures? Different cultures have come to similar conclusions about what works, because... it works. And moralities that work lead to nations that prosper. And cultural failures can often be traced to what I would call incorrect morality (and other social theories). Social Darwinism.

So, hypothetically we look for characteristics of moralities, identify common properties, and discuss the possibility that there may exist some as yet unidentified absolute principles?

Yes.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Well, that's just it: why would you say psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, etc. (leave out the pseudoscientists...) have failed thus far?

There are assertions of an "absolute morality," but no consistent descriptions of same.

Has society not improved dramatically because of their contributions in the same way technology has improved society?

You've got a whole new set of threads here: I say "No;" a lot of people are going to say "Yes" conditionally; there may be unconditional agreement from others.

Probably need to resolve this point in some way, shape, or form before proceeding too far.

[with Tom's clarification of prescriptive vs descriptive] Their contributions to progress can be summed up as setting up the conditions for the experiment, then accurately predicting what will happen.

Samuelson: "Modern economic theory has accurately predicted seven of the last three recessions." I haven't got his exact words, but you get the gist.

Individual moralities are, most certainly, cultural constructs.

Didn't make myself clear here, obviously; I'm saying that individual moral codes are entirely different from cultural moral structures, and asking for, hopefully, you to pick the cultural case to discuss.

But have you considered why moralities contain so many cross-cultural similarities and what causes the downfall of cultures?

The "seven deadlies" show up almost universally, and hearken back to an observation you made in the OP.
Quote:
(snip)In addition, a great deal of morality is straightforwardly logical - mathematical (ie, game theory). (snip)..., and it shouldn't prevent the scientific analysis of morality. "

The wild differences between "working cultures" are what is interesting.

Different cultures have come to similar conclusions about what works, because... it works. And moralities that work lead to nations that prosper. And cultural failures can often be traced to what I would call incorrect morality (and other social theories). (snip)

I'm going to have to differ here re. "similar conclusions about what works." The clashes of cultures that constitute the majority of world history for the entire period for which we have written records, and presumably many thousands of years prior, argue that there are significant differences of opinions "about what works."

At this point, I posit that there may be an "absolute cultural metamoral" principle, "Cultures lacking a moral structure, or with a moral structure so flexible as to be non-existent fail."

Time for rebuttals.

 

[Smurf]

Why are you limiting it to scientists and atheists? Everyone should be a moral absolutist.

Regardless, I think the reason why atheists are usually relative is because atheism and relativism are both just what society accepts more. People don't reason out their beliefs, they accept what society wants them to accept, and right now it's atheism and relativism.

Both of which most people seem to give up if they start thinking about it, or studying it, in any more detail.

That's just the majority though. At least in BC.

 

[GCT]

A recent thread on moral absolutism/relativism got me thinking about the issue again, and rather than do the usual arguments, I'd like to take a slightly different angle at the issue.

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests). But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. Ie, scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe. And yet, when it comes to morality, it seems a great many scientists and athiests are moral relativists. They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science? We've had many discussions on this board about such issues as 'what is beauty?' and 'does chemistry/biology negate freewill?'. And the answers to these questions lie in the universal laws of science. What I consider beautiful is mostly a matter of chemistry and biology, as are the "forces" governing my actions. It's chemistry and biology that make me like a tight butt and flat stomach, but it is also chemistry and biology that make me feel bad if I hurt someone. And that - your conscience - is a matter of biology dictating morality.

In addition, a great deal of morality is straightforwardly logical - mathematical (ie, game theory). Critics tend to point to the more complex situations as evidence that logic alone can't be used, but the failure to pin down a precise answer to some questions - indeed, the nonexistence of a precise answer to some questions - hasn't stopped QM from being consdidered a highly successful scientific theory, and it shouldn't prevent the scientific analysis of morality.

It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here.

So...opinions?

I was actually thinking along these lines recently. I think it was one of the huxley's who, when asked about why people accept science as a substitute for religion (on a NOVA interview?), is as he replied, because the idea of God interferes with their sexual mores. I think that Russ here has a good point in that science has many attributes of religious ideals...mankind has always sought these ideals. I think with the society that we live in today (such as here in the U.S.), people feel that they are free to take up the idea of their choice, when in truth such ideals have very strong tedencies, especially when one considers that the universe may not favor our existence. Between, most scientists are not atheists, admittedly most of them are not openly religious. I've always seen atheists as inadequate, so perhaps and hopefully we're talking about scientists here.

 

[Rade]

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?
Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science? So...opinions?

