Name one question that religion can answer

[Chumblywumbly]

Destabilising the social group is bad because it endangers the individual. And one of the most important things for each individual is its own survival for as long as possible. We're just programmed that way.

The bolded is outside the remit of science, I believe.

[Braindania]

trying to give people some sort of morals and a motivation to care for others and being less selfish.

Except for LaVey.

OK. Him and tons of other sect founders who try to define themselves as religion for whetever reason.
I think if you talk about religion as such you can stick to the classic religions.

Or you can generalise the statement a bit more by just saying religion is trying to give people some sort of morals and motivation. That comes more back to the definition of religion itself rather than to the conflice between religion and science.

[Blouman Empire]

Er, no, not quite.
However, we can use the scientific method to explain what bahaviour is good and what is bad, and why.

How exactly does the scientific method explain if murder is good or bad and why?

It de-stabilises the social group. Everything endangering the group is regarded as bad, or at least dubious (as in the case of a rebellious youth, for example).

Que? Is that not what the group thinks? The scientific method didn't state this.

[Hydesland]

Destabilising the social group is bad because it endangers the individual. And one of the most important things for each individual is its own survival for as long as possible. We're just programmed that way.

The bolded is outside the remit of science, I believe.

Also is/ought fallacy, and I don't believe you're allowed to make scientific hypothesis which are also fallacies.

[Allanea]

I think if you talk about religion as such you can stick to the classic religions.

But I don't want to. THe definition of a religion is much wider than that.

In general, a religion is a set of beliefs about the universe, morality, and life, based on irrational premises. The irrational mind is part of our brain and our biology as our rational mind. It's not an 'inferior' sort of mind. The two complement each other.

[Cabra West]

As I said, being able to distinguish between good and bad behaviour is inate to many animals, mostly higher mammals living in social groups.

And yet people have huge disagreements on what is good and evil.

True, but that's usually down to our different understandings on what can constitute danger and what can destabilise our social group.
And please stop assuming I said science can tell you exactly what's morally good and what's evil. I think I claimed that it can explain why we consider things good or bad, that's all. It can explain the concept of good behaviour vs. bad behaviour.

[Cabra West]

Destabilising the social group is bad because it endangers the individual. And one of the most important things for each individual is its own survival for as long as possible. We're just programmed that way.

The bolded is outside the remit of science, I believe.

How is the motivation of the individual outside behavioural biology???

[Hydesland]

As I said, being able to distinguish between good and bad behaviour is inate to many animals, mostly higher mammals living in social groups.
That doesn't mean the individual has no choice on whether to behave good or bad. It just means the individual is generally aware of the moral value of its actions, and in many cases of the possible dangers.

That's being pretty unscientific, just because you are aware of your biological instincts, does not mean you are aware of actual 'moral values' or that 'moral values' even exist at all. Regardless, using your conscience to distinguish between good and bad is being as unscientific as it gets.

[Braindania]

I think if you talk about religion as such you can stick to the classic religions.

But I don't want to. THe definition of a religion is much wider than that.

And we don't need to. Because for the discussion what questions can be answered by science and what can be answered by religion, you don't need to define religion itself. It is enough to take the general approach the main religions go. Otherwise you might start seeing science itself as a religion (and yes, some people said that already), where your god is logic. But that all leads too far.

[Hydesland]

Destabilising the social group is bad because it endangers the individual. And one of the most important things for each individual is its own survival for as long as possible. We're just programmed that way.

The bolded is outside the remit of science, I believe.

How is the motivation of the individual outside behavioural biology???

Then you've merely described why one person MIGHT think an action is bad, that doesn't actually you know, tell us why any action contains the property of 'badness'.

[Cabra West]

As I said, being able to distinguish between good and bad behaviour is inate to many animals, mostly higher mammals living in social groups.
That doesn't mean the individual has no choice on whether to behave good or bad. It just means the individual is generally aware of the moral value of its actions, and in many cases of the possible dangers.

That's being pretty unscientific, just because you are aware of your biological instincts, does not mean you are aware of actual 'moral values' or that 'moral values' even exist at all. Regardless, using your conscience to distinguish between good and bad is being as unscientific as it gets.

I can go and look up those experiment with Capucin monkeys that showed them having "moral standards", but it'll have to wait, I can't do that from work

[Allanea]

Then you've merely described why one person MIGHT think an action is bad, that doesn't actually you know, tell us why any action contains the property of 'badness'.

Thank you, Hydesland. I was about to say that.

I may think murder is bad because it endangers me, or because I have an Oedipus complex, but this doesn't answer whether murder actually is bad. Only by choosing some form of moral axioms can w have a moral system, sadly.

[Cabra West]

Then you've merely described why one person MIGHT think an action is bad, that doesn't actually you know, tell us why any action contains the property of 'badness'.

I never claimed science could do that, and I'm not going to try and argue that.

[Rejistania]

What do you mean by 'inter-human relationships'?

Human interaction, human relationships, the basis of human society.

I wouldn't agree; I don't think we can point to the scientific method for guidance on correct action in human relationships.

(If that's what you're meaning.)

