Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa
Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*
|
I'm going to echo ScandalAndy's question and start out asking 'so how would theology help in a scientific discussion'?
Now, I think that we can, in a VERY limited sense, bring a scientific understanding to issues of morality. I will use a couple of examples.
Sexual assault: From an evolutionary point of view, we should expect that women--on average--have a *very* strong preference for choosing who they will be sexual with and under what circumstances. Given the investment any given human woman will make in any given child, she should not want to have sex--with the risk of pregnancy--forced on her under any circumstances. So, we should not expect to find a society that has convinced women that they should *not* resist sexual assault. This does not give us the basis for "don't assault women" it DOES give us the basis for "society should, under no circumstances, tolerate the sexual assault of women".
Slavery: Again, from an evolutionary standpoint we should expect that, all other things being equal, people will see themselves as autonomous agents who have a very strong preference for being able to act as such. Slavery robs people of the ability to act as autonomous agents by making them the property of another person. We should, again, expect anyone in that condition to desire to be free and to take whatever steps are needed to become free. Therefore, we should not expect slavery to be a stable, long-term solution for a society.
Incest taboos: These are, like religion, ubiquitous. Where there are exceptions (almost always amongst nobility) they are notable *because* they are exceptions. Again, we should expect ALL sexually reproducing species to have some built-in mechanism for avoiding sexual contact between close relatives. This may be the closest, of all the examples, to an actual scientific basis for morality but even that doesn't get us quite there. It tells us why human beings have incest taboos it does not tell us that we *must*, just that it is a better deal all around if we do.
Once again, this does NOT get us to "slavery is wrong" it DOES get us to "if your society practices slavery, then it should expect to have a whole host of problems because slavery is not a condition human beings will just accept".
So, the closest science can get us to a moral answer is this: presume that all human beings have a basic human nature. Presume that, left to their own devices, human beings would strongly prefer to be free, to not be subject to violence or violation, and to desire the company of other human beings at least some of the time. We should expect that, on average, parents will prefer their children over some random child they have never met such that if it is a question of giving their child or the random child the last scrap of food the family possess, most parents, most of the time, will give it to their own child. They may feel horrible about doing so, but we should expect that under most circumstances of desperation that is how they will behave.
Now, I've managed to describe a couple of different areas where science can give us insight into the why of a moral rule but it does not tell us how to apply that rule or how to enforce it. Yet, I have not needed, at all, to invoke any kind of theological construct. What could theology add to the *scientific* question? Theology can carry a lot of water of the "if you do X, this or that divine being will be displeased and may punish you" variety but I don't see how it can add anything more than that. Am I missing something?
Cheers
Aj