Well, first "laws" are NOT absolute (e.g., laws, both physical and legal are modified over time as new information arises--thus Newton law of gravity changed by Einstein). So, as to the OP, if laws are not absolute then no logical reason why "scientists" should view morals as absolute "based only on this style of argument"--but perhaps this is nitpicking. But then, I am a scientist but not an athiest, nor do I hold there to be a transcendential first cause creator, yet I hold morality to be absolute as a concept that applies to Homo sapiens , so I hold a philosophic bent contrary to your above statement.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

The primary absolute upon which we must base all our understanding is reality. How closely our knowledge and therefore our physical (scientific) and moral laws correspond to reality determine their validity. It is not a matter of faith but of necessity that we accept this premise otherwise we have no basis for understanding anything. The consequences of our beliefs as they bear out in reality are our proof as to whether they are correct.

Morality has two fundamental facets; personal morality and interpersonal morality. Both facets depend on their correspondence to reality for their validity. The purpose for each is to serve the well being of both.

Interpersonal morality deals with the proper way for individuals to form and carry out relationships with other individuals. This requires agreement and in the realm of social law, enforceability. To achieve this requires that our moral precepts can be proven to correspond to and be necessarily derived from reality. Until we are willing and able to carry out this task our moral code will be in a state of random and unverifiable flux.

 

[quantumdude]

You're right, but I don't think that has much of an impact on my idea here. Good to clarify it, though...

It does have an impact on your idea because you are making an argument by analogy to show an inconsistency in the beliefs of scientists and atheists. As I said if you take the standard definition of "moral absolutism" then your argument fails. If you take a nonstandard definition (with descriptive moral laws) then the inconsistency disappears altogether if the scientist or atheist accepts the validity of psychology, psychiatry, etc. Either way your argument is essentially nullified.

To keep the logic consistent, the things I'm calling "moral laws" are really analogous to the physical setup of a scientific experiment. The "descriptive law" is the scientific theory you are looking for that predicts what will happen if people do/don't follow the "moral law". Ie, the effect of a national law against canabalism:
A law against canabalism tells people how they should [not] act. But a scientific moral theory would be a description of what happens if people do or don't partake. It's easiest to describe what happens if everyone partakes: people kill and eat each other until few are left and society breaks down. That description/prediction would be what could qualify as a theory.

Broader theories include things like "American capitalism causes prosperity" - and the experimental setup of such a theory lies in the national laws of the US that set up our economy. The data you use to evaluate the theory comes from history.

OK, but do you realize just how far this is from the standard definition of "moral absolutism"? The doctrine of moral absolutism is that there exists an innately 'right' set of prescriptive moral laws.

Psychologist, political scientists, economists - yes, I agree. But I know a lot of physical scientists don't have a lot of respect for the idea that the bsocial sciences really can/should be investigated scientifically.

Given that you haven't taken a scientific survey of this social phenomenon (or have you?), I would have to conclude that you are in that bin.

 

[arildno]

Cannibalism, in some form, might well be consistent societal stability, prosperity or whatever:

In some primitive tribes, I think, a deceased person is partially devoured by his/her relatives, in order to "preserve" that person within the family.
I.e, the act of cannibalism is an act of the outmost respect towards the deceased.

Although I wouldn't like to partake in any such meal, I recognize that however deluded the basis of their beliefs are, the intent behind their action is to treat every individual with the same measure of respect, and care for their and their relatives' well-being.

Thus, I would hesitate in denouncing this particular practice as strictly immoral, although I find it personally disgusting.

 

[Moonbear]

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?
Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science?

I hadn't seen this discussion before, so I'm going to jump in late and hope I haven't missed something in my quick read-through that makes this sound stupid.

Multiple things came to mind as I read that question.

First, do you equate morality with natural behavior? I've heard morality described as those actions we take that are contrary to our natural instincts. Morality is supposedly what sets humans apart from the other animals. If you would adhere to that definition of morality, then from a scientific perspective, morality just doesn't exist as an entity unto itself, it's a religious construct, because in religion, humans are set above other animals as something special. In science, humans are just another animal. Our behaviors are based on our survival strategy. Part of that survival strategy for humans is cooperativity. Some may call the actions we take to maintain that cooperation "morals," but the term really holds no place in scientific terminology, thus, from a purely scientific perspective, there simply are no morals, absolute or relative, just selfish behaviors to maximize our chances of survival.

