RIP Chris Hitchens.

[Dmoney]

I just want to wade in here and show my ignorance but I feel like im learning. How does Anthropology form an idea of ethics and morality? My understanding is that Anthropology is the study of human life and the origins of man, though not necessarily evolution of man. I would have thought religion would be a huge factor in Anthropology. Is it too simplistic to say that hundreds of years of religion being so important to generations of people, that even if we don't claim to be practitioners of any faith, our ideals are still based on what is essentially christian teachings?


What I'm trying to understand is that without that historical base, how would I actually define my ethics and morals? I've read an argument that when we are born, we instinctively know it is incorrect to take another persons life for the sake of it, but is that really the case?

[Chris]

Anthropology is not based in christian teachings - the christian teachings have shaped modern societies and therefore are involved in anthropology in some way, but anthropology is also built on other ideas such as linguistics, sociology, biology (most definitely including evolution), and others.  Christianity is a very recent phenomenon in the history of man, and so it is not as big a concern in anthropology as you might think.

Ethics and morals are a very personal thing, I think.  I am happy for my morals to differ from yours, in fact I think it is a good thing if they do.  To take an example that has already been mentioned, I think that sexual promiscuity is fine, however others will think otherwise; I don't think this is a problem.  I will act according to my morals, and they will act according to theirs, and we shouldn't affect one another.  The problems arise when some groups try to impose their own morals on others - that should not be allowed unless there is good reason.  In the sexual promiscuity example, I don't think there is any good reason to impose one moral or another on anyone else - live and let live.  Of course there are areas where one particular moral has to be enforced on others, such as not killing others.  In this case I would advise looking to objective disciplines such as Science or Anthropology for guidance, rather than religion. 

For example, let's look at the contraception debate; catholic view is that condoms are wrong and should not be used, they actually preach this in AIDS riddled places like sub-Saharan Africa, they teach that only abstinence should be used.  However the evidence from more objective fields is that abstinence only does not work, and that condoms are very useful in preventing unwanted pregnancies and diseases.

To answer your other question - yes, it seems that we are born with a rudimentary 'innate morality'.  I don't know much about it, because it isn't my field, but I have read about it and from what I understand the evidence is quite strong.

[Dmoney]

Anthropology is not based in christian teachings - the christian teachings have shaped modern societies and therefore are involved in anthropology in some way, but anthropology is also built on other ideas such as linguistics, sociology, biology (most definitely including evolution), and others.  Christianity is a very recent phenomenon in the history of man, and so it is not as big a concern in anthropology as you might think.

I wasn't saying Anthropology is based on Christianity, just that faith as an element that shaped would be studied under its umbrella, like everything else you mentioned. So we agree on that, though maybe i wasn't as clear.

Ethics and morals are a very personal thing, I think.  I am happy for my morals to differ from yours, in fact I think it is a good thing if they do.  To take an example that has already been mentioned, I think that sexual promiscuity is fine, however others will think otherwise; I don't think this is a problem.  I will act according to my morals, and they will act according to theirs, and we shouldn't affect one another.  The problems arise when some groups try to impose their own morals on others - that should not be allowed unless there is good reason.  In the sexual promiscuity example, I don't think there is any good reason to impose one moral or another on anyone else - live and let live.  Of course there are areas where one particular moral has to be enforced on others, such as not killing others.  In this case I would advise looking to objective disciplines such as Science or Anthropology for guidance, rather than religion.

I agree with and understand what you're saying about differing ideas of morality and the example of those teachings by the catholic church came to mind before I even read that paragraph. One thing that has sparked my interest recently was reading a book published a while ago that related a lot of mythology and folktales from the north of England to the Hindu Vedas using Anthropology, Etymology etc. I've also read part of the Bhagavad Gita which instructs of 3 situations in which killing another person is acceptable or necessary. I don't think I can think of a Christian equivalent. It made me question my own belief that killing is wrong in all cases, not because I thought The Gita was correct, but because it struck me as a very different sentiment to the ideas i was either 'born with', or raised to have. Actually It made me think about my morals and the nature of aggression.

