Scientific Morality and the Problem of Evil

[dianaiad]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

[Divine Insight]

Actually in the other thread I was stating the fact that for secularists there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil". The concept of "Scientific Morality" is a totally different and separate issue entirely.

Before you can even begin to comprehend an idea of "Scientific Morality", you need to first understand that there is no such thing as "Absolute Physical Morality".

In other words, and "Scientific Morality" is not going to be based on a science like physics. It's going to be based more along the line of the sciences of "psychology" etc.

Sam Harris makes a very good case for a basis of "Scientific Morality". Even though it would necessarily need to be subjective-oriented, we can achieve this in science by simply recognizing what the vast majority of humans prefer. We typically prefer happiness and comfort over unhappiness and suffering. Therefore we can build a "Scientific Morality" around that overwhelming consensus.

Clearly there are people who do not prefer happiness and comfort. But since those people are so few in number it's fair to label them as not being part of the norm. Or even being mentally ill. We may even be able to show physical reasons why they are thinking the way they are thinking.

No one is going to be able to have a meaningful discussion about "Scientific Morality" until they can first understand that morality is indeed subjective and there is no such thing as objective morality to begin with.

So before they can even begin to discuss a rational approach to "Scientific Morality" they need to first understand why there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil" in a secular world.

The "Problem of Evil" only exist in theology and religion. There is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil" outside of that philosophy.

In a secular world it is not a "problem" that the world isn't perfect because no one would be expecting that it should be perfect. It's instantly recognized to simply be the way things are. Things simply aren't perfect, and this is all that the "Problem of Evil" amounts to.

So theists need to get over that first, before they can even begin to discuss a meaningful concept of "Scientific Morality".

And as already pointed out, it wouldn't be a "Physical Science" life physics, or chemistry or biology, but rather it would be a social science like psychology. It would look at things subjectively from the point of view of what has the greatest probability of bringing the most happiness and the least suffering to everyone. Those would be the criteria.

And as Sam Harris points out, treating others as you would like to be treated would certainly be an obvious outcome of this. And this is something that religions have taught for eons. Long before the birth of Christianity to be sure.

The Bible and religions like Christianity would certainly not have any superior morality. The Bible condones the keeping of slaves and even beating them to within an inch of their life. And Jesus even supported that view. But a "Scientific Morality" would be far superior to that for sure.

So a "Scientific Morality" would literally beat the hell out of the morality of the Bible, and while that's a cute pun it's actually quite true. The Bible is extremely immoral in many ways. So a "Scientific Morality" wouldn't need to do much to beat the Bible by a landslide.

[bluethread]

Sam Harris makes a very good case for a basis of "Scientific Morality". Even though it would necessarily need to be subjective-oriented, we can achieve this in science by simply recognizing what the vast majority of humans prefer. We typically prefer happiness and comfort over unhappiness and suffering. Therefore we can build a "Scientific Morality" around that overwhelming consensus.

This is what I am talking about. Thought "Scientific Morality" has nothing to do with the physical sciences, it uses the cover of the pseudo sciences of sociology and psychology to add credibility to what is nothing more than humanist populism. That is, what the majority thinks is moral, is moral. In order for the word "science" to be associated in any way with such a morality, one would need to explain what is scientific about it. Majority rule and social norms are quite often criticized as immoral by those who hold to these kinds of morality, yet this morality is based on just those things.

So before they can even begin to discuss a rational approach to "Scientific Morality" they need to first understand why there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil" in a secular world.

The "Problem of Evil" only exist in theology and religion. There is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil" outside of that philosophy.

Why is "Scientific Morality" not a philosophy?

In a secular world it is not a "problem" that the world isn't perfect because no one would be expecting that it should be perfect. It's instantly recognized to simply be the way things are. Things simply aren't perfect, and this is all that the "Problem of Evil" amounts to.

However, no one lives in such a "secular world". I know of no one who truly accepts the world as it is. In fact, many secularists often stigmatize people, but if it is what it is, nothing should be unacceptable.

