I agree that evidence dispels not willful ignorance! But, without trying to be pedantic, beliefs are not opinions. Opinions are like “I prefer vanilla to chocolate”, not “the universe has/does not have a Creator”. The first is a matter of preference (reality remains unaffected), the second is a matter of reality.
The word you chose was “ideology,” which is effectively opinion. My point was that it is wrong to falsely equate religious beliefs with beliefs that are scientifically derived. The scientific process can also arrive at wrong conclusions, but unlike baseless claims/ideologies, the scientific process includes the ability to update beliefs as we gain more evidence and refine our knowledge. And its results are reproducible, which makes it more difficult for bad actors to sneak in falsehoods.
Science and ideology are in completely different fields (with exceptions found in social and humanistic sciences sometimes [always? 🤔]), the former dealing with the state of the world as we can sense it and the other with everything outside of it (ideology has directionality, ofc), and opinions are in a different category altogether. If we can both see X for what it is, X, but we have different emotions regarding it, it’s an opinion. Science complements and informs belief/ideology, but you still have to believe/stand for something, right? Where do you think your morals come from? Science? How can we derive oughts from what is? Read some Hume and come back when you understand what you don’t understand. 👍
Read some Hume and come back when you understand what you don’t understand. 👍
Wow, a philbro in the wild.
Science complements and informs belief/ideology, but you still have to believe/stand for something, right?
No, you don’t have to. I do, because I have functioning senses and a brain capable of applying reason.
Where do you think your morals come from? Science?
Correct. Biology and evolution gave us our minds. Science is a process we use to gather and refine knowledge. We know that vaccines are safe and effective. Those who can get them should, or others may suffer and die for their selfish choices. A selfish society is unsustainable.
How can we derive oughts from what is?
Pretty simply: we are living beings. We evolved and are still evolving our morals. Because we are the way we are (your “is”), we ought to reduce needless suffering.
Morals came from our social nature as an evolutionary adaptation. And our sense of ethics and morals actually predate our humanity.
Specifically, they came from our ability to empathize with the people around us.
Where do you think your morals come from? Science?
That’s an absurd question. Science isn’t a creative force. It’s a process by which we learn about the world around us; by making observations, forming an explanation for those observations, and testing those explanations.
While I’d agree that those two things are fundamentally different, without a clear indication of which version is reality, you deciding to believe one over the other is just your preference between the two possibilities.
I agree that evidence dispels not willful ignorance! But, without trying to be pedantic, beliefs are not opinions. Opinions are like “I prefer vanilla to chocolate”, not “the universe has/does not have a Creator”. The first is a matter of preference (reality remains unaffected), the second is a matter of reality.
The word you chose was “ideology,” which is effectively opinion. My point was that it is wrong to falsely equate religious beliefs with beliefs that are scientifically derived. The scientific process can also arrive at wrong conclusions, but unlike baseless claims/ideologies, the scientific process includes the ability to update beliefs as we gain more evidence and refine our knowledge. And its results are reproducible, which makes it more difficult for bad actors to sneak in falsehoods.
Science and ideology are in completely different fields (with exceptions found in social and humanistic sciences sometimes [always? 🤔]), the former dealing with the state of the world as we can sense it and the other with everything outside of it (ideology has directionality, ofc), and opinions are in a different category altogether. If we can both see X for what it is, X, but we have different emotions regarding it, it’s an opinion. Science complements and informs belief/ideology, but you still have to believe/stand for something, right? Where do you think your morals come from? Science? How can we derive oughts from what is? Read some Hume and come back when you understand what you don’t understand. 👍
Wow, a philbro in the wild.
No, you don’t have to. I do, because I have functioning senses and a brain capable of applying reason.
Correct. Biology and evolution gave us our minds. Science is a process we use to gather and refine knowledge. We know that vaccines are safe and effective. Those who can get them should, or others may suffer and die for their selfish choices. A selfish society is unsustainable.
Pretty simply: we are living beings. We evolved and are still evolving our morals. Because we are the way we are (your “is”), we ought to reduce needless suffering.
Magic isn’t real. Please grow up.
Morals came from our social nature as an evolutionary adaptation. And our sense of ethics and morals actually predate our humanity.
Specifically, they came from our ability to empathize with the people around us.
That’s an absurd question. Science isn’t a creative force. It’s a process by which we learn about the world around us; by making observations, forming an explanation for those observations, and testing those explanations.
While I’d agree that those two things are fundamentally different, without a clear indication of which version is reality, you deciding to believe one over the other is just your preference between the two possibilities.