As for being born with innate morality, i don't know much about it either. I vaguely remember that there was an idea that in the animal world chimps would never commit anything comparable to murder. However there was an incident caught on film of a chimp murdering another chimp and at the time it raised some interesting questions about our own society or evolutionary makeup. That story sounds a little too creative for something I made up... time for a google.

[Chris]

That thing with the chimp sounds interesting.  There have also been all kinds of thought experiments done where people have been asked to decide, for example, whether they would push a man off a bridge into the path of a train if it would cause the train to stop before it carried on down the line where it would kill five men who are working around the bend - logic would say to push the man off the bridge into the path of the train, but most people instinctively say no, they would not kill the one man.  This was true irrespective of culture and background.  The experiment went something like that anyway, I'm off to google too! :-)

[MDV]

On the position of science and ethics, I'd like to clarify.

Feynman said it best, yes. In his typically direct and sometimes deceptively simple way. It cant tell you what you want. More recently Antonio Damasio has led/promoted a more fleshed out view that seems to hold a lot of water to me: we dont make rational decisions, we make emotional ones.There is no empirical evidence that alive is better than or preferable to dead. We value life. Thats not a falsifiable or empirically justifiable position, its not derived from any evidence. We use reason, often scienctific evidence, to facilitate our descion making. A trivial example is the proverbial train tracks thing, where you have a run away train and you cant stop it or phone the driver or whatever, the only thing you can do is choose what track it goes down at a fork, and down one is one person and down the other, ten.

Now, we count. Counting is rational. Its empirical evidence that tells us the numbers of people, and we then use that to inform our decision, but not to make it. What makes the decision is our value of life, and the corresponding perception that saving more lives is therefore better. The numbers helped us choose, but rationality on its own simply wouldnt give a shite. It would toss a coin, or leave the lever to direct the train however it found it. Pure reason is apathetic, and empirical evidence is a means to an end.

In pure science that end is often satisfaction of curiosity about how the world works. Thats an emotional motivation for research. Or research and rationality can be used to help treat cancer or supply clean water. And so on and so forth.

The obvious question of 'then why do we care about life/other people/guitars/whatever' is harder, and is quite probably emprically assesible; dynamics of social interactions, emotional consequences of actions and positive and negative ascociations, the empriically demonstrable fact of our sense of empathy, more handwaving could follow, but we arent terribly clear on the how of our values; it is clear that we have them, and its quite clear that they are at the core of what we choose to do, the actions we take, rather than a pure empirical analysis.

This is another angle to look at why theres no meaningfull overlap between religion and science. Science doesnt give a shite, or have anything to say about what you do, or choose to do with scientific information, its a set of epistemilogical mechanisms for empirically revealing the workings of the world around us, and in that sense it may well be a fanastic tool for ethical decisions, since it gives the best information about reality that we can use in conjunction with our values to make decisions, but its not in and of itself a moral code. Religion is obsessed with what you do, and happens to have some baggage about the natural world, largely in service of its theologies (like its not nearly as important how god made the world, as that he made it).

[MDV]

Apologies for the apparent contradictions between the above post and previous where i say 'you cant use science to make ethical decisions' - when I said that what I meant was you cant consult science, crack open the big book on science on page 112,543,829 in the middle of the chapter on nuclear fission and find a passage that tells you 'Thou shalt not use this empirically derived revelation for smiting of thine enemies, nor shalt thou detonate devices hitherto derived from these principles to see of they work cos it would be cool, and nor shalt thou maketh many devices of nuclear destruction and keep them locked up for a rainy day, yet though shall split many atoms in controlled conditions to heat water and drive turbines, thus making electricity and pleasing the Lord Science'.

