Posted on 12/29/2008 5:19:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Science Intrudes Into Morality
Dec 23, 2008 — The Pope recently declared that we need to save humanity from self-destructive behaviors, like homosexuality. Can science intrude on questions of human behavior and morals? New Scientist thought so; a blog entry today says the Pope “misuses science to attack homosexuality.”
One would think that moral behavior would lie outside the field for a scientific news source, but online news editor Rowan Hooper went on, mocking the Pope’s claim that the church has a role in saving “human ecology” like scientists have a role in protecting tropical forests. Hooper called this “a bizarre misunderstanding of science” and “religious values imposed on” a scientific subject.
Justifying homosexuality with appeals to genetics, neuroscience and Darwinism, Hooper claimed that “genetic evidence” suggests homosexuality is “hard-wired before birth,” and that “The idea that homosexuality evolves by natural selection is also well supported.” Pointing to homosexual behavior in animals, too, he said, “This all strongly suggests that it is an outdated metaphysics to insist on ‘the nature of the human person as man and woman’.” Most people come in man or woman forms. His complaint only makes sense if he is endorsing transgender identities and transsexual behavior as well as homosexuality – the whole gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender package. Would he draw the line at any other sexual behaviors, like pedophilia, necrophilia or polygamy? Apparently not. If natural selection is capable of producing one non-reproductive behavior, why not others? The word “moral” appears nowhere in his blog entry.
Hooper called on ecologists and other scientists to complain about the Pope “misusing science to dress up outdated ideas,” which obviously includes the Pope’s reference to creation and a Creator. It’s not an “outdated metaphysics,” the Pope had said, “if the church speaks to the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.”
What business of it is New Scientist to lecture the Pope on morals? You would think that is the province of a religious leader. Who is he to talk about outdated metaphysics? You would think that is the province of philosophy and theology. The Pope was speaking to his own Curia, for crying out loud. Do you understand what is going on? You thought science dealt with ammeters and microscopes and polymerase chain reactions. Wrong; New Scientist is not like Old Scientist. It asserts its tyranny over all realms of thought.
Thousands of good scientists quietly continue to do great research in their respective fields, but the scientific institutions of our day have dirty hands. They have become part and parcel of the radical leftist, atheist, social-progressive empire that controls the courts, media, education, labor unions, the UN, journalism, Hollywood and science.
Did you notice that Hooper justified a sexual behavior that religious (and rational) people have for millennia described as perverted with an appeal to natural selection? Did you notice he said behavior is genetically hard-wired? Well, then, out goes any argument based on reason. You see, Mr. Hooper, natural selection made you say these things. You can’t help it. You thought you were preaching a polemic on rationality and values, but you are a captive of impersonal forces from your animal past. If we wanted to really tease Mr. Hooper, we could say that to be consistent, he would have to agree that natural selection produced the Pope as a mechanism to save the human population from self-destruction. It’s pointless to fight it, then.
Consistency is apparently not a value to this dogmatic Darwinist. Without consistency, though, one can prove anything; therefore one proves nothing. Don’t talk to us about truth, then, Mr. Hooper, you have nothing to say. Your reason has left you. You want to model your life on the animals? Fine; go out into the field, and live like a king of beasts. We hope it doesn’t take seven years for you to stand up like a Man and get your reason back.
This commentary is not endorsing the Pope; it is simply insisting that science stop looking silly by refuting itself. The essence of being human is using your reason and conscience to guide your physical passions. That reason is the basis for science; it presupposes intelligence, which presupposes judgment, which presupposes absolute truth and morals. Science cannot breathe without these things.
2008 may become known as The Year Science Died. Or was that 1859?
I figure we can agree on this one.
This must put our resident Catholic Evos in quite a quandary. Who to side with, who to side with...hmmmm????
Also see:
A gay-bashing tirade? What Pope Benedict really told the Roman Curia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2155863/posts
Glad to finally find some common ground!
You’d think science might have a clue or two about the spread of disease associated with the behaviours? Nah, no sense in letting science intrude on policy. Maybe this guy will tell us next how homosexuality can reduce global warming?
Self-Referential Fallacy; Self-Refuting Argument
http://creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#selfreferential
From an evolutionary standpoint, human males should kill all babies they can get at that aren’t their own offspring.
Works for lions, horses, bears and a good many other animals.
This is called "cruising".
He'll never be without a date at any science conference he might attend in the foreseeable future.
Nice article.
I have become skeptical of authority. No, I’m not talking about the Pope. I am talking about the press and many academics. I reject Marx, Malthus, Freud, and global warming. I even have my doubts about Darwin. Those who rebuke me often claim to speak for an enlightened consensus, or to speak for “science.”
It seems to me that people who believe in God, people who believe in Darwin (evolution), and of course those who believe in God and Darwin, should agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Whether it is a perversion of God’s intention, or a perversion of instinct, does not matter. The purpose of the sexual act is reproduction, and this purpose is not advanced by men having anal sex with men. It’s not just gross, it’s a perversion. Yet Hooper sees it otherwise. This only goes to show that evolutionary theory predicts little, can be used to “explain” anything. That is not a characteristic of true science.