Now, in the laymen's world, we start to give a name to the actions/behaviors that our experiences tell us are successful for forming cooperative relationships: morals. Whether someone has codified these rules, such as in a religion, or prefers to trust their own experiences and observations to form their rules will determine what set of rules we call "morals" and choose to follow. So, just as each individuals' behaviors differ based on the collective input of all their life experiences along with the genetic predispositions they were born with, so will their perception of what constitutes moral behavior, as it would be just another extension of their biology. Again, keep in mind that biology is influenced by innumerable variables in a lifetime (i.e., external experience).

So, if we take this second view, and say that morality is a natural part of human behavior, rather than a religious construct, then while we could say it's possible there are laws that will dictate what an individual's moral beliefs or behaviors are if we could identify all the variables that are input into that decision-making process, it would still mean every individual has their own individual perception of morality, and there is no absolute or universal moral code to follow, because no two people experience the world in exactly the same way.

There was one other angle I should address, and it gets back to that cooperative survival strategy. Because there are many people who tend to believe in imposing their moral views upon others, and who do not recognize that people can behave in a cooperative manner without fear of supernatural intervention, and further, those people would persecute someone who they thought was promoting "amorality," (in their view, a lack of cooperativity), and this is one of their BIG reasons for rejecting science/scientists, even if a scientist does see moral perceptions as purely dictated by biology/chemistry/response to environmenal cues, it's in their own selfish interest for survival to not admit to holding such a belief.

 

[Sariel]

I was wondering...

How would such an absolute morality be verified as correct? Scientific laws are accepted as such because they can be falsified, but how could a moral code be falsified? Is there a definition of morality that allows for testable, falsifiable answers?

 

[Dawguard]

I was wondering...

How would such an absolute morality be verified as correct? Scientific laws are accepted as such because they can be falsified, but how could a moral code be falsified? Is there a definition of morality that allows for testable, falsifiable answers?

Welcome to Physics Forums, Sariel. The idea of morals as non-physical laws is impossible to prove or disprove. This is the case with all non-physical things: god, the soul, afterlife, etc. Thus the simple answer appears to be no.
However, there seem to be certain morals that are self-evidant. I suppose you could make the case that murder can't be immoral since you can't prove it is, but no rational person thinks like that. They understand that there are laws that have to be obeyed, and these laws are for the most part, obvious. We can pretty much ignore morals based around specific religions since they usually contradict each other. What we are left with is a logical view of how to best live our lives in a functioning society. A necasary step for this is the understanding that human beings have rights, and these right are part of their existence. This is necasary becuase without individual rights there can be no society, society being a collection of individuals. Whatever protects individuals potects the society. These rights protect their individual existence without infringing on other people's existence. This can be considered an absolute basis for all morals, and used as the test against which all other moral codes are judged.
Finally, to verify this, let us consider an example. Say that someone claims their religion gives them the right to steal and lie. (I'm only using this as an example, I know of no religion that does and I'm certanly not trying to infer anything.) Then let's assume the entire society believes this. Everyone lies and steals from each other, corruption is rampant and shortly the society implodes on itself. This moral code is false and utterly useless.
On the other hand, if you build a moral code that complies with individual freedom it fosters a society since it benefits everyone. This is surely the best method. It might be called protected agnostic existentialism.

 

[Moonbear]

Welcome to Physics Forums, Sariel. The idea of morals as non-physical laws is impossible to prove or disprove. This is the case with all non-physical things: god, the soul, afterlife, etc. Thus the simple answer appears to be no.

I think this is integral to the question Russ asked, at least my interpretation of it. To adhere to the belief that morals are absolute would require belief that those morals are also of physical origin. However, what we would test are not morals themselves, but rather the biological basis for the thought processes leading to those morals. This is also why, in the context of the usual usage of the term "morals," in my post above, I stated that they would fall more into the realm of religion than science, because in that sense, they are not testable, but instead a belief system outside the realm of science.

 

[Dawguard]

One can believe in moral absolutes without thinking they are physical. It requires faith that your beliefs are correct because there is absolutely no way to prove it. However, I do think that moral absolutes are neccesary for a well ordered society and so we should foster a belief that they are such. As I stated in my last post I think that there are logical ways we can deduce the best way for us to live, as well as mere intuition about right and wrong. However contrary it might run to popular opinion, sometimes we simply have to have faith that we are right, even if there is no concrete evidance for it. In this they are identicale to religion except that they do not carry the totalitarian baggage of, "my god told me to do so and so". If we could develope an agnostic set of morals it would be an enormous step forward in mankind's understanding of himself. It might finaly allow us to fully bridge the gap between aethists and religion: between one religion and the next.