[Chris]

This is another angle to look at why theres no meaningfull overlap between religion and science. Science doesnt give a shitee, or have anything to say about what you do, or choose to do with scientific information, its a set of epistemilogical mechanisms for empirically revealing the workings of the world around us, and in that sense it may well be a fanastic tool for ethical decisions, since it gives the best information about reality that we can use in conjunction with our values to make decisions, but its not in and of itself a moral code. Religion is obsessed with what you do, and happens to have some baggage about the natural world, largely in service of its theologies (like its not nearly as important how god made the world, as that he made it).

You're not talking about the 'non-overlapping magisteria' thing of Stephen J Gould here are you?

[Elliot]

Chris, I don' think I have misunderstood anything per se - I am posing questions - I am not saying that science should be the basis of morality, I was asking MDV if that was what he thought. 

Also to say that my argument on the gay gene is unsound - to say 'Psychology is not a science' is to be a bit of a cherry picker to weed out things that give science a bad name, rather as Christian orthodoxy weeds out heretics from time to time.  Clearly the cognitive science part of psychology is 'science' (it being based measuring things in brains and nerves), endocrinology is part of science and psychiatry is a branch of medical science.  Furthermore, in the recent (20th century) past even a cultic theory like psychoanalysis was considered 'science' - it may have been dropped now, just as E=MC2 may be dropped in light of recent experiments, but it was still respectable science until recently.  All of these have had a go at finding a 'cure' for homosexuals - As to your scientific consensus that homosexuality has been seen as 'not against nature' for 'very long time' - I would disagree.  It has been observed since the 19th century and there have been those that have argued it is part of animal sexuality that there was large disagreement about the topic until the 1970s.  For the application in humans, see the timeline here: http://www.glreview.com/article.php?articleid=42 -

As to anthropology being an objective discipline not based on Christian teaching - there are two main branches of anthropology - physical/biological and social/cultural.  The first deals with human evolution, so tells us little about morality and ethics (and has its own chequered past in the form of skull measuring racism), the second is a branch of sociological theorising based on the theory of cultural relativism (that also has a chequered past as an agent of colonialism and the search for the 'noble savage'). I have an MSc in anthropology and most of what was was done in anthropology departments when I studied it was the academic Marxist 'cultural critique' of the West's view that it is the natural order and of post colonial practices rather than anything 'objective'. 

As to 'innate morality' - How can you test this scientifically without the interference of history and culture (including religion)?  Clearly you cannot dump a group of babies on an island and watch them group up from a telescope.  Last time I looked on the subject, the issue on innate morality is based on an extension of the Chomskian theory of universal grammar in linguistics.  Which puts you back into the realm of those psychologists you deny are scientists.  The experiments are based on taking young children and getting an authority figure to order them to override certain rules.  The evidence being that they will override some (e.g. not spitting on the floor) but not others (hitting their neighbour). The criticism is easy to spot - perhaps the child fears reprisal (i.e. they have already learnt this fact before they went into the experiment).  Certainly, army basic training performs an overriding of any 'innate' morality against killing all the time - so are the 'experiments' skewed?  Can an 'innate' morality, if it is a fact of biology, be overriden as easily and as often as it has been in human history and really be classed as 'innate'?

I won't go on - but there is also evidence from Protestant/Muslim parts Africa on HIV infection where condoms are available that HIV infection rates have either equalled or exceeded those of neighbouring Catholic countries.  I know that the condom argument is used against Christians ad naseum but I think the facts may present some problems for some of these arguments on Africa and HIV infection and the blame attached to the Roman Catholic church.

(I should say, to clear things up, like all of you I am an atheist who would rather put my trust in a repeatable action in a lab than faith in God.)

[Elliot]

I would also add that much of Christianity in its fundamentalist guise is not really about ethics per se but about soteriology and echatology.  People are not converted because they want to lead the 'christian' life - they are converted because they want to be saved.  As in the questions 'How can I be saved from my inherited and actual sinful life?' and 'If it were to end tomorrow, what account would I give to the Almighty'.  One can debate ethics with Christian fundamentalists or give them reams of scientific formula until you are blue in the face but until you grapple with the soteriology and echatology roots of their beliefs you aren't going to get anywhere.  