And as already pointed out, it wouldn't be a "Physical Science" life physics, or chemistry or biology, but rather it would be a social science like psychology. It would look at things subjectively from the point of view of what has the greatest probability of bringing the most happiness and the least suffering to everyone. Those would be the criteria.

As I stated before, that is nothing more than humanist populism using the pseudo sciences to add the appearance of a moral high ground. This begs the questions; how does one determine what constitutes the "most happiness" and "the least suffering"?

And as Sam Harris points out, treating others as you would like to be treated would certainly be an obvious outcome of this.

Why would that be? Civilizations have simply stigmatized certain groups so that they can ignore the golden rule.

The Bible and religions like Christianity would certainly not have any superior morality. The Bible condones the keeping of slaves and even beating them to within an inch of their life. And Jesus even supported that view. But a "Scientific Morality" would be far superior to that for sure.

Though I question your characterization, humanist populism, which is what "Scientific Morality" appears to be, has condoned just those activities through the use of stigmatization, ie The Roman, The Persians, The Assyrians. Those may have had gods in their culture, but they were primarily secular populists, with the population defined to meet the desires of the preferred class. That is no different than the humanistic populist of today, who use PC rules to define the preferred classes that meet their needs.

[dianaiad]

.

As for science...perhaps psychology/psychiatry, though I think they are getting a handle on the difference between a mental illness and just plain human cussedness.

Psychology / psychiatry are generally classified among the SOCIAL sciences -- those that "are concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society" (including anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology).

Oh, you disappoint me, Zzyzx. Are you really one of those who look down on the 'soft' sciences?

Is medicine one of those 'soft sciences?" because psychiatrists are physicians, and they diagnose chemical imbalances (you know, physical causes for behavioral changes?) and dispense medication for that.

The Physical / Natural Sciences do not focus upon human society and relationships -- i.e., biology, geology, physics, chemistry, etc.

There may be some concern in the social sciences with morality and "evil" but those are not considerations in natural / physical sciences. For instance, nuclear physics can provide information concerning atomic power or weapons, but is not charged with responsibility of determining whether or how those should be applied in society -- i.e, that isn't their job title.

Since "The Problem of Evil attempts to show that there is a tension between God (at least on a certain conception) and the presence of evil in the world." it is basically a theological consideration, not scientific. Some Theists maintain that their favorite god is all good, wonderful, perfect, etc while some Non-Theists point out that a supposedly perfect god is also responsible for the creation of evil (if "he" created all things) or the conditions that resulted in evil.

Science and religion are separate issues which seldom overlap. Morality is also a separate issue -- one that can overlap or encompass science and religion.

the problem with the problem if evil, from my point of view, anyway, is that those who bring it up first have to define God so as to have one that the "problem of evil" will confound.

Now my own personal belief in, and description of, deity doesn't qualify, and the 'problem of evil' doesn't apply....but when I mention this, the reaction is almost universally to 1. argue with me about what I really believe regarding God, or 2. Dismiss my belief as impossible for some other reason (usually some argument from incredulity) and so figure that they don't have to worry about dealing with the problem of evil when talking to me.

(shrug)

Now me, I simply believe that while a great deal of what looks like evil may well be the result of mental illness. However, I do sincerely believe in evil; the real, horrific, ugly concept. Some people are perfectly sane, perfectly reasonable...and incredibly evil.

.....and God allows them to be so.

[Divine Insight]

This is what I am talking about. Thought "Scientific Morality" has nothing to do with the physical sciences, it uses the cover of the pseudo sciences of sociology and psychology to add credibility to what is nothing more than humanist populism. That is, what the majority thinks is moral, is moral. In order for the word "science" to be associated in any way with such a morality, one would need to explain what is scientific about it. Majority rule and social norms are quite often criticized as immoral by those who hold to these kinds of morality, yet this morality is based on just those things.