I also think that naturalism should come under sustained scrutiny. The notion that my five senses are real but that my self-consciousness is an illusion is absurd. I see. The “I” who sees is just as real as the sights themselves. “I” exist. Related terms, possibly synonyms, are “self,” “mind,” and “soul.” I exist and I am a supernatural entity. I’m a supernatural entity because my self/mind/soul cannot be seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard. I am a supernatural entity and so are the people reading my post. If “I” don’t exist to “science” then clearly it is science, so called, that is deficient.
What’s with this notion of homosexuality as hard-wired? No one knows the general “cause” of it, whether it is psychological or physical in origin. Jung thought it originated in a confusion of sexual roles and so was more prevalent in an urban setting.
For all the claims about naturalism and what science is capable of dealing with, scientists are continually overstepping those bounds and speaking on things which they, by their own admission are not qualified to speak on.
It involves far more than just the soul and consciousness.
There are whole levels of reality that are not touchable by science. Science is a useful tool for learning about the world around us and improving the human condition through technology. It is the wrong tool for deciding morals and setting political policy.
Thanks for the ping!
The way I read this, the Pope used science to attack homosexuality, and the New Scientist criticized him for using science to settle moral matters. This article criticizes the New Scientist for using science to settle moral matters. What is your actual position on the use of science in the realm of morality?
I'm a hospice nurse and we have an ethics meeting once a month, as you might imagine, there are ethical issues from time to time in end of life care.
So, it's the nursing science setting, with the MD there, going over ethics.
Now where do you think ethics come from in this scientific setting?
Works for lions, horses, bears and a good many other animals.
Great point, and aren't we mere great apes after all?
Removing God from science works REALLY well eh?
Great post. This business of natural science as the only acceptable model for scientific discussion is an absurd strawman.
Explain what’s natural about doing surgery on a child still in the womb?
How about a partial birth abortion...is there anything more UNnatural?
Removing, no sterlizing God/ethics/religion from sicentific discussions is a recipe for disaster and is the PC kind of godless liberalism that delivers idiocy like global warming to our doorstep.
The so-called "Journal of Evolutionary Philosphy" has this to say...
Evolution and HomosexualityHomosexual behavior is common in many animal species. As to whether this behavior has evolved to perform some kind of useful social function, like strengthening social bonds between members of the same sex, or whether animals do it simply because it presents another opportunity to do something they enjoy, is open to speculation.
Some evolutionary scientists say that human homosexuality may have evolved because of the benefits of having additional non-reproductive members contributing to the needs of the wider community. They say that as long as enough people continue to breed then there would be very little evolutionary pressure against homosexuality.
Others say that the flexibility of the human brain and the wide range of reactions to early childhood experiences will naturally result in a wide diversity of adult sexual behaviors. They say that homosexuality is common because it unites a diverse minority of people, giving them an opportunity to fulfil their physical and emotional needs, in the same way that the diverse majority of straight people are united by their heterosexuality. From this point of view, the commonality of homosexuality would be largely cultural.
Evolutionary scientists should be very careful about making any unprovable claims about whether homosexual inclinations are biologically determined or formed through experience. Like every other victimized minority, the social status of the gay community rests entirely upon its political power. Frivolous theories of homosexuality, whether scientific or religious, have the potential to be abused as propaganda in the power struggle against gay freedoms.
Throughout history, in most parts of the world, homosexuality was a crime and those who were discovered were either arrested or killed. Even in the mid 1900s, the prisons of Europe and America were full of otherwise innocent men and women convicted of homosexuality, and those who were able to avoid arrest were often blackmailed by opportunists who knew their secret.
During the Great Social Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, as women were gaining equal rights and institutionalized racism was coming to an end, in the big cities of the western world, gay activists began to publicly protest against their continued persecution.
Street demonstrations were often broken up by baton wielding riot police, and many gay rights activists were beaten to death. People who witnessed this brutality on television were sickened by what they saw. The long suffering gay community soon gained the sympathy of the masses. Eventually the laws against homosexuality were repealed, and despite the continuing influence of traditional religion, the conservative culture of gay discrimination is gradually losing support.
Attitudes towards homosexuality continue to be a battleground between cultural tradition, social necessity, individual needs and desires, the dictates of ancient religious scriptures, the political activism of the oppressed, the prejudice of the unenlightened masses, and the sympathies of freethinking liberals.
Whether you like it or not, in the evolutionary jungle, almost anything is possible. And in the world of human politics, the laws are written by those with the power.
Seems to me that many don't have a problem using science to settle moral matters in favor of eliminating morals. I wonder if the New Scientist would have criticized him for using science to support homosexuality.
Somehow I don't think so since it's being done by others already.
“What’s with this notion of homosexuality as hard-wired?”
This claim is useful to the “gay community” and their supporters. They say gays are just like women, just like blacks; they are born that way. They claim they are discriminated against due to innate traits. They claim gays are a minority that has been discriminated against because of who they are, not what they do.