[Chris]

Chris, I don' think I have misunderstood anything per se - I am posing questions - I am not saying that science should be the basis of morality, I was asking MDV if that was what he thought. 

Fair enough, I could have worded that better; my mistake.

Also to say that my argument on the gay gene is unsound - to say 'Psychology is not a science' is to be a bit of a cherry picker to weed out things that give science a bad name, rather as Christian orthodoxy weeds out heretics from time to time.  Clearly the cognitive science part of psychology is 'science' (it being based measuring things in brains and nerves), endocrinology is part of science and psychiatry is a branch of medical science. 

No, it isn't cherry picking at all because there is a very clear criteria.  Science (in it's strictest sense) is about explaining how things are, not how we would like them to be.  Psychology, on the other hand, holds an ideal at it's core which has not been reviewed in hundreds of years, it classifies people according to their deviation from this ideal and attempts to 'fix' them if they deviate sufficently - this is not a Science.  We have a further classification of 'soft sciences' which includes Psychology, Social sciences, computer Science, medical Science etc. which are subjects that use the tools and techniques of Science and approach their subject in a Scientific way, but they are not strictly speaking sciences.  This idea is shared with most of the Psychological community and well as the Scientists, although there are people who disagree.  If you choose to use a different terminology then fine, but I am not cherry picking anything.  A more detailed account can be found here http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html
Please note that by saying Psychology is not a Science I am not meaning to be derisive - it is a very useful field in it's own right and in any case my wife is a Psychologist, so I can't be derisive :-D

Furthermore, in the recent (20th century) past even a cultic theory like psychoanalysis was considered 'science' - it may have been dropped now, just as E=MC2 may be dropped in light of recent experiments, but it was still respectable science until recently.

There are no recent experiments that suggest E=mc^2 will be 'dropped'.  I assume you are talking about the results from CERN that got anomalous results suggesting that neutrinos were travelling faster than light, but this was very badly handled by the media (as usual).  First, there was no discovery made, these results have been largely refuted by further results from T2K and MINOS (as every Physicist expected, including the Scientists at CERN), and we expect a final result early next year.  Secondly, even if these results did hold, this would not suggest that E=mc^2 would stop working - it's predictive power has been proven many times over, the most it would mean is a tweaking of relativity, not a replacement of it, in much the same way that relativity did not replace Newtonian mechanics, it just extended it.

  All of these have had a go at finding a 'cure' for homosexuals - As to your scientific consensus that homosexuality has been seen as 'not against nature' for 'very long time' - I would disagree.  It has been observed since the 19th century and there have been those that have argued it is part of animal sexuality that there was large disagreement about the topic until the 1970s.  For the application in humans, see the timeline here: http://www.glreview.com/article.php?articleid=42 -

Again, that is from a Psychological point of view, and not a Scientific point of view.  This mirrors quite well what I explained above about Psychology classifying people as a deviation from an ideal norm, and trying to 'cure' this deviation if necessary.  From the Scientific perspective homosexual and bisexual behaviour has been observed in nature since at least the early 1800s and probably a lot earlier (it isn't my area of expertise), so I can assure you that Science has been aware that homosexuality is perfectly natural for a long time.

As to anthropology being an objective discipline not based on Christian teaching - there are two main branches of anthropology - physical/biological and social/cultural.  The first deals with human evolution, so tells us little about morality and ethics (and has its own chequered past in the form of skull measuring racism), the second is a branch of sociological theorising based on the theory of cultural relativism (that also has a chequered past as an agent of colonialism and the search for the 'noble savage'). I have an MSc in anthropology and most of what was was done in anthropology departments when I studied it was the academic Marxist 'cultural critique' of the West's view that it is the natural order and of post colonial practices rather than anything 'objective'. 