An honest scientific approach to the subject would not be merely humanist populism. The science of psychology already rejects your personal opinions and will tell you what your personal motivations are.

If you think the social sciences are nothing more than social populism then you don't understand their methodology at all.

Why is "Scientific Morality" not a philosophy?

It is. It's a philosophy based upon the scientific method of inquiry, investigation, and logical deduction. It's not merely populism as you have suggested.

However, no one lives in such a "secular world". I know of no one who truly accepts the world as it is. In fact, many secularists often stigmatize people, but if it is what it is, nothing should be unacceptable.

Acceptance of things is not part of the philosophy of secularism. On the contrary the philosophy of secularism suggests that there will be many things in the world that you will indeed find unacceptable.

In fact, when you say, "many secularists often stigmatize people", who are you actually referring to? Are you speaking of people who truly accept and understand the reality of a secular world? Or are you simply speaking of individuals who claim to not believe in any Gods? Merely not believing in Gods does not automatically make a person a secular philosopher. They may not have even given any truly deep and serous thought to what living in a godless would would actually mean.

And as already pointed out, it wouldn't be a "Physical Science" life physics, or chemistry or biology, but rather it would be a social science like psychology. It would look at things subjectively from the point of view of what has the greatest probability of bringing the most happiness and the least suffering to everyone. Those would be the criteria.

As I stated before, that is nothing more than humanist populism using the pseudo sciences to add the appearance of a moral high ground. This begs the questions; how does one determine what constitutes the "most happiness" and "the least suffering"?

Anyone who thinks that science adds "moral high ground" has already missed the boat. However, what a truly uncorrupted scientific based moral philosophy can offer is fairness to everyone.

It seems to me that what you are actually speaking of is corrupt morality being held out in the name of science. Yes, that would be both a pseudo science and it would indeed be corrupt.

Could that happen? Sure it can. But we also see this happen with religion too. Anything can be corrupted any the sciences are no exception.

In fact, if you believe in Christianity then you must also believe that God's very own priests, temples, and Churches can become corrupt for the Bible tells you so. So ironically the Bible itself is telling you not to place your trust in religions, churches, priests, or temples.

At least if you place your trust in secular science you'll know precisely what it is that you have placed your trust in, and you can be aware that it can become corrupt if the wrong people were to be in charge of it.

The problem with religion is that when you place your trust in religion you lose sight of the fact that you may very well have placed your trust in a very corrupt system. Moreover, the "Priests" in a religion gain far too much power far too easily. If there were such a thing as "Scientific Morality" it would at least need to be consensual among a large community of scientists. All of whom are constantly questioning it and trying to improve upon it. It would be a dynamic system. Religions tend to become dogmatically stagnant and therefore when they are corrupt it's really hard to heal them.

And as Sam Harris points out, treating others as you would like to be treated would certainly be an obvious outcome of this.

Why would that be? Civilizations have simply stigmatized certain groups so that they can ignore the golden rule.

I know of no historical example of any civilization that has ever tried to employ a genuine scientific approach to morality. Individual dictators who have tried to justify their agenda using scientific arguments do not even remotely represent a scientific morality.

A genuine scientific morality would need to be conducted as a real science by independent and thus unbiased scientists. Whether such a thing could ever be implemented in the real world is another question entirely. But that's beside the point. The point is a philosophical point, not a practical point.

As a practical matter we already have plenty of examples of religions being the basis of ignoring the Golden rule. Look at how the Christians got around the golden rule in America. They simply proclaim that black-skinned people are "less than human" and the golden rule doesn't apply to them.

So there is a huge historical failure in your argument already. The American South kept slaves and didn't not apply the Golden Rule to them. Yet these families were highly religious and went into their Churches ever Sunday to worship Jesus whilst their slaves toiled in the cotton fields.

History is against you Bluethread. Religion has been used to stigmatize groups of people all the time. In fact, they are doing this today. Christians are stigmatizing gays all the time. So there you go. Where's do Christian obey the golden when it comes to gays?

