Does science make us better people?

[glo]

I have to start by admitting that I am not a particularly scientifically minded person.
That is not to say that I don't appreciate the benefits of many scientific advances - I just don't have a great interest in science on the whole ...
My husband, on the other hand, loves all things scientific!

Now, we were watching a Horizon programme on the concept on time. By the time the programme was explaining the umteenth dimension and parallel universes my eyes were glazing over, and all I could hear was yadda-yadda-yadda ... whereas my husband was on the edge of his seat with interest ...!
(Well, I exaggerate slightly for emphasis - but you get the idea ... :D)

In the end - in my frustration - I said "None of this scientific knowledge makes us better people!"
(For the sake of this thread I define 'better' as 'more humane' and 'of greater moral understanding', meaning attributes such as kindness, compassion, love, care for each other etc, etc.)

I guess behind that statement of mine lies my personal belief that advancing such humane attributes (let's call them moral values) is of greater importance than advancing in scientific knowledge.
Or - at the very least - that growth of scientific knowledge needs to be balanced by an equal growth in moral understanding.

This leaves me with two questions for this thread:

1. Can scientific knowledge help us become 'better human beings'?
   and
2. Is it true that moral growth is more important than growing in scientific knowledge?

Looking forward to a peaceful discussion,

[Musaafirah]

I dunno. I guess Scientific understanding has its advantages and the many advances made, the methods of understanding diseases have improved to such an extent that therapy can be developed to target them and if not, people still carry on trying right?
Whether it makes us a better person? I'm not sure.
As with all scenarios and all walks of life, you'll find people that are so overzealous in their work they try to overcome ethical boundaries to extend their research or whatnot, saying it's in the name of 'science'.
Sometimes it can allow for someone to become more appreciative of life and in other cases it can probably cause people to disregard matters that are important.
At the end of the day, I don't know, I guess it's the type of person you are to begin with and whether or not you can grow morally and scientifically.
If I've misunderstood what you've said, please forgive me and I'll delete this post.

[Tornado]

This leaves me with two questions for this thread:

1. Can scientific knowledge help us become 'better human beings'?
   and
2. Is it true that moral growth is more important than growing in scientific knowledge?

1. Assuming "better human being" refers to our action towards others. I don't think scientific knowledge makes us any better. Science helps us solve problem but it is just an interest like anything else (sports, dancing, etc)

2. What do you mean by moral growth?

[AntiKarateKid]

Answer:

Science, when it is being used as a way to improve our lives and appreciate the nuances of our existence is awesome (cough Quranic miracles cough:D).

Science when it is being sold as some affront to God, atheist propaganda, or reductionist philosophy crud must be destroyed. :)

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[alcurad]

not all of it, certainly not imaginary 11 dimensions etc, but science does at least indirectly make us more humane, think about it, without the products of science, technology etc we would still be in the neolithic age come morals. science makes us 'smarter', so perhaps morals depend on science to begin with-in our day and age atleast.

[AntiKarateKid]

not all of it, certainly not imaginary 11 dimensions etc, but science does at least indirectly make us more humane, think about it, without the products of science, technology etc we would still be in the neolithic age come morals.

How exactly did science give morals?

[alcurad]

simply put, morals-conceptually at the minimum-advanced alongside science.

[AntiKarateKid]

simply put, morals-conceptually at the minimum-advanced alongside science.

I disagree brother. People like Moses didnt bring any new scientific methods with him yet he advanced the morality of the Israelites.

[Tornado]

simply put, morals-conceptually at the minimum-advanced alongside science.

I don't know about that. I would say even before science, morals may not have been that different.

[alcurad]

I disagree brother. People like Moses didnt bring any new scientific methods with him yet he advanced the morality of the Israelites.

now that's a very narrow way of seeing it brother.. see I wasn't arguing that morals can't be advanced without science or it's by products to be exact.

[alcurad]

I don't know about that. I would say even before science, morals may not have been that different.

science changes the way we precieve the world and our selves, thus our morals.

[Tornado]

science changes the way we precieve the world and our selves, thus our morals.

I'm trying to but can't think of an example.

[alcurad]

it takes time..:)

[glo]

1. Assuming "better human being" refers to our action towards others. I don't think scientific knowledge makes us any better. Science helps us solve problem but it is just an interest like anything else (sports, dancing, etc)

2. What do you mean by moral growth?

Thanks for your reply, Tornado.