It sounds like you know more about Anthropology than me - I've never formally studied it, but I didn't mean to say it is completely objective, what I mean is that it is a MORE objective discipline than religion, and therefore it would make a better base for informing a common morality.  Christianity comes at morality from the perspective of one group, and Anthropology combines other teachings that are relevant to all people, that is what I meant, but I might not have been very clear about that.  Anthropology is informed by linguistics, evolution, etc. and so is surely more objective than one school of thought (christianity).

As to 'innate morality' - How can you test this scientifically without the interference of history and culture (including religion)?  Clearly you cannot dump a group of babies on an island and watch them group up from a telescope.  Last time I looked on the subject, the issue on innate morality is based on an extension of the Chomskian theory of universal grammar in linguistics.  Which puts you back into the realm of those psychologists you deny are scientists.  The experiments are based on taking young children and getting an authority figure to order them to override certain rules.  The evidence being that they will override some (e.g. not spitting on the floor) but not others (hitting their neighbour). The criticism is easy to spot - perhaps the child fears reprisal (i.e. they have already learnt this fact before they went into the experiment).  Certainly, army basic training performs an overriding of any 'innate' morality against killing all the time - so are the 'experiments' skewed?  Can an 'innate' morality, if it is a fact of biology, be overriden as easily and as often as it has been in human history and really be classed as 'innate'?

I did say from the beginning that I don't know much about this, but I remember reading articles in New Scientist and such (okay, okay) which presented evidence that seemed reasonable, although I can't remember all the experimental controls.  I'm a Physicist, so this is well out of my comfort zone, but I find it interesting even if I don't know a lot about it.

I won't go on - but there is also evidence from Protestant/Muslim parts Africa on HIV infection where condoms are available that HIV infection rates have either equalled or exceeded those of neighbouring Catholic countries.  I know that the condom argument is used against Christians ad naseum but I think the facts may present some problems for some of these arguments on Africa and HIV infection and the blame attached to the Roman Catholic church.

The World Health Organisation published figures which disagree with you on this one, but I can't find the paper at the moment - I am trying to.  You have to account for other factors such as the epidemiology of the area, etc.  but what is clear is that using condoms will help to stop the spread of disease if used correctly; abstinence only will not help when you are telling someone with a biological urge to have sex not to.  I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.

[Elliot]

A fair enough response (the E=MC2 thing was a joke btw, I should have used a smiley).  I note from the link that there are running battles between the author and psychologists who dispute the rejection of psychology as being a science.    

As to the HIV infection rate business - I totally agree with you, I am not saying I applaud the abstinence nonsense of the RC church.  However, I had read a comparative study of Malawi and Uganda recently which brought up that issue up that infection rates were the same despite condom availability and higher in certain age groups (I too can't quite locate the study, although the author was a doctor working in Uganda).  If that is true, this issue, which is trotted out by atheists to attack the RCC (and I have done it myself), may, in light of facts, need to be reconsidered.  (but I agree, as you say, that you have to look at other factors )  

As to scientists and homosexual animals - I think we agree it has been observed since the 1800s - I am sure you can see, however, the semantics of the words 'perfectly natural', are potentially loaded - are you saying that the interpretation given to homosexual activity by scientists since the early 1800s differed from that of society in general? - i.e. a slow and painful progressive acceptance of difference?  I am sure that no learned Dr of biology or zoology from Imperial College rushed off to give evidence in the Oscar Wilde or the Pitt Rivers buggery trials as to the universality of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (OK, IC it wasn't founded at the time of Oscar Wilde's case) that caused the change of the law.

As to you saying 'Science (in it's strictest sense) is about explaining how things are, not how we would like them to be'.  I agree.  Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible would say the same about biblical teaching and even cosmology - OK they would say so by twisted circular logic that none of us would accept.  It is no good saying to fundamentalists - 'but we are right and you are wrong', because it goes no-where except to score points for the already converted on either side.  If one wants to attack Christianity (as I think the late Mr Hitchens realised) you have to go for the internal consistency of the Christian theology - like the notion of original sin, the need for the atonement and how God can be said to be good yet predestine some to eternal hell).