Though I question your characterization, humanist populism, which is what "Scientific Morality" appears to be, has condoned just those activities through the use of stigmatization, ie The Roman, The Persians, The Assyrians. Those may have had gods in their culture, but they were primarily secular populists, with the population defined to meet the desires of the preferred class. That is no different than the humanistic populist of today, who use PC rules to define the preferred classes that meet their needs.

Scientific morality does not amount to human populism. Especially in the examples you have given. The cultures that you have used as examples did not employ the scientific method of inquiry into the study of the human condition. In fact, they weren't even equipped to do so.

What you are doing is using highly monarchical and/or dictatorships that were run by an elite few as examples of what you claim represent "Scientific Morality" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only were those cultures far from using unbiased scientific inquiry. But they weren't even using human populism either. Even human populism in a democracy offers a potentially better system than a monarchical dictatorship.

But I do agree that human populism itself can easily be extremely biased. For example the well-to-do would have no reason to care about the poor and needy. They could even argue that the poor and needy are in that situation because they are lazy bums thus justifying their mistreatment of them.

One good thing about a moral system based on science is that it would not only offer fair and just morality but it could even offer ways to help the poor and needy.

Scientific morality could actually become the Golden Rule finally implemented above and beyond where any religion could ever lift it. Because even religions condemn those who are doing well by making the excuse that if they aren't doing very well it must be the "will of God".

At least in a purely secular morality we no longer have the excuse that God is behind the suffering of others. If others are suffering it can only be our fault for not implementing the Golden Rule effectively.

[Mr.Badham]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

Unfortunately I don't think your definition of evil holds up when you say the words "no matter how slight", and "depending on the knowledge of the actor".

I do not believe that "rape" and "budding in line at the gas station" should be considered equal.

I think we have a linguistic problem. I don't think the English language has enough words to express our disgust in it's proper magnitude.

[Zzyzx]

.

As for science...perhaps psychology/psychiatry, though I think they are getting a handle on the difference between a mental illness and just plain human cussedness.

Psychology / psychiatry are generally classified among the SOCIAL sciences -- those that "are concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society" (including anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology).

Oh, you disappoint me, Zzyzx. Are you really one of those who look down on the 'soft' sciences?

Perhaps the disappointment is due to your confusing my mention of social sciences and your use of the term soft sciences.

Where the heck did "looking down on" come from?

To distinguish between natural / physical sciences and social sciences is neutral – does not indicate a value judgment (except perhaps in the imagination of sensitive souls).

Is medicine one of those 'soft sciences?" because psychiatrists are physicians, and they diagnose chemical imbalances (you know, physical causes for behavioral changes?) and dispense medication for that.

I do not adhere to strict limits to the various disciplines. Medicine is close to biology and chemistry – and is close to psychology through psychiatry.

How does any of this relate to morality of science?

the problem with the problem if evil, from my point of view, anyway, is that those who bring it up first have to define God so as to have one that the "problem of evil" will confound.

I have no opinion on this matter, but leave it to those most concerned to decide who has the burden of defining the "god" to be discussed. If Theists accept the definition supplied by Non-Theists that is fine with me.

Now my own personal belief in, and description of, deity doesn't qualify, and the 'problem of evil' doesn't apply....but when I mention this, the reaction is almost universally to 1. argue with me about what I really believe regarding God, or 2. Dismiss my belief as impossible for some other reason (usually some argument from incredulity) and so figure that they don't have to worry about dealing with the problem of evil when talking to me.

Kudos to you for standing aside from mainstream god beliefs and for recognizing / acknowledging that your god beliefs do not enter into typical "problem of evil" arguments.

For the record: It appears to me as though the "problem of evil" is a very weak argument

Now me, I simply believe that while a great deal of what looks like evil may well be the result of mental illness. However, I do sincerely believe in evil; the real, horrific, ugly concept. Some people are perfectly sane, perfectly reasonable...and incredibly evil.