By moral growth I mean 'growing morally' or 'becoming better people' as defined in my OP:
"(For the sake of this thread I define 'better' as 'more humane' and 'of greater moral understanding', meaning attributes such as kindness, compassion, love, care for each other etc, etc.)"


Not being a philosopher either, perhaps I am not using the correct terminology, so for the sake of this thread we may have to go with the terminology as defined by myself ... :-[

[glo]

Thank you for your contributions.
This is an interesting conversation. :)

As for morals developing together with scientific knowledge, I cannot speak for the times of the old prophets. But certainly in our modern times there are ethics committes attached to many sciences, whose job it is to debate and define the moral use of those new technologies.
According to that I would agree with alcurad: as our scientific understanding changes, perhaps so do our moral values ...

[Muezzin]

This leaves me with two questions for this thread:

1. Can scientific knowledge help us become 'better human beings'?

(For the sake of this thread I define 'better' as 'more humane' and 'of greater moral understanding', meaning attributes such as kindness, compassion, love, care for each other etc, etc.)

The obvious answer to that question is the field of Medicine.

and[*]Is it true that moral growth is more important than growing in scientific knowledge?[/LIST]

Looking forward to a peaceful discussion,

I'd say they're both equally important, and inform one another. Now, some people may be more 'scientifically-minded' than others, but to me, that isn't to say that morality is above science or vice versa in the Grand Scale of Everything.

People just understand and learn things differently.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Improving humane understanding may or may not be a by-product of science, but it has little to do with science's main objective: improving human understanding.

[Do you see what I did there? :statisfie Sorry.]

I think we invent and update our morality. Netiquette (even though it's a hideous word) obviously wouldn't exist without the invention of the internet, but I don't think anyone sees netiquette as a scientific invention - it's just an adaptation of the morality people use all the time, and have always used.

Science is about the pursuit of knowledge. If such knowledge causes people to behave in good ways, then that's a bonus, a happy coincidence. Science can tell you how to do heart surgery or how to make an atomic bomb; knowledge is available that can lead to good or to evil. Which way we go is up to us, not up to science.

Peace

[Tornado]

The obvious answer to that question is the field of Medicine.

I think she's talking about better humans morally. With or without medicine, I think we'd have similar morals. Science and morality are connected. If you want to help someone whos suffering, you can look to science as one source of help.
I'd place moral growth above scientific knowledge.

[glo]

Science is about the pursuit of knowledge. If such knowledge causes people to behave in good ways, then that's a bonus, a happy coincidence. Science can tell you how to do heart surgery or how to make an atomic bomb; knowledge is available that can lead to good or to evil. Which way we go is up to us, not up to science.

That's pretty much how I have always viewed science - fairly cold and detached, seeking knowledge without necessarily considering it good or bad ...
(Although, as I mentioned before, there are ethics committees who try to ensure that scientific advances are used for the greater good of mankind. Are those committees outside the actual scientific arena?)

On a personal not, czg, how do you rate the importance of science vs morals?

Interestingly I posted the very same OP in another forum.
One of the replies I got was that is may actually be our may be our "moral responsibility to develop an understanding of science - or whatever else might enable us to make life better for other people"

Interesting view - and one I have never considered.
Any thoughts?

Peace

[glo]

Improving humane understanding may or may not be a by-product of science, but it has little to do with science's main objective: improving human understanding.

[Do you see what I did there? :statisfie Sorry.]

Now you are sounding like an English teacher!! :D

[alcurad]

in a nut-nutshell: morals are modes of behavior, they increase in complexity as society becomes more complex, which is driven to an extent by science. even though the need for morals precedes science.
more complex/advanced morals means their growth.

[glo]

how could there be bad scientific knowledge though? it's how you use it.

You are right. I think that's what I mean ...

Are (some) scientists merely concerned with the gaining of scientific knowledge, without giving thought to whether this knowledge is likely to be used for good or bad?

[Tornado]

how could there be bad scientific knowledge though? it's how you use it.

Kind of agree. There are bad ways to acquire scientific knowledge.
I think we know the around which the human body freezes or dies. That was when scientific knowledge > morality.

[Wilma_Hum]

I don't see how Scientific Knowledge can have any impact on kindness, compassion, love, care for each other.

Am I missing something?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

That's pretty much how I have always viewed science - fairly cold and detached, seeking knowledge without necessarily considering it good or bad ...
(Although, as I mentioned before, there are ethics committees who try to ensure that scientific advances are used for the greater good of mankind. Are those committees outside the actual scientific arena?)