My main concern is that in throwing out Christianity we replace it with an equally problematic Scientism - i.e. that the personal views (which are usually second order abstractions) of scientists in the fields of morality and politics have more 'truth' to them because that person happened to observe ants performing the same operation again and again, or came up with an equation that solved a mathematic defect in the grand unified theory.  OK I am exagerating, but I have encountered many people whose views based on their lab work would look pretty horrific as legislation (of course, I do not accuse you of this).  
  
  

[Chris]

A fair enough response (the E=MC2 thing was a joke btw, I should have used a smiley).  I note from the link that there are running battles between the author and psychologists who dispute the rejection of psychology as being a science.

 
There are, but having a lecturer of Psychology and a Psychologist in my family I've had the discussion with them in the past, and I'm assured that the majority of Psychologists agree that it is not a Science - it is a minority that do not agree.

As to scientists and homosexual animals - I think we agree it has been observed since the 1800s - I am sure you can see, however, the semantics of the words 'perfectly natural', are potentially loaded - are you saying that the interpretation given to homosexual activity by scientists since the early 1800s differed from that of society in general? - i.e. a slow and painful progressive acceptance of difference?  I am sure that no learned Dr of biology or zoology from Imperial College rushed off to give evidence in the Oscar Wilde or the Pitt Rivers buggery trials as to the universality of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (OK, IC it wasn't founded at the time of Oscar Wilde's case) that caused the change of the law.

I think that we have to accept that Scientists are people and have their own views.  I would guess, although it is pure speculation, that if you were to ask a Biologist from the 1800s whether homosexuality is right, they would probably say no, but if you were to press them on whether it is natural and whether there is a Scientific basis to think of it as wrong, I think you would get a different answer.  Similarly, when looking to Science for guidance on ethical issues I don't think we should look at the morals of Scientists, but we should look at the facts of Science.  Another point is that in the time of Oscar Wilde, the legal process was not as secular as it is today - I very much doubt that the testimony of any Scientist would have outweighed that of a religious leader, so it would likely have been pointless.  Thankfully today that position is somewhat reversed.

As to you saying 'Science (in it's strictest sense) is about explaining how things are, not how we would like them to be'.  I agree.  Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible would say the same about biblical teaching and even cosmology - OK they would say so by twisted circular logic that none of us would accept.  It is no good saying to fundamentalists - 'but we are right and you are wrong', because it goes no-where except to score points for the already converted on either side.  If one wants to attack Christianity (as I think the late Mr Hitchens realised) you have to go for the internal consistency of the Christian theology - like the notion of original sin, the need for the atonement and how God can be said to be good yet predestine some to eternal hell).

I think you're right about the fundamentalists, but they are in the minority (thankfully).  However with moderates I think that when we attack the internal consistency of their theology they can simply do some hand waving and say that we are not to know gods plan, or they can say that the argument doesn't apply to their personal flavour of christianity because they interpret it a little differently.  I think that taking the argument to the incompatablity of religion and Science is better because as Science progresses they find it more and more difficult to hold their biblical position.  hundreds of years ago biblical creation was easy for anyone to believe, but nowadays religion has had to retreat to a position where even the vast majority of religious leaders have to admit that Science was correct there.  I think that adapting your argument to the type of religious believer you are faced with is the best strategy, and sometimes the Science argument is most appropriate.

My main concern is that in throwing out Christianity we replace it with an equally problematic Scientism - i.e. that the personal views (which are usually second order abstractions) of scientists in the fields of morality and politics have more 'truth' to them because that person happened to observe ants performing the same operation again and again, or came up with an equation that solved a mathematic defect in the grand unified theory.  OK I am exagerating, but I have encountered many people whose views based on their lab work would look pretty horrific as legislation (of course, I do not accuse you of this).  

