Seems to me you are arguing trivialities and ignoring the actual argument presented.
Nobody really believes that the sum and substance of Buddhist philosophy can be completely summed up in three words, just as nobody really believes that the ethic of reciprocity is fully captured by “do unto others …”.
Demanding that everyone dive right into to a PhD thesis on Buddhism and reciprocity when they are mentioned as examples is, IMO, a waste of everyone’s time and a red herring. We can assume some minimal level of basic knowledge, and if that is lacking, the Internet beckons.
The actual point is this: such matters are, as andros put it, “orthogonal” to science. Whether the First Noble Truth of Buddism or the Ethic of Reciprocity are “true” or not cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method; scientists can and do believe or disbelieve them without compromising science.
But overall, aren’t you saying nothing more than “Matters of opinion cannot be decided by the scientific method”? If something cannot be proven or disproven then it is nothing more than unsupported opinion. Once support comes in favoring one position over another, such support falls under the definition of Evidence, and Evidence falls under the prevue of Science.
No, as whether these issues are true or not are not merely subjective matters of opinion. If the ethic of reciprocity is the foundation of morality, it is the foundation of morality for everyone (or it isn’t). Ditto the First Noble Truth of Buddhism.
It is not the same as “I like cheese”.
Moreover, as we have just established, they are not issues capable of proof, at least the sort of proof that is falsifiable.
Well sure, but for it to be otherwise, there would need to be some other epistemology that’s valid. Are you aware of any other way to come to know anything outside our own heads, other than by its effects on our physical world (the only world we have access to)?
Without objective support they are nothing but opinions. They may be “profound” opinions to those that already hold them, but they are just opinions nonetheless.
Right. And if there were, how would we assess its validity? Why, by the only criteria of validity we have, namely those of rational-materialist empiricism. Which cannot determine the validity of anything outside itself.
And so round and round we go on Karl Popper’s “uncritical or comprehensive rationalism” carousel.
The issue is what it is based on. Is morality entirely subjective, or does it have an objective component?
For example, I hold that certain customs - such as enslaving people based on race - are simply wrong. Is that just my opinion, such that someone can legitimately have a different opinion - such that enslaving someone based on race is morally right? Is our difference of opinion on that point similar to (say) differing over whether cheese is tasty or not?
Those who believe that morality has an objective component would hold that this type of opinion is not like differing over the tastiness of cheese, but is based on truly objective factors - though they may differ on what those are. Some may say that it is based on the ethic of reciprocity, and they would claim that this ethic is universally “true” as a method, albeit imperfect in practice, of deciding such questions as whether enslaving people based on their appearance is wrong or not.
The point being not whether those folks are correct or not, but that it is not possible to prove the point one way or another based on the scientific method. The scientific method is a tool, and a very useful one; it cannot do all tasks. It is a mighty hammer, but not all problems are nails.
They have objective support, or claim to. The Ethic of Reciprocity and the First Noble Truth are both claimed, by some, to be objectively true.
If what you mean by “objective support” is stuff that can be disproved using the Scientific Method, you are simply defining the problem in a way that begs the question. ‘No truly objective claims can be made other than those disprovable by the scientific method.’
You can hold that opinion, but you cannot prove it correct - by your own definition: you have excluded anything that could do so.
If the question is “Does God exist?” or “What happens to the soul after I die”, what specifically are the tools used by religion to answer those questions, and how can one show that these tools are better than blind guesses.
Try to move beyond “Science cannot answer these questions”, and move on to why Religion can.
I myself do not believe that anything like a god or an afterlife exists, because I see no evidence and no reason to believe that either does. To me, they are folklore.
On the other hand, I myself do believe that the ethic of reciprocity is an objective basis for morality.
While I am not a Buddhist, I view the first Noble Truth as more persuasive than the existence of god or gods. I find the Taoist description of the nature of the universe more persuasive as well, though I am not a Taoist.
In short, I regard religions as subject to rational analysis - just not necessarily subject to the scientific method. There are other ways of rating the relative truth, or persuasiveness, of religious and philosphical approaches to issues.
Take, for example, the example I gave above of a real-life question: is race-based slavery morally wrong, or not? I am not sure if any answer to this is approachable by the Scientific Method, which simply does not deal in matters of morality. One can, however, rationally oppose race-based slavery as morally wrong.