Burglars, pickpockets, purse snatchers, rapists, murderers, bigamists, and pedophiles are criticized and prosecuted for their actions. Historically, men who have sex with men have been criticized for their actions. Their actions have been described as sodomy. They have been called sodomites in the same way people who lift wallets are called pickpockets. It is descriptive, not an identity. Now if “science” claims there is a sodomy or the pickpocket gene, it paves the way for the claim that they can’t help themselves, they are a misunderstood and long suffering minority that faces discrimination from a conservative, religious society.
It’s all bunk of course. Sometimes people are tempted by a course of action that they know to be wrong. Sometimes they give into temptation.
The common claim that gays are just like women and blacks is bogus. There is nothing wrong with being a woman or being black. It there were something wrong, it is true that they have no choice in the matter. There is something wrong with sodomy. People who are tempted by sodomy can refuse the temptation. Sodomy is like stealing or murder. Sodomists are not like blacks or women.
So much for keeping the supernatural out of science. That non-scientific part of man is what's passing judgment on science; deciding what science is and interpreting it.
“What is your actual position on the use of science in the realm of morality?”
This wasn’t addressed to me. I hope you don’t mind if I offer my 2cts.
My academic background is economics (economic theory). This kind of question sometimes comes up when addressing social policy. I was taught that value judgments and questions of what ought to be done are not part of science. Science can address the consequences of actions.
Here is an example. Let’s say we want to help the poor. If a particular government program is advanced to help the poor, economics can try to answer the question “will it work?” Economists predicted that Aid to Families with Dependent Children would provide an incentive to break up families and to have additional children without marriage. These economists were criticized as being heartless and uncaring. That was not true. It turns out that the economists were right and AFDC destroyed many families. AFDC drove the illegitimacy rate among blacks from where it was, near the national average, to something like 85%. This was entirely predictable. Economists could see that AFDC would have effects contrary to what was intended.
Let’s not get carried away here—this isn’t “science” or “New Scientist” disagreeing with the Pope. This is just the online news editor at New Scientist, whose job probably requires him to generate a certain number of blog posts a week. The story here is “some guy who works at New Scientist disagrees with the Pope.” Big deal.
Thanks for the many good posts. I agree with you that science “is the wrong tool for deciding morals and setting political policy.”
I’m taking on naturalism these days for a few reasons. First, I think it has been oversold. By this I mean that there has been indoctrination and acceptance that go way beyond it’s merits. The second reason is that I suspect it is hugely influential and has the wrong aims and consequences.
I am beginning to lump naturalism in with Freudian psychology, Marxism, and possibly evolutionary theory as programs that are not good science but serve to undermine Judeo-Christian morality, society, and religion - for some people that is the intent.
I apologize in advance if some of this seems a little amorphous, vague, or even paranoid. But I believe that some pseudo-scientific programs have agendas that are sometimes hidden or denied. Many innocent people have been taken in. I think that is the point of the programs. These duped individuals may have no agenda, but they advance an agenda nonetheless.
Briefly. I think Freudian psychology with its emphasis on sexuality in determining human nature undermined Christian teachings and beliefs. Evolutionary theory undermined religion for many people. Marx was an atheist who attacked religion while advancing his economic and political program. These people and their programs have been addressed by others at length. Naturalism attempts to banish any and all religion or religious thinking from science and to force a false choice - religion or science. Naturalism should come under the same intense scrutiny and de-construction as Marxism, Freudian psychology, evolution, and global warming.
Related article.
Nice examples at your link. Thanks.
You make several good points.
I’m using the term “naturalism” is a special way.
From Wikipedia:
Philosophical naturalism is, as a position, the idea that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
From Conservapedia:
Naturalism is a philosophy that rejects the possibility of supernatural phenomena, describing such phenomena as misunderstood natural phenomena or falsehood.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Naturalism
From Answers.com
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
http://www.answers.com/topic/naturalism
Here is a good quote from an unfamiliar source:
Naturalism - Philosophical and Theological Disposition
Naturalism, commonly known as materialism, is a philosophical paradigm whereby everything can be explained in terms of natural causes. Physical matter is the only reality — everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Naturalism, by definition, excludes any Supernatural Agent or activity. Thus, naturalism is atheism. Naturalism’s exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Philosophers agree, without God there is no universal moral standard of conduct.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/naturalism.htm
A somewhat different approach:
Naturalism is an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively a priori project of theorizing. For much of the history of philosophy it has been widely held that philosophy involved a distinctive method, and could achieve knowledge distinct from that attained by the special sciences. Thus, metaphysics and epistemology have often jointly occupied a position of “first philosophy,” laying the necessary grounds for the understanding of reality and the justification of knowledge claims. Naturalism rejects philosophy’s claim to that special status. Whether in epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, or other areas naturalism seeks to show that philosophical problems as traditionally conceived are ill-formulated, and can be solved or displaced by appropriately naturalistic methods. Naturalism often assigns a key role to the methods and results of the empirical sciences, and sometimes aspires to reductionism and physicalism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/naturali.htm
I selected these quotes to present one coherent meaning to the word naturalism. However, many of the sites make additional distinctions. For example, philosophical naturalism claims much more than does methodological naturalism.
I meant to include this also:
Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
VERY WELL SAID!
Wow...very informative! Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.