Of course I agree with you on this (although I dislike the term 'scientism'), but again it is back to divorcing the Science from the Scientist, which we have to always try to do, and importantly the process of Science contains internal checks designed to do just this, such as peer review, etc.
I don't think that just by throwing out Christianity you have to replace it with this 'Scientism' though - I'm not sure why you would need to do that.
  

[sambo]

I think that's where the new atheists do people a disservice, the concentration on relatively moderate believers as a target but using the examples of the loons which are really quite irrelevant to the average Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc.

I don't see the disservice here. I've heard Hitchens on innumerable occasions point out that moderates tend to be quite slippery when it comes to defining their beliefs, so as a policy he tackles beliefs which are nailed down for us all to see. "But I don't believe in that myself", isn't really a good enough response. The deplorable attitude of the Catholic Church to contraception may well be opposed by your average Catholic, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't take any of the flack for it. I think religion still holds a weird status for many people. If you were to treat all the religious issues discussed by Hitchens/Dawkins et al as any other organisation, the members at the bottom would be as legitimate a target as the leaders. If my employer adopted a policy reminiscent of the Catholic approach mentioned above, I would expect to take some stick if I didn't either leave or do my best to toss out those responsible. But with religion we allow the dismissal of any such criticism on the grounds of sacrilege. This is ultimately why modern atheists so vehemently attack religion in the first place. This "special status" grants it permission to affect people without facing consequences. It also allows important questions to be ignored, and in this way, the moderates DO prop up the 'extremists' to an extent by stifling crucial debate.

As for the point about a decline in religious moderates meaning a rise in extremists; there will always be peaks and troughs on a moral landscape, as Sam Harris would put it. The degree by which this is the most informed and socially connected generation is astronomical. There's a first time for everything.

[MDV]

This is another angle to look at why theres no meaningfull overlap between religion and science. Science doesnt give a shiteeee, or have anything to say about what you do, or choose to do with scientific information, its a set of epistemilogical mechanisms for empirically revealing the workings of the world around us, and in that sense it may well be a fanastic tool for ethical decisions, since it gives the best information about reality that we can use in conjunction with our values to make decisions, but its not in and of itself a moral code. Religion is obsessed with what you do, and happens to have some baggage about the natural world, largely in service of its theologies (like its not nearly as important how god made the world, as that he made it).

You're not talking about the 'non-overlapping magisteria' thing of Stephen J Gould here are you?

Not knowingly. Accidentally perhaps. There is some overlap, I suppose, but I dont mean to confer religion any validity in moral authority and behavioural instruction. I'm just saying that it tries to do that, however badly it does it, and however eager we should be to reject its influence in these things, that is its remit and core, wheras science makes no attempt at either of those things (though scientific information can be used to assist moral decisions, and can be very good at it, it doesnt make them for you).

[Chris]

This is another angle to look at why theres no meaningfull overlap between religion and science. Science doesnt give a shiteeeee, or have anything to say about what you do, or choose to do with scientific information, its a set of epistemilogical mechanisms for empirically revealing the workings of the world around us, and in that sense it may well be a fanastic tool for ethical decisions, since it gives the best information about reality that we can use in conjunction with our values to make decisions, but its not in and of itself a moral code. Religion is obsessed with what you do, and happens to have some baggage about the natural world, largely in service of its theologies (like its not nearly as important how god made the world, as that he made it).

You're not talking about the 'non-overlapping magisteria' thing of Stephen J Gould here are you?

Not knowingly. Accidentally perhaps. There is some overlap, I suppose, but I dont mean to confer religion any validity in moral authority and behavioural instruction. I'm just saying that it tries to do that, however badly it does it, and however eager we should be to reject its influence in these things, that is its remit and core, wheras science makes no attempt at either of those things (though scientific information can be used to assist moral decisions, and can be very good at it, it doesnt make them for you).

I think I misunderstood your first post, sorry.