Careful; this will push me (and others) right into Der Trihs’s camp. If you start making your magical rules apply to me, you better brace yourself for a fight.
So long as religion is the same as “I like cheese,” then it is compatible, not only with science, but with enlightened civilization. But start trying to compel me to recite hymns, or to give up bacon, or to nod eastward five times daily, and you’ve started a religious war against me.
I don’t need to. Hell, I actively disbelieve in the claim. I’m fully and wholly convinced that religion cannot answer those, or any other questions.
I’m just defending its right to exist. If people want religion, that’s their business. I have no more justice trying to eradicate it than it has to impose its rules on me.
“Compatible” has to include a measure of “leave each other alone.”
I don’t believe in God, but Father Ralph does, and so do enough of his flock to make their parish viable. I’m even happy to give them tax exemption (so long as they keep their noses out of partisan politics.)
How about compelling you not to enslave people based on race - the actual example used upthread? Is that akin to “I like cheese”, on which you and I could reasonably disagree? Or is imposing this “magical rule” on you “incompatible with enlightened civilization”?
There is, I think, a fundamental difference between customs and rituals on the one hand, and matters of objective morality on the other - and thinking this is exactly why I can differentiate between compelling you to not eat bacon (ritual, reasonable people can disagree), on the one hand, and compelling you not to enslave people (funamentally wrong), on the other.
Can you differentiate between the two? Do you differentiate between the two? And if so, how?
I don’t even understand the question - what could possibly be objective about morality? It’s an opinion!
In other words, would it be possible for someone to have the opinion that it’s morally right to enslave other people? Well, obviously, the answer is yes! You won’t find as many of them nowadays, but just a couple hundred years ago you would have no trouble finding someone to argue that position.
Almost everyone has the opinion that we should try not to harm other innocent people. It’s so universal that it’s taken for granted by most civilized people. And if you start from that assumption, the question of what you should do in specific situations is informed by objective facts. That’s fine. But realize that at bottom, your fundamental idea that we shouldn’t harm others has is not objective, it’s your opinion. I’m glad that you have that opinion, and I don’t want to be around anyone who doesn’t share it, but in no way is it objective.
Just show me anyone who claims that the scientific method answers all problems.
If the questions are about objective facts of the world we live in, scientific epistemology is all there is. But it doesn’t address morality, or preferences, or whether Angelina Jolie is hotter than Roseanne Barr.
And a few thousand years ago you’d have trouble finding people to argue against it.
Much of the argument against slavery today rests on the principle that all humans are inherently equal and slaves are not usually happy with their lot. The justification for slavery was that the enslaved were inherently inferior, and were more happy without the responsibilities of freedom. Once that got falsified, the justification for slavery fell apart.
Well, yes, that’s what it imagines it exists for. I don’t believe in it, but others do.
It’s a magical rule that is incompatible with enlightened civilization. It happens to be a good rule, one we arrived at by philosophical, political, and religious reasoning.
I just reject the religious reasoning, because it, in the past, also taught us that it was God’s Will to enslave people on the basis of their race (or ethnicity, anyway.)
If a priest told me it was God’s commandment to keep on breathing…I would keep on breathing, even as I also reject God’s commandment.
Depends where you looked. Hunter-gatherer societies have typically not practiced slavery, which was uneconomic for their social structures. There’s no reason to think that most ancient hunter-gatherers would have thought slavery morally acceptable.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Much of the argument against slavery today rests on the principle that all humans are inherently equal and slaves are not usually happy with their lot. The justification for slavery was that the enslaved were inherently inferior, and were more happy without the responsibilities of freedom. Once that got falsified, the justification for slavery fell apart.
[/QUOTE]
That was hardly “the” justification for slavery, historically speaking. There have been plenty of societies that enslaved people whom the enslavers didn’t consider “inherently inferior” or “more happy without the responsibilities of freedom” (e.g., war captives in ancient Greece).
Humans don’t automatically need a hypothesis of innate ethnic inferiority to justify the practice of slavery in a society. And they don’t need any scientific falsification of such a hypothesis in order to break down the practice of slavery in a society. For example, in the 18th and 19th centuries when antislavery movements were at their height, plenty of scientific theories still endorsed the idea of innate ethnic inferiority of “slave races”.