 

[Moonbear]

One can believe in moral absolutes without thinking they are physical. It requires faith that your beliefs are correct because there is absolutely no way to prove it.

Sure, but then that doesn't mean it's something that would necessarily fit in with a scientific or atheistic view. If it is faith-based, and not physical, then there is no reason to expect a scientist or atheist to hold that particular article of faith over any other.

 

[Dawguard]

Sure, but then that doesn't mean it's something that would necessarily fit in with a scientific or atheistic view. If it is faith-based, and not physical, then there is no reason to expect a scientist or atheist to hold that particular article of faith over any other.

There's no obvious reason to believe it, but I think the point of the OP was that scientists and aetheists shouldn't exclude things just because there is no physical proof. Why can't a scientist believe in non-physical absolutes? I hope they aren't as close minded as religious people who refuse to belief things that don't fit into their dogma. After all, isn't it the same thing?

 

[Sariel]

Even science isn't held as absolute, though. We may accept things as facts, but if someone were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain idea does not effectivly represent reality, that idea would no longer be accepted as fact.

 

[Moonbear]

There's no obvious reason to believe it, but I think the point of the OP was that scientists and aetheists shouldn't exclude things just because there is no physical proof. Why can't a scientist believe in non-physical absolutes? I hope they aren't as close minded as religious people who refuse to belief things that don't fit into their dogma. After all, isn't it the same thing?

I don't think we're interpreting the OP the same way, because I think I agree with what you're saying, except you're saying it concurs with the OP and I'm saying it doesn't. Maybe Russ will return to this thread some day and clear this up.

 

[Dawguard]

I don't think we're interpreting the OP the same way, because I think I agree with what you're saying, except you're saying it concurs with the OP and I'm saying it doesn't. Maybe Russ will return to this thread some day and clear this up.

Hmm...you're right. I missinterpreted the OP. I think Russ was saying that absolute morals could be proven, but are generally discarded because of the association with religion. While I certainly think you could develop a moral code that can be expressed in mathematical terms and is therefore indepentently absolute, there would be no way of proving that it's inherently correct. That's the only point where I disagree with the OP.

 

[hypnagogue]

Russ, you seem to be employing an evaluation of moral codes by reference to their social utility: If moral code X works, i.e. if X is empirically shown to be beneficial to society, then it is established to be 'true' (in some sense). This is the descriptive component of morality. But even though there exists a descriptive component, I have to agree with Tom that it's not really a moral code unless it also has a prescriptive component. In and of itself, observing that adherence to moral code X benefits society is really no different from observing any fact of nature. For instance, we could just as well observe that the Earth orbits the sun, and certainly there is no morality in that phenomenon one way or the other.

To transition from observation of facts to a system of morality requires an additional argument that I don't think you've yet made explicit. That additional argument would be something like this:

1. Moral code X benefits society;
2. Anything that benefits society, broadly speaking, is to be valued, is good;
3. We should strive to bring about goodness in the world;
4. Therefore, we should adhere to moral code X.

That's certainly a noble argument, and one we would be wise to pay credence to, for our own collective good. However, I think the nature of the argument invalidates any hope for establishing some system of morality as somehow describing objective facts about the world. Built into this argument is an implicit evaluation of goodness, an implicit value system. Values like these, I think, are clearly idiosyncratic creations in the minds of humans rather than some objective facet of nature.

Think of it this way: If someone were to systematically disagree with you about the goodness of those things you valued, what objective criterion could you turn to in order to settle the debate? Certainly you couldn't refer to social utility and so on, as that would be circular. I don't think you could objectively settle this debate any more than you could objectively settle a debate over whether broccoli tastes good or not. There is no fact of the matter as to whether broccoli is delicious or disgusting; its gustatory 'goodness' can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the domains of individual, subjective tastes. The same is true for all values in general, I think; it's just that it's much more difficult to find someone who thinks e.g. that pain and suffering is to be valued than it is to find someone who thinks broccoli does or doesn't taste good. We humans do seem to have a relatively stable and conserved set of core values built into us, which can create the illusion of universal, context-free, objective and absolute truth. But in the end, to me at least, it is still an illusion.

Just to be clear, btw: I think morality is to be valued and people should strive to act morally and so on; I just think there is no truly objective or absolute basis for this imperative. But nor do I think there needs to be one.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've mentioned this before and I think many of you have read it before so I'll try to summerize.
While there is no dictionary separation that I can find I personally define Morals and Ethics as two separate things. I define Morals as a religeous perscription taken on faith and Ethics as a logical deduction based on consequences.