.....and God allows them to be so.

I do not disagree – except with the last sentence (which cannot / has not been shown to apply to any real world situation).

[bluethread]

This is what I am talking about. Thought "Scientific Morality" has nothing to do with the physical sciences, it uses the cover of the pseudo sciences of sociology and psychology to add credibility to what is nothing more than humanist populism. That is, what the majority thinks is moral, is moral. In order for the word "science" to be associated in any way with such a morality, one would need to explain what is scientific about it. Majority rule and social norms are quite often criticized as immoral by those who hold to these kinds of morality, yet this morality is based on just those things.

An honest scientific approach to the subject would not be merely humanist populism. The science of psychology already rejects your personal opinions and will tell you what your personal motivations are.

If you think the social sciences are nothing more than social populism then you don't understand their methodology at all.

If we are talking about a morality that is based on "what the vast majority of humans prefer", that is social populism. If it is based on something else and the majority just happen to agree, that is not necessarily social populism. However, the former was what you proposed as the basis.

However, no one lives in such a "secular world". I know of no one who truly accepts the world as it is. In fact, many secularists often stigmatize people, but if it is what it is, nothing should be unacceptable.

Acceptance of things is not part of the philosophy of secularism. On the contrary the philosophy of secularism suggests that there will be many things in the world that you will indeed find unacceptable.

However, you said, in a secular world, "evil" is "instantly recognized to simply be the way things are". Secularists as a whole do not accept "evil" as a given.

In fact, when you say, "many secularists often stigmatize people", who are you actually referring to? Are you speaking of people who truly accept and understand the reality of a secular world? Or are you simply speaking of individuals who claim to not believe in any Gods? Merely not believing in Gods does not automatically make a person a secular philosopher. They may not have even given any truly deep and serous thought to what living in a godless would would actually mean.

So, are you arguing the true Scotsman argument that is often used against Christians when they are required to answer for everyone who claims to be a Christian? The proper way to approach that is to clearly define what you mean when you speak of a "secular world" and not just discount the objections of those who have to guess at what you mean.

And as already pointed out, it wouldn't be a "Physical Science" life physics, or chemistry or biology, but rather it would be a social science like psychology. It would look at things subjectively from the point of view of what has the greatest probability of bringing the most happiness and the least suffering to everyone. Those would be the criteria.

As I stated before, that is nothing more than humanist populism using the pseudo sciences to add the appearance of a moral high ground. This begs the questions; how does one determine what constitutes the "most happiness" and "the least suffering"?

Anyone who thinks that science adds "moral high ground" has already missed the boat. However, what a truly uncorrupted scientific based moral philosophy can offer is fairness to everyone.

Now, you are arguing fairness, yet another ill defined term. Once you have defined what you mean by "fairness", please explain how "Scientific Morality" specifically offers that "fairness to everyone".

It seems to me that what you are actually speaking of is corrupt morality being held out in the name of science. Yes, that would be both a pseudo science and it would indeed be corrupt.

Could that happen? Sure it can. But we also see this happen with religion too. Anything can be corrupted any the sciences are no exception.

However, you are arguing that "Scientific Morality" is superior because it "can offer fairness for everyone". How does it do that?

In fact, if you believe in Christianity then you must also believe that God's very own priests, temples, and Churches can become corrupt for the Bible tells you so. So ironically the Bible itself is telling you not to place your trust in religions, churches, priests, or temples.

At least if you place your trust in secular science you'll know precisely what it is that you have placed your trust in, and you can be aware that it can become corrupt if the wrong people were to be in charge of it.

The problem with religion is that when you place your trust in religion you lose sight of the fact that you may very well have placed your trust in a very corrupt system. Moreover, the "Priests" in a religion gain far too much power far too easily. If there were such a thing as "Scientific Morality" it would at least need to be consensual among a large community of scientists. All of whom are constantly questioning it and trying to improve upon it. It would be a dynamic system. Religions tend to become dogmatically stagnant and therefore when they are corrupt it's really hard to heal them.