Why not? I am sure even today there are ways to simulate human behavior and find the pareto-optimum.

At least science has managed to reconstruct things up to that point.
Religion answers this existential question in more hilarious way, I admit.

"Why do we exist?"
"Because God made us."
"Then why does God exist?"

Isn't it remarkable that the religious people have never thought any further than that? Or have they? Are there systems with recursive deities? Like, Uber-God created God, UberUberGod created UberGod, and so on? If they use that technique, they can keep answering for all eternity, yet never reach an answer. Wonderful, isn't it?

I found an explanation for this when sleep-deprived: at one point in the past: WE create the UberUberGod to form a stable time loop.

[Hydesland]

As I said, being able to distinguish between good and bad behaviour is inate to many animals, mostly higher mammals living in social groups.
That doesn't mean the individual has no choice on whether to behave good or bad. It just means the individual is generally aware of the moral value of its actions, and in many cases of the possible dangers.

That's being pretty unscientific, just because you are aware of your biological instincts, does not mean you are aware of actual 'moral values' or that 'moral values' even exist at all. Regardless, using your conscience to distinguish between good and bad is being as unscientific as it gets.

I can go and look up those experiment with Capucin monkeys that showed them having "moral standards", but it'll have to wait, I can't do that from work

Again, you're assuming that a biological instinct reflects an actual moral standard that actually exists, no amount of scientific analysis will be able to prove the existence of moral standards, as they are not physical objects.

[Hydesland]

Then you've merely described why one person MIGHT think an action is bad, that doesn't actually you know, tell us why any action contains the property of 'badness'.

I never claimed science could do that, and I'm not going to try and argue that.

You said science can give a satisfactory answer to "what is good?" in a reply to Chumbly.

[Allanea]

Why not? I am sure even today there are ways to simulate human behavior and find the pareto-optimum.

The pareto optimum is something that, by definition, cannot exist.

[Chumblywumbly]

And please stop assuming I said science can tell you exactly what's morally good and what's evil.

I thought you were. but no matter.

I think I claimed that it can explain why we consider things good or bad, that's all.

I'd say it can explain why we have the capacity for conceiving of good and bad.

How is the motivation of the individual outside behavioural biology?

Perhaps I've misread you.

I took you to be saying that the most important thing - the thing that is good - is individual survival, but on second reading I see you might be saying that the most important consideration - that thing that is forefront in the individual's motivations - is individual survival.

---

Why not? I am sure even today there are ways to simulate human behavior and find the pareto-optimum.

You've still got to define those things that are 'good' and 'bad', those things that we would not wish to change for fear of harming (and what is 'harm'?) others.

[Rejistania]

Again, you're assuming that a biological instinct reflects an actual moral standard that actually exists, no amount of scientific analysis will be able to prove the existence of moral standards, as they are not physical objects.

Of course the do not physically exist. But so does the Fibonacci series.

They are a gametheoretical description of evolved behavior.

[Braindania]

As I said, being able to distinguish between good and bad behaviour is inate to many animals, mostly higher mammals living in social groups.
That doesn't mean the individual has no choice on whether to behave good or bad. It just means the individual is generally aware of the moral value of its actions, and in many cases of the possible dangers.

That's being pretty unscientific, just because you are aware of your biological instincts, does not mean you are aware of actual 'moral values' or that 'moral values' even exist at all. Regardless, using your conscience to distinguish between good and bad is being as unscientific as it gets.

I would say it is a fact that moral values as such do exist. There are some general morale values across all religions, but the rules of moral values is not a list of "this is good and this is bad". Religion tries to put up such a list, different religions write different lists. Also governments try that and call it law.
Science does not do that and does not try to it. It just explains why things are the way they are.

Unfortunately religion always tried to replace science and to fight science in order to gain influence on the people.

I think the way out is not to compare religion with science and try do say why this and that is better, that leads to the same conflice religions have between each other.

Religions should stop to claim that they can explain things science can't explain (yet!). One day they might find out that science can explain more and more things, nobody will ever know what science will be able to explain 100 years from now.
They should stick to what religion is there for.
Religion gives people moral values, traditions and social coherence.
Science gives people explanations.

[Allanea]

Unfortunately religion always tried to replace science and to fight science in order to gain influence on the people.

This is not actually true.

[Hydesland]

Of course the do not physically exist. But so does the Fibonacci series.

Whether numbers exist is a highly complex question tackled by the likes of Bertrand Russell, I think that's an excellent example of a philosophical question. However, the fibonacci series has been completely defined, exactly.

They are a gametheoretical description of evolved behavior.

No they are not. A moral statement, is a statement regarding how someone should behave. Game theory predicts and offers explanations regarding how people WILL tend to behave. It will not explain how someone SHOULD behave, categorically.

[Chumblywumbly]

Game theory predicts and offers incredibly poor explanations regarding how people WILL tend to behave.

Fixed.

[Allanea]

Let me give you an example of science being useless.

Science tells us that if people didn't get smacked in the head hard, they'd live healthier, longer lives. Yet...

[Hydesland]

I would say it is a fact that moral values as such do exist.

Objectively, universally? Independent of the subjective opinions of humans? Do you have proof?