In my opinion Ethics (as I define them) are relative and work on a case by case basis, although general guiding principles can be associated with broadly defined situations. To me Ethics would be the Atheist counterpart to the Morals of the religeous and it would seem only logical to me that scientists would base their actions more on these Ethics than Morals. Ofcourse I have no issue with scientists being religeous though.

Like Tom and Moonbear I'm having a bit of trouble discerning how you define "Moral Absolutism" vs "Moral Relativism". From what you have said it would seem to me as though your version of Morals is somewhat relative.

 

[Dawguard]

Like Tom and Moonbear I'm having a bit of trouble discerning how you define "Moral Absolutism" vs "Moral Relativism". From what you have said it would seem to me as though your version of Morals is somewhat relative.

I can't speak for Russ, but the reason that absolutism can appear somewhat relative is due to the fact that absolutists admit that their understanding of morals change. The distinction is actually simple, but easy to misinterpret. Slavery for example; it was once considered morally acceptable. However, further study and understanding of morals revealed it to be completely unacceptable. The morals didn't change, our knowledge of them did. Under relativism, slavery would have been OK so long as most people beleived it to be so. Under absolutism it is always wrong even if everyone accepts it. I hope this clarifies the question.

 

[hypnagogue]

Under relativism, slavery would have been OK so long as most people beleived it to be so.

I don't think this is quite right, or at least, it's not how I understand moral relativism. Moral relativism just holds that there is no ultimate, objective authority for evaluating moral codes. The statement that "slavery would be OK as long as most people believed it to be so" sounds like it implicitly assumes some kind of objective morality apart from the beliefs of the individuals themselves, perhaps one that varies over space and time as a function of people's beliefs. But moral relativism rejects such a thing; there can be no statements like "slavery is OK" or "slavery is wrong" in relativism, as such statements are detached from the individuals who form those judgments.

I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "Under relativism, there is no truly objective standard by which to compare the morals of slave owners to non-slave owners and decide which is superior." One could readily compare the two within one's own subjective set of values and morals of course; the fundamental idea is just that such comparisons and judgments are always made within some subjective framework.

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't been following my own thread, but I saw one thing here:

I don't think this is quite right, or at least, it's not how I understand moral relativism. Moral relativism just holds that there is no ultimate, objective authority for evaluating moral codes. The statement that "slavery would be OK as long as most people believed it to be so" sounds like it implicitly assumes some kind of objective morality apart from the beliefs of the individuals themselves, perhaps one that varies over space and time as a function of people's beliefs. But moral relativism rejects such a thing; there can be no statements like "slavery is OK" or "slavery is wrong" in relativism, as such statements are detached from the individuals who form those judgments.

I think you are reading into it a little too much. Saying "slavery is ok" isn't a complete sentence (it requires an implied object), so you need to interpret it to figure out to whom slavery is ok. I think the statement is really implying the redundant: "slavery is ok to a person who thinks slavery is ok" and not saying that one person saying it is ok makes it universal.

Nitpicking that aside, the point is that under moral relativity, no one has the moral authority to tell anyone else that slavery is wrong. That doesn't make slavery universally ok, but it does mean that we'd have to accept it from others if we want to be moral relativists*. And that, I think, is the point of that statement.

*That, I think, is also an inherrent contradiction in moral relativism. It implies an absolute principle of respect for the morality of others. Ie, moral relativism is the aboslute principle that everyone can choose their own personal moral code.

I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "Under relativism, there is no truly objective standard by which to compare the morals of slave owners to non-slave owners and decide which is superior." One could readily compare the two within one's own subjective set of values and morals of course; the fundamental idea is just that such comparisons and judgments are always made within some subjective framework.

Certainly, but I think the issue here is how you take that and apply it to the real world. How do you outlaw slavery if there is no applicable moral standard that says it is wrong?

And that kinda brings us back to my main point about the illogic of moral relativism: fully-realized moral relativism can only exist under anarchy because only in anarchy can every person truly decide for him/herself what morality to follow (until, of course, their next-door neighbor decides to follow his personal code, which includes cannibalism...).

Also, I'd like to emphasize that I don't see the difference between universal and Universal morality to be particularly important. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether a morality is universal simply based on the practical reality of everyone following it (or being forced to follow it) or if it is Universal because it is ordained by the God who also created the equations that govern the physical universe. It is because only either flavor of universal morality actually works when put into practice that I argue that scientists and athiests should be moral absolutists.