Again, I do not agree with your characterizations, but it is "Scientific Morality" we are discussing not judeo-christian philosophy. So, let's not get side tracked on criticizing other philosophies, as if that somehow justifies "Scientific Morality".

And as Sam Harris points out, treating others as you would like to be treated would certainly be an obvious outcome of this.

Why would that be? Civilizations have simply stigmatized certain groups so that they can ignore the golden rule.

I know of no historical example of any civilization that has ever tried to employ a genuine scientific approach to morality. Individual dictators who have tried to justify their agenda using scientific arguments do not even remotely represent a scientific morality.

Again, the true Scotsman fallacy.

A genuine scientific morality would need to be conducted as a real science by independent and thus unbiased scientists. Whether such a thing could ever be implemented in the real world is another question entirely. But that's beside the point. The point is a philosophical point, not a practical point.

How can "Scientific Morality" "offer fairness for everyone", if it is not practical?

As a practical matter we already have plenty of examples of religions being the basis of ignoring the Golden rule. Look at how the Christians got around the golden rule in America. They simply proclaim that black-skinned people are "less than human" and the golden rule doesn't apply to them.

So there is a huge historical failure in your argument already. The American South kept slaves and didn't not apply the Golden Rule to them. Yet these families were highly religious and went into their Churches ever Sunday to worship Jesus whilst their slaves toiled in the cotton fields.

Again, I do not agree with your characterizations, but as before, we are discussing "Scientific Morality", not Christianity as it has been practiced in the antebellum south of these United States.

History is against you Bluethread. Religion has been used to stigmatize groups of people all the time. In fact, they are doing this today. Christians are stigmatizing gays all the time. So there you go. Where's do Christian obey the golden when it comes to gays?

That is not my point. My point is that you have not shown how "Scientific Morality" does not engage in stigmatization.

Scientific morality could actually become the Golden Rule finally implemented above and beyond where any religion could ever lift it. Because even religions condemn those who are doing well by making the excuse that if they aren't doing very well it must be the "will of God".

You just said that you were making a philosophical point and not a practical one. Specifically, how would "Scientific Morality" "offer fairness for everyone"?

At least in a purely secular morality we no longer have the excuse that God is behind the suffering of others. If others are suffering it can only be our fault for not implementing the Golden Rule effectively.

So, how would "Scientific Morality" implement "the Golden Rule effectively"?

[Divine Insight]

Now me, I simply believe that while a great deal of what looks like evil may well be the result of mental illness. However, I do sincerely believe in evil; the real, horrific, ugly concept. Some people are perfectly sane, perfectly reasonable...and incredibly evil.

.....and God allows them to be so.

It seems to me that your statement highlighted in red above cannot be true unless you believe that it is indeed perfectly sane, and perfectly reasonable, to do incredibly evil things.

Otherwise how can you claim that a person who does incredibly evil things is perfectly sane and reasonable?

If people are arguing with your "beliefs" it may simply be because the beliefs you express contain extreme logical contradictions.

[Divine Insight]

If we are talking about a morality that is based on "what the vast majority of humans prefer", that is social populism. If it is based on something else and the majority just happen to agree, that is not necessarily social populism. However, the former was what you proposed as the basis.

The social sciences don't work the way you think they work. It is no way based on social populism in a naive sense of the concept.

As an example, if you were to ask young children what they would like to have for dinner they might say, "Chocolate ice cream and cookies!"

To then make that into the objectively "moral" thing to eat would be naive social populism.

The social sciences are not naive. They go much deeper. Instead of just going by what you "naively think" you like they do the research into discovering what you truly want. And what you truly want is a healthy body. So eating chocolate ice cream and cookies for dinner every say is not a very high moral value.

Your insistence that a scientific morality would be entirely based on naive social populism is gravely in error.

