There are consequences when you break a law. Just how far do you think you can fall without getting hurt? 10, 20, 30 feet? The law of gravity may not "break" your fall, but the ground sure will and it may break you also.
Moral laws are the same as physical laws in that there are consequences. Yet science does not want the moral laws taught to our young people.
31 comments
Ugh - this is why it's dangerous for scientists to adopt words that have prior meanings when formulating laws - however intuitive the connection, there will always be some arseclowns who somehow latch onto the wrong meaning. We're not doing cryptic crosswords here, people - just because the word "break" can refer to both falls and laws doesn't mean there's a fucking connection!
Believe it or not, I didn't break my arm because god knew that I didn't love my neighbor. Also, falling goes with the law of gravity, not against it.
No, JohnR7 has it exactly backwards (what a shock), and that's the heart of the problem. Morals are NOT absolute in the way that physical laws are. That fact is the cause of many of the biggest problems we face in this world.
Morals are generally drawn from religions, and religions are incompatible with one another. So we have dozens of conflicting moral codes, and at the same time we consider it a virtue to respect them all.
That very respect keeps us from pointing out the obvious: our world will never be free of these large-scale disagreements (the ones we fight wars over) while we have conflicting morals.
We need a universal, standard set of morals and ethics, based on simple and concrete concepts. Here's one just for the sake of argument:
-Physical pain is bad. We should first avoid causing it, to any living thing that we scientifically know can feel pain. We should second actively seek to prevent pain, even where we don't cause it, to the extent that this is possible.
Imagine the debate over that concept. Should we drill cavities? That's painful, even with painkillers. Yes, we should, because doing so prevents more pain later, so the net result is less pain. Should we all be vegetarians? Yes. The result would be far less pain in the world. Should we intervene on nature and prevent every lion in the world from killing gazelles? No, but only because we simply can't. In a thousand years, if we can, we should.
You might agree or disagree with any of what I'm saying--especially the lion stuff--but you'd disagree based on logic and reason, and there would be at least the chance for total agreement, in time.
Compare that to a debate like, "The Jews deserve the holy land because it's written in a really old book. No, the Arabs deserve it, because that's in a different old book..." That debate can never be solved.
Morons like JohnR7 are a problem, because they can't even vaguely grasp the possibility that their own Christian-based morals could be imperfect. But the bigger problem is the vast, central group of moderate people who aren't fundies, but feel we should tolerate all religions. By tolerating all of this bullshit, we hamstring the world from going forward and seeking universal ethics based on reason.
Paraphrasing the hell out of Sam Harris here. End rant.
Fundies apparently think that because they want to introduce their idiotic claptrap into science, thereby attempting to discredit science, that science intentionally wants to not have right and wrong taught to children. This is asinine. Morals are not dependent upon religion in order to exist.
JohnRaptor - precisely! That's why they're LAWS! And furthermore, if science taught morality, it would be called ethics class. It's called science because it teaches science. School does not have to be holistic.
Moral laws have consequences imposed by society, not nature. Now, John, take your head out of your ass, and take your meds, for fuck's sake!
That's because science isn't about moral laws, you asshat (ever since I read this insult on this site, I've begun to really like it). That's covered in Civics Classes, Religious Education or even Moral Classes!
Yet science does not want the moral laws taught to our young people.
Nobody objects to teaching young people moral laws. What taxpayers object to is public schools teaching that Protestants are the only ones who know what those laws are and everyone else is an idiot, which is what the fundies would like.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.