I suppose you could see them as being part of the scientific enterprise. We have to hope that such groups are effective, because dangerous knowledge does have a tendency to get into the wrong hands.

On a personal note, czg, how do you rate the importance of science vs morals?

I think the pursuit of knowledge and trying to behave morally are both important parts of our nature. They are largely responsible for our survival thus far, and I'm not sure whether I could rank either of them higher than the other.

If you asked me a hypothetical question like: "If you knew you would be given the cure for cancer, but only after you killed a hundred people, what would you do?" I would have to think about that for quite a while.

Interestingly I posted the very same OP in another forum.
One of the replies I got was that is may actually be our may be our "moral responsibility to develop an understanding of science - or whatever else might enable us to make life better for other people"

Interesting view - and one I have never considered.
Any thoughts?

With the proviso that says "as long as we can afford scientific education", I would agree. We could never say that a person in starving poverty was blameworthy if they had no access to scientific education, for instance.

Peace

[glo]

With the proviso that says "as long as we can afford scientific education", I would agree. We could never say that a person in starving poverty was blameworthy if they had no access to scientific education, for instance.
Peace

I had assumed that the person making the statement that we have "a moral responsibility to develop an understanding of science" meant 'within the limitation of our own ability' - be that financial, intellectual or whatever.

Anyway, I like the way this thread is developing.

To save myself all that hard thinking I think I will pull up a chair, grab my knitting and enjoy the ride. :D

[Muezzin]

I don't see how Scientific Knowledge can have any impact on kindness, compassion, love, care for each other.

Using humans as guinea pigs without their knowledge is one instance of overlap.

But maybe that's medical ethics as opposed to morality.

Tomayto, tomahto.

[Wilma_Hum]

Using humans as guinea pigs without their knowledge is one instance of overlap.

But maybe that's medical ethics as opposed to morality.

Tomayto, tomahto.

I don't see much of a gap between ethics and morals.

If I use "humans as guinea pigs", I have an ethic or moral problem, not science.

[Muezzin]

I don't see much of a gap between ethics and morals.

If I use "humans as guinea pigs", I have an ethic or moral problem, not science.

What if not testing in those conditions would hamper scientific advance?

That sort of bizarre mad-scientist mentality tied into the concept of sacrifices being made for the greater good.

[Wilma_Hum]

What if not testing in those conditions would hamper scientific advance?

That sort of bizarre mad-scientist mentality tied into the concept of sacrifices being made for the greater good.

But that isn't the question is it? The question, as I see it is "Does science make us better (more moral) people?"
But to answer the question, "The end does not justify the means".

[Whatsthepoint]

It can, through technology and economic progress which in turn brings social changes, some considered postivie, some negative.
Technology also gives us plenty of free time to ponder about who we are.

[Muezzin]

It can, through technology and economic progress which in turn brings social changes, some considered postivie, some negative.
Technology also gives us plenty of free time to ponder about who we are.

To ponder and express who we are. To see where we're going and to ensure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

Well, that's the idea at least...

[Danah]

This leaves me with two questions for this thread:

1. Can scientific knowledge help us become 'better human beings'?
   and
2. Is it true that moral growth is more important than growing in scientific knowledge?

Looking forward to a peaceful discussion,

well I dont think that we can get a specific answer whether yes or no for such question

the continuous improving in science and how well the science can be merged with technology to become really helpful in medicine treatment and save many people lives.
Who was expecting that human will be able to transplant a heart from one body to another?...that was something impossible even to think about, but with the improving science, this become something possible.


but at the same time, it make the people more greedy specially in some places in the world where there are many forbidden experiments are worked on, and most of them are against morals.
I think some people are using the science as tools for their own good to get the financial benefit from it like selling and buying human organs.

so science is a double edged sword....this is my point

[glo]

so science is a double edged sword....this is my point

SAYA's post is making me ponder ...

Much as humans strive to learn more and understand more (apart from you guys who are still at school - haha! :giggling:), and much as we may think of scientific advances as advantageous ... might there be knowledge which we may be better off never gaining? Or knowledge we are perhaps not meant to have??

Any thoughts?

[AntiKarateKid]

What would the Prophet say?

The Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) explicitly encouraged scientific knowledge in these words, “Listen to the words of the learned and instill into others the lessons of science, for it is better than religious exercises”. In another tradition the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) stressed the search for knowledge. He says, “Don’t simply be narrator of knowledge, examine, verify and put to test all that you are told, that will help you to find the ultimate truth.” In order to avoid conflict between science and religion the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) provided the best guideline in this tradition, “Reflect on the creation of Allah and do not reflect in Allah.”


Science helps us better appreciate God and his awesomeness. Its pretty cool to know the structure of the human eye, eagle eye, bug eye.

As long as it isnt panned in an atheistic reductionist manner, science and religion are good for the soul.

[AntiKarateKid]

SAYA's post is making me ponder ...

Much as humans strive to learn more and understand more (apart from you guys who are still at school - haha! :giggling:), and much as we may think of scientific advances as advantageous ... might there be knowledge which we may be better off never gaining? Or knowledge we are perhaps not meant to have??

Any thoughts?

Why? I could use the knowlege I know about the sun to better disprove people who belive in a sun god.

Science is merely examination of God's creation.


WHen science changes from the means to the end, to the end itself, then there is a problem.

[Woodrow]

I think the problem lies in that as humans we attempt to apply the knowledge we have to all aspects of what we do not know.

In other words we seem to intermingle:

Science
Religion
Philosophy
Sociology

We apply the terminology of the one we are most comfortable with to the other 3.

In it's simplist understanding science is just a tool of measurement. It has no more bearing upon morality and ethics than a yard stick has.

[Danah]

SAYA's post is making me ponder ...

Much as humans strive to learn more and understand more (apart from you guys who are still at school - haha! :giggling:), and much as we may think of scientific advances as advantageous ... might there be knowledge which we may be better off never gaining? Or knowledge we are perhaps not meant to have??

Any thoughts?

exactly, this is what I meant by working in many forbidden experiments behind the morals organization back, some of those dangerous experiments can wiped the life from the surface of the earth. Some are playing with the human life and changing many things that allah has grant us with. They cant do it at the end but they scarify many human lives by just try to play with Allah creation

What would the Prophet say?

Science helps us better appreciate God and his awesomeness. Its pretty cool to know the structure of the human eye, eagle eye, bug eye.

As long as it isnt panned in an atheistic reductionist manner, science and religion are good for the soul.

and this is the good side of the science, knowing more help us to strengthen our belief, especially when we look at the scientific facts that are already mentioned in the Quran

[KAding]

Good question glo!

At first glance, I would be tempted to answer 'no': that science does not in itself help us become more moral persons. Knowledge can be used to do both good and evil. In the end, however, if you believe that humans are inherently more likely to be good, then the answer would be that overall science is likely to help us to become better human beings, simply because it provides us with the knowledge we need to make difficult choices that may have moral implications. If, on the other hand, you believe humans will only abuse this knowledge for personal gain and selfish reasons, then IMHO it would rather have a negative impact on our morality.

I overall have a fairly positive view of humans, so I'm leaning towards the former. This is not based on data though, it is simply my belief. Unfortunately, all positive examples I can think of also have darker sides. Take animal rights: IMHO better insight into animal behavior, psychology and biology have led to an increasingly strong animal rights movement, simply because of an increased understanding that animals aren't necessarily in a different class from us. On the other hand, advances in science and technology have led to increasingly inhumane forms of industrial farming. It's almost as if at an individual level we use this scientific knowledge to be better humans, but at an institutional level we also fail to weed out morally dubious options that science provides us.

So overall, I would say that science itself does not make our society as a whole more moral. However, a side effect of science, namely increasing wealth and prosperity, does put us in the luxurious position of being able to make moral choices more easily. IMHO the richer we get, the more likely we are to do what is right, such as care for the poor, protect those who need protection and preserve our environment for future generations.

[Muezzin]

IMHO the richer we get, the more likely we are to do what is right, such as care for the poor, protect those who need protection and preserve our environment for future generations.

I see where you're coming from, but I can't really agree on this point - the richer certain people get, the greedier and more miserly they become.

[alcurad]

on the other hand, the richer can become religious more easily than the poor. the poor are overwhelmed by the need to survive, which makes many 'morals' meaningless.
about the environment and animal life generally, as I see it we preserve them so we can use them, not out of any 'feelings' provoked by morals. now yes, cruelty is not allowed, but conserving the environment is done not out of love for it.
the moment we can forgo the environment we will probably do so.

“Do you not see that God has made what is in the heavens and what is in the earth subservient to you, and made complete to you His favors outwardly and inwardly?” (Luqman: 20).