However, you said, in a secular world, "evil" is "instantly recognized to simply be the way things are". Secularists as a whole do not accept "evil" as a given.

Of course not. Especially not in a rigid religious sense of being an "absolute".

I reject that concept of "absolute evil" too.

In fact, secularists often reject the very term "evil" entirely as being a religious term. They would rather speak in term of "approval" or "disapproval" of certain things. Because for them this whole issue is one of subjective opinions and there is no absolute evil about it.

So yes, many secularists will indeed reject the religious concept of "Evil" altogether.

That's right. For a secularist there is no such thing as "evil" all that exists are events that we don't personally approve of.

If you purposefully kill the pet of a secularist they will NOT approve of your actions.

If you purposefully kill the pet of a Christian they will simply say that you are doing something "evil".

Same difference. It's just disapproval. That's all it is.

In fact, when you say, "many secularists often stigmatize people", who are you actually referring to? Are you speaking of people who truly accept and understand the reality of a secular world? Or are you simply speaking of individuals who claim to not believe in any Gods? Merely not believing in Gods does not automatically make a person a secular philosopher. They may not have even given any truly deep and serous thought to what living in a godless would would actually mean.

So, are you arguing the true Scotsman argument that is often used against Christians when they are required to answer for everyone who claims to be a Christian? The proper way to approach that is to clearly define what you mean when you speak of a "secular world" and not just discount the objections of those who have to guess at what you mean.

But you're the one who is attempting to confuse things. One moment you are arguing about "Scientific Morality" and the next moment you're arguing over what secularism means.

Secularism is a world view where there are no gods. Therefore there cannot be any such thing as "evil" in a secular world. At least not in religious terms of any absolutes. If a secularist uses the term "evil" at all they must necessarily be using it to express an idea of ethics. There can be no such thing as absolute morality in a purely secular world. Period.

The very concept of morality and esthetics is a human invention. And we can clearly see the truth of this in nature. There is absolutely no evidence in the world for any absolute morality or ethics. Not only does it not exist in the plant and animals kingdoms, but it doesn't even exist in human cultures. Human cultures differ on the opinions of what they consider to be moral or ethical. Thus we have proof positive that there is no such thing as absolute morality.

There is no question at all that this is an arbitrary human invention.

Now, you are arguing fairness, yet another ill defined term. Once you have defined what you mean by "fairness", please explain how "Scientific Morality" specifically offers that "fairness to everyone".

"Scientific Morality" doesn't offer anything yet. It doesn't even exist other than as a proposal by a few people like Sam Harris and other who have offered suggestions for how it could be constructed.

If done without bias and in a genuinely scientific manner it would naturally be fair to everyone because that's what the scientific method would automatically produce.

Of course, in a practical world, keeping this system perfectly scientific and safe from political contamination may very well prove to be impossible. I've never suggested that it's even doable in a practical manner.

We already see that religious attempts to create moral systems have become extremely corrupt and have grossly failed. In fact, I hold that religious morality has already been proven to be a gross failure. So we know that's not going to work. Religious morality ends in things like the World Trade Center disaster.

And earlier in history it resulted in the Crusades, and in "Witch Burnings". Today it results in the harassment and degradation of people like gays. It's a non-stop bigotry. It's never been a sound system of morality and there's no reason to believe that it every will be. On the contrary religious bigotry is a huge world problem especially between the Abrahamic religions themselves. But they also use their religious cults to degrade and belittle anyone who isn't a member of their cult. So much for the Golden Rule.

However, you are arguing that "Scientific Morality" is superior because it "can offer fairness for everyone". How does it do that?

If it were truly based on the scientific method without corruption it would clearly yield a result that is fair to everyone. The reason being that this is what would naturally emerge from a fair and honest application of the scientific method to this domain.

Keeping it fair and honest is a whole other issue. I won't argue with that. I'm not proposing this as a practical solution to world problems. I'm simply pointing out that philosophically it's a sound idea.