That said, the fact that a functional anarchy has never existed and the particulars of the absolute (for that society) moral code used in a society make a big difference in how "successful" (subjective, I know...) that society is, I think that provides convincing evidence that what works in morality is somehow hard-wired into our genetic code. And there is only one (scientific) way for that to happen: morality is derived from the same laws of the universe that directed our physical evolution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And that kinda brings us back to my main point about the illogic of moral relativism: fully-realized moral relativism can only exist under anarchy because only in anarchy can every person truly decide for him/herself what morality to follow (until, of course, their next-door neighbor decides to follow his personal code, which includes cannibalism...).

From what it says here it would seem that the main feature of relativism is the concept that there is no inherant truth in any particular coda. "Truth" (with a capital T) can not be measured.
I'd imagine that you would argue that the "Truth" of the matter lies in wether or not it works. I think you would be able to find plenty of people from the era of slavery that thought it worked just fine. Aside from people eventually deciding that they did not agree with it and did not think people should be slaves any more can you point me to what about slavery did not "work"? If people had never decided otherwise and their society continued to work just fine with slavery would you conclude that slavery is "right"?
Relativism does not prescribe any particular manner in which morals/ethics should be followed. It only describes the nature of morals/ethics from which to draw conclusions about how they might be practiced. Nothing about relativism says that we should allow all people to prescribe their own moral codes and only be subject to their own moral codes.

 

[Dawguard]

From what it says here it would seem that the main feature of relativism is the concept that there is no inherant truth in any particular coda. "Truth" (with a capital T) can not be measured.

Herein lies the problem with relativism; if you draw this out to its logical conclusion there is no truth, nothing. There can be no wrong if there is no right. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that anything is OK? Won't this eventually cause you to believe that you can do whatever you want so long as the law doesn't catch you? How can a system of morals exist that deny their own existence?
This is the inherent instability of relativism. While its premise is admirable, that of overcoming the blind dogma that stems from absolutism, the result it draws is self-destructive. Teach relativism to a society and it will, in time, deny all morals. Ultimetly relativism destroys the search for truth, since there is no moral truth. What we are left with is a greedy, decedant society with all its individuals members seeking their own gain at the expense of everyone else.
If we want there to discover how to act ethically and morally, we first have to admit that they actually exist. Since relativism will lead us to believe that they don't exist on an individual basis I see no reason to accept it. Relativism is an easy answer that leads nowhere.

 

[hypnagogue]

Also, I'd like to emphasize that I don't see the difference between universal and Universal morality to be particularly important. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether a morality is universal simply based on the practical reality of everyone following it (or being forced to follow it) or if it is Universal because it is ordained by the God who also created the equations that govern the physical universe. It is because only either flavor of universal morality actually works when put into practice that I argue that scientists and athiests should be moral absolutists.

Not to belabor the point, but the only way some moral system can be said to "actually work" is with respect to some subjective value system, even if only implicitly. One cannot evaluate whether something works or not without specifying its intended goal, and the intended goal is only intended as a goal in the first place because it is assigned some desireable value by some creature's subjective value system. In a discussion about moral absolutism vs. relativism it's important to draw out these seemingly pedantic observations.

From a practical standpoint, I agree with your position. Practically speaking, it is probably the case that most human beings have some common set of core values. It therefore makes sense to erect a social moral schema respecting and enforcing these core values. This is something like your universal (little u) morality.

I've just been concerned with arguing against Universal morality. I do not think there is any real basis for such a thing. This is not a practical point about how we should act as moral beings, but rather a metaphysical one about the nature of moral truth.

Maybe what I'm advocating is a "compatibilist" view between moral relativism and universal morality, like Hume's compatibilism between free will and determinism. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is absolutely true, but rather only gains truth or falsity when considered with respect to some subjective value system. But if it is the case that most individuals' subjective value systems are essentially similar on some level or another, then you still have a basis for practicing a universal morality of some sort.

Moral relativism certainly does not entail that one should be free to do whatever one wishes, anymore than the heliocentric model implies that human beings are worthless and unimportant. Moving from the geocentric to the heliocentric model may have undercut some supposed objective foundation to the importance of humanity, but of course that importance can still be maintained without objective support by means of purely subjective values. Likewise, moving from moral absolutism to moral relativism may undercut some supposed objective foundation to the respect demanded by socially ordained moral codes, but the essence of those codes can still be maintained by subjective values. Just because there is no objective reason why one should not be an anarchist does not entail that there is no reason not to be an anarchist.

That said, the fact that a functional anarchy has never existed and the particulars of the absolute (for that society) moral code used in a society make a big difference in how "successful" (subjective, I know...) that society is, I think that provides convincing evidence that what works in morality is somehow hard-wired into our genetic code. And there is only one (scientific) way for that to happen: morality is derived from the same laws of the universe that directed our physical evolution.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing here that our moral codes might find absolute validation by virtue of having been formed by objective evolutionary forces, because they "work."

But hopefully you can see the circularity in this. Assuming that human morality was created and promoted by evolutionary forces because it has helped us thrive as a species, we still do not arrive at any absolute validation of morality because we are still implicitly adhering to some subjective value system. Here, that implicit value is something like "the survival and reproduction of a species is good," or perhaps more generally, "order is good" or "whatever works is good." Again I submit that nothing is "good," nothing is to be intrinsically valued, in and of itself; goodness arises as a function of the fluid relationship between the objective world and some subjective creature over time.

 

[arildno]

Take a concrete example:
1. To preserve one own's life is a duty
2. To preserve one own's life is a right
3. In some situations, someone has a duty to lose his life (i.e, we should for example, deem it immoral of the individual to try to resist his own death)

Many who in general believe in 1. (against euthanasia, for example) can also be found to advocate 3.(for example believes in army conscription, and deny that prisoners on Death Row has a right to resist their deaths).

As for a clash between 1. and 2. advocates of 2 will often point to that option 1 (not to mention 3) imposes a restriction on the fredom of the individual.

That is, the principles of life-preservation and freedom are not the same, and different individuals will uphold these principles to different degrees.

To me, "absolutism" is merely the simplistic assumption that there necessarily exists a single, true balance between such (and other) concerns rather than at some fundamental level one makes a few axiomatic choices that determine the morality one pursues.

That point of view certainly allows the possibility that there may be some fundamentally differing moralities, but it by no means follows from this that one "isn't allowed" to make moral judgments, one certainly is, according to one own's standards of reasoning out of one's own axioms.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Herein lies the problem with relativism; if you draw this out to its logical conclusion there is no truth, nothing.

I don't think that relativism in itself rejects objective reality, that would be an entirely different discussion. Relativism only deals in social fictions as far as I can tell. I can see though where such a philosophy can spill over into one's perceptions of reality itself, that seems to be one of the factors that inspired this particular thread. "How does a scientist who deals with objective fact reconcile this with a relativistic view of morals?"
Richard Dawkins response to the "Most Dangerous Question" this year was interesting if a bit extreme and touched on this same sort of topic.
At any rate Relativism doesn't reject social fictions. It is only a theory as to their nature. In my opinion it's important to recognize that social mores are not indelibly enscribed on tablets, souls, or even DNA. If we realize that they are malleable it should aid our social evolution.

 

[Dawguard]

Take a concrete example:
1. To preserve one own's life is a duty
2. To preserve one own's life is a right
3. In some situations, someone has a duty to lose his life (i.e, we should for example, deem it immoral of the individual to try to resist his own death)

Many who in general believe in 1. (against euthanasia, for example) can also be found to advocate 3.(for example believes in army conscription, and deny that prisoners on Death Row has a right to resist their deaths).

As for a clash between 1. and 2. advocates of 2 will often point to that option 1 (not to mention 3) imposes a restriction on the fredom of the individual.

That is, the principles of life-preservation and freedom are not the same, and different individuals will uphold these principles to different degrees.

There is actually a simple explanation to this apparent paradox. It hinges on two things; the fact that a greater good should be morally superior and that rights can be abrigated.
Example for the former: a business man is expected to use his talents to improve his lot in life. However, if his interests clash with that of society it is morally correct for him to act in the benefit of society.
Example of the latter: a thief negates the right to his own property equal to that which he stole, i.e. restitution.
Now, when we apply these two principles to murder and the draft both can be explained. Capital punishment is excused becuase the murderer by taking another life abrigates his own right to his life. The draft is necesarry becuase it can be used for the greater good in order to protect society. Can both of these be abused? Of course, but that does not make their foundation faulty. There is no paradox, even with absolutism.

 

[clouded.perception]

The scientists who are relativists when it comes to morality are most likely, often the atheist ones.
As an atheist relativist, I'll give my point of view, but I don't know whether or to what extent ot's shared by others.