Again, I do not agree with your characterizations, but it is "Scientific Morality" we are discussing not judeo-christian philosophy. So, let's not get side tracked on criticizing other philosophies, as if that somehow justifies "Scientific Morality".

Scientific morality needs no justification. Whether or not it can be implemented without unfair bias and political corruption is a whole other issue.

Religious morality has never worked historically. We already have rock-solid evidence for that. We also have rock-solid evidence that religious institutions are easily corrupted. And when they are they become extremely dangerous because its easy for them to gain followers under the pretense that they have something to do with a God.

At least with Scientific Morality everyone would know that it's secular, and therefore ultimately an invention of human subjectivity. So you could never use Scientific Morality to convince people to fly planes into building, for example.

I know of no historical example of any civilization that has ever tried to employ a genuine scientific approach to morality. Individual dictators who have tried to justify their agenda using scientific arguments do not even remotely represent a scientific morality.

Again, the true Scotsman fallacy.

Hogwash.

Please provide for me a historical example where a culture employed modern day scientific methods as an approach to morality.

It's simply not possible. There never was a society that ever had the capability of employing this method, much less implementing it without corruption.

How can "Scientific Morality" "offer fairness for everyone", if it is not practical?

I'm arguing for a philosophy of "Scientific Morality". Whether it can be implemented without corruption in a practical manner or not is an entirely different question.

We already know that religious morality has failed miserly in the theater. So religion isn't practical either.

Again, I do not agree with your characterizations, but as before, we are discussing "Scientific Morality", not Christianity as it has been practiced in the antebellum south of these United States.

I'm make whatever points I feel are relevant, than you very much.

That is not my point. My point is that you have not shown how "Scientific Morality" does not engage in stigmatization.

And you haven't shown that it does. Until you demonstrate that it does there is nothing for me to shoot down.

You just said that you were making a philosophical point and not a practical one. Specifically, how would "Scientific Morality" "offer fairness for everyone"?

It uses the scientific method. The scientific method is unbiased. It's that simple.

Why should it single anyone out in an unfair way?

In other words, why do you feel that it wouldn't be fair?

So, how would "Scientific Morality" implement "the Golden Rule effectively"?

Precisely because a "Scientific Morality" would take into consideration the human condition without any bias toward any specific individuals. Thus the Golden Rule would emerge automatically.

That's an obvious given.

[ttruscott]

Now me, I simply believe that while a great deal of what looks like evil may well be the result of mental illness. However, I do sincerely believe in evil; the real, horrific, ugly concept. Some people are perfectly sane, perfectly reasonable...and incredibly evil.

.....and God allows them to be so.

It seems to me that your statement highlighted in red above cannot be true unless you believe that it is indeed perfectly sane, and perfectly reasonable, to do incredibly evil things.

Otherwise how can you claim that a person who does incredibly evil things is perfectly sane and reasonable?

If people are arguing with your "beliefs" it may simply be because the beliefs you express contain extreme logical contradictions.

Is a psychopath without reason or just uncaring? Crimes of evil are not necessarily insane or without reason unless you count an addiction to evil as insanity which would be hard as it is not a recognized addiction. Apropos of that, is an addiction to anything considered a mental illness or an insanity?

It seems more likely that moral disorders if accepted have little to do with disorders of the mind which could be labeled insanity. Therefore a perfectly sane and reasonable person might practice evil from strong inner emotional urges accepted as reasons without care that others think the reasons are evil, self destructive or criminal.

My career was spent with teens who were behaviour disordered, the current non-pejorative way of pigeon holing them, and the euphemisms for their difficulties in life could float a ship. Some were impaired or low functioning mentally, others emotionally undeveloped (as chosen by any number of psychosocial experts), and some had good cognitive ability with no particular neurosis or compulsion of any kind who just didn't care whether someone got hurt or not by their activities...in other words, they seemed fine in every area of humanity except for their morals. But who knows...

Peace, Ted