Bear with me: I believe there is no 'immortal soul'. I don't believe in any predetermined purpose for the universe, and I see life as a by-product of physical processes, not necessarily more or less than them.
The universe (not being a conscious creature) is indifferent to our existence. Any concepts of life, and correct behaviour, stem from us; our own opinions. Because there is nothing and nobody other than us (through our wish to survive and natural sympathy, such as the 'cute effect', etc.,) to determine what is right and wrong, yet we clearly have perceptions on such things, they are determined by us.

Put simply: the universe created us. We created morality. We don't have control over universal laws, but we have controlo over morality.

 

[heartless]

I didn't follow the whole thread, it's a little bit too long. I'd only like to say what I think.

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests)

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief. Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all. It's the same with every religious person, christians, muslims, hinduii and the like. They are unable to defend their ideas while talking seriously. In today's society religion is a false belief. People don't dig into what they believe, but follow the stereotype, I think there's only a tiny percent of people who actually follow their belief like their writings, laws, rules say. I also think that good fraction of scientists aren't atheists. Good fraction of scientist are not religious and don't believe in any religion out there. I myself came across many articles and books where scientists accept the existence of God which doesn't interfer with this world, or have any influence on one. All the above is just my opinion, I've never talked to variety of people about beliefs, but I talked to many folks in my school who I found unable to support their idea. Same was with my parents, relatives, and their friends or even people whom I met on the streets and fell like I want to stand and preach all the people, to stop believing blindly but find the sense in their beliefs.

They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

Morality is passed from parent to child, and I think it didn't change too much from the laws 3000 years ago. Every human gets to keep very similar concept of morality. But for example, animals are often governed by different morality. There aren't true laws of morality as there are laws that govern our universe. Morality may be changed within a few minutes, as long as many people start to accept your moral ideas. Morality in today's societies are driven by a stereotype, if majority of people do that, it is accepted as good. From the day you're born, parents teach you the morality they've learned from their parents who learned from theirs and so on. Now, you're parents start to you teach the opposite of moral ideas. Every good becomes bad and every bad becomes good. Then you are driven by totally different laws of morality than any other person. Morality isn't a steady thing, but changes over time. It used to be so that execution was accepted as good way to deal with people, well... not any more, although it still is in some parts of middle-east countries. As techology and world evolves, morality evolves.

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

It happens because different societies are driven by similar but not quite the same laws of morality. Morality in India may be a little different than here in US. They also don't need that because morality is self-accepted and obeyed without the help of the court and government. It probably is so that I'm wrong in in with this case.

It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here.

Then, why look and dig into the morality at all? Wouldn't it be better to leave it and let it find a shape for itself? I don't think we in this case need government, who after scientists, would try to force the laws of morality unto people. It wouldn't be a good idea to ask government whether this specific thing is good or bad. We're free. Many people don't realize that almost 80 or even 90% of human's morality is based upon the Bible in whichever way you look. We follow almost all that Bible says, except for a few things - some commandments, faith and the like. Religion has already shaped good ideas of moralty. Today's morality isn't incorrect, it would be more convenient, and better to don't experiment with it.

That's all of my thoughts, thanks and I'm looking for many responses.

 

[quantumdude]

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief.

Am I to infer from this that you've taken a scientific poll? Where are the results?

Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all.

No, that's only strong atheism. Weak atheism asserts neither belief nor disbelief in any god.

In today's society religion is a false belief.

Now you're doing exactly what you accused "most atheists" of doing. You simply don't know that religious beliefs are false.

All the above is just my opinion,

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But an unsubstantiated opinion isn't good enough for the Philosophy section of PF. There are rules here, and you agreed to them. Either present a well-supported argument or please refrain from posting here.

That doesn't just go for you, that goes for everyone. The quality of posts here has really gone downhill lately.

I've never talked to variety of people about beliefs,

That's what I thought.

 

[heartless]

Am I to infer from this that you've taken a scientific poll? Where are the results?

No, I didn't do the poll, but I've had many conversations with my friends, parents, relatives and their friends. They almost all think alike, but since 30 or more people do the same thing, you may as well derive the farther results of people of the same social class, age and the like.

Now you're doing exactly what you accused "most atheists" of doing. You simply don't know that religious beliefs are false.

By false belief I don't mean that religions are wrong, I mean that people don't know what they believe in. They call themselves muslims or christians or jews but they don't follow what their religious writings say. They don't dig into their belief and don't know what their religions talk about.

That's what I thought.

That's exactly it. But by veriety of people, I mean, both averaged people, religion-heads, priests, rabiis, and the like. I wrote that "many" people, but by many it doesn't have to be everyone. Many people, are the averaged people, since there's much more of them than any others.