CreateDebate


Debate Info

107
79
Yes, of course. No way.
Debate Score:186
Arguments:164
Total Votes:220
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, of course. (87)
 
 No way. (52)

Debate Creator

Mint_tea(3566) pic



Can Science and Morality co-exist?

There hasn't always been a divide between science and morality or science and religion.  But now it can be hard to tell how far science should go in finding answers.  Can there be a co-existence between the two?  Especially when personal belief may make a person lean towards believing morality should draw a line in how far a scientist should go for scientific study?

Yes, of course.

Side Score: 107
VS.

No way.

Side Score: 79

Science and morality can co-exist, but science doesn't need to explain morality. This question isn't asking if science can say what is and isn't moral, but if these two things can co-exist.

Side: Yes, of course.
AristotleSta(11) Clarified
1 point

I would argue that science can very much explain morality, and thus part is wrong. But, science does not decide what is moral and not moral. Morality is a subjective retaliative choice over what behaviors are considered better, worse, and to what degree they are better or worse, and as groups of more than one individual decide this, it becomes a social agreement within a group over this. Because of this, science can explain it, but the decision making is subjective and relative to those making the decisions. What science can help with is to provide as objective as possible arguments towards choosing one moral over another, which does not dictate the outcome of the decision, but can influence it in positive manners.

Side: Yes, of course.
3 points

Yes of course morality and science are two independent fields which do not overlap at all hence both can coexist.

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(17) Disputed
1 point

Is it moral for me to use your mother as a test subject for a trial rape?

Is it moral for that scientific experiment?

Side: No way.
1 point

It doesn't matter if certain experiments are moral or not, it only matters if the concept of morality (which is religious) and the concept of science can co-exist.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

I fully agree with your assessment.*

Side: No way.
Mint_tea(3566) Clarified
1 point

What in the world are you doing, bronto? You ok?

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

if you just shake the chemicals enough ... sooner or later you'll get the "morality" you so desire ..... lol

Side: Yes, of course.
Quantumhead(733) Disputed
3 points

if you just shake the chemicals enough ... sooner or later you'll get the "morality" you so desire ..... lol

No you won't. Scientists have been shaking chemicals for decades and have never animated anything. Life is no more a random bunch of chemicals than it is the creation of a bearded wizard in the sky. Evolution tells us absolutely nothing about how life originated or where it came from.

Side: No way.
dadman(1471) Clarified
2 points

........................... I agree about the chemicals .... the beard ?? < God is not a man

Side: Yes, of course.
Ravenspirit(7) Disputed
1 point

Depends, but this is generally true. Scientist have animated things from shaking chemicals..... remember your 9th grade biology class?

Side: Yes, of course.
Atrag(5434) Disputed
1 point

You're an idiot..... lol.

Side: No way.
ldiot(17) Disputed
1 point

What if he is not an idiot? HOW YOU CAN KNOW WHO THAT IS THE GENIUS? what if you are the idiot and your dumbo dumb dumb brain think he the idiot instead of the true him the genius?

Side: Yes, of course.
LGBTelitist(4) Disputed
1 point

You'll be dead in a few years. Laugh it up.

Side: Yes, of course.

I do not believe morality exists in any objective sense. I believe that biological altruism exists in various degrees and in various interpretations among biological creatures.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument here, but it appears as though you might be suggesting that morality is a by-product of religion. If so, then that really isn't the case. There are just as many things in the Bible that I find morally wrong as there are that I find morally righteous. I mean, "Thou shalt not let a sorceress live"? C'mon.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(3566) Clarified
1 point

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument here, but it appears as though you might be suggesting that morality is a by-product of religion.

I've actually argued against morality being a sole byproduct of religion but religion was added in here as a recognition that some people believe the two are the same. I believe it may have broadened the scope.

Side: Yes, of course.
Quantumhead(733) Clarified
2 points

but religion was added in here as a recognition that some people believe the two are the same.

No problem. Those people are dead wrong.

Side: Yes, of course.
dadman(1471) Disputed
1 point

I do not believe morality exists in any objective sense ... well then good .... I'm looking fwd to raping your children :)

Side: No way.
OneNot(5) Disputed
1 point

I believe he meant that morality is subjective.

Most would agree that raping children is bad.

What about something like abortion?

Many people would argue it's immoral, but about as many would dispute that.

Side: Yes, of course.
Silvarian(8) Disputed
1 point

Killing innocent people and stealing isn't right. Do you object to that?

Side: No way.
ldiot(17) Disputed
1 point

Yes, I object to it! Why is it not right to kill them before you steal? Would you like them to fight back and protect their property from your theft? This seems the wrong way to do it!

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Yes , what would you personally draw the line at at ?

In the past the discipline of anatomy was deemed by many as immoral in most societies ,but the study was necessary was it not ?

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(3566) Clarified
1 point

I think any line that I personally draw would be a case by case basis. There have been instance where the quest for knowledge has tiptoed across the lines of what I consider morality, such as grave robbers digging up recently deceased whose corpses where then sold for scientific study. In many cases the person conducting their experiments knew or at least turned a blind eye to where the corpse came from.

In this instance it goes very much against the family of the departed and their wishes. Again though, it would be a case by case basis.

Side: Yes, of course.
Quantumhead(733) Disputed
1 point

In the past the discipline of anatomy was deemed by many as immoral in most societies ,but the study was necessary was it not ?

Dermot, are you saying we should just let you get away with sexually abusing kids because it's "necessary"? That's nauseating.

Side: No way.
1 point

Quantum, when have you not been abusing and fondling kids?

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Hmmm. I might be dodging the question a little, but from some people's perspectives it is morally right to do things to advance science (and human knowledge) that may not seem very nice. I'm not going to go so far as Nazi human experimentation or something, don't worry, but some might argue that the reason for our existence is to advance our knowledge, though people will disagree about what acceptable costs are. If I had to choose between either saving someone's life, or letting them die so that a great scientific discovery could be made, I might choose the latter. (Assume no positive side effects of the discovery for humans other than the new knowledge obtained) What would you choose Mint?

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(3566) Clarified
1 point

I think bringing Nazi's into it is quite interesting. But I can't make myself look into their experiments to see if at any point in time anything they did was "worth it".

If I had to choose between either saving someone's life, or letting them die so that a great scientific discovery could be made

I would save them, and use that knowledge to backtrack later or to save someone else who may be having the same issue. Let me ask you this, if it were your child or a loved on and they could be cured or left to die to advance a great scientific study, would you still choose the latter? Where would you draw the line in that? Please believe I'm not asking in any hateful way, I'm genuinely curious.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mack(535) Clarified
1 point

"I think bringing Nazi's into it is quite interesting. But I can't make myself look into their experiments to see if at any point in time anything they did was "worth it."

Of course I agree (although I haven't really done any research into it), It was just an example of how far people can go. I'm sure that some Nazis thought it was worth it.

"I would save them, and use that knowledge to backtrack later or to save someone else who may be having the same issue."

Not quite sure what you mean about 'using that knowledge.' My question was kind of context-less, I'm not sure what the knowledge gained from saving them would be?

"Let me ask you this, if it were your child or a loved on and they could be cured or left to die to advance a great scientific study, would you still choose the latter?"

No I wouldn't, because it comes down to what I value most. I value my family over a scientific discovery, but I value a scientific discovery over some stranger's life. I'm not sure what my answer would be if the question were between erasing all scientific discoveries vs killing a family member.

"Please believe I'm not asking in any hateful way, I'm genuinely curious."

Of course. No questions should be off limits (not that yours could have been off limits).

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Hello M:

My morals have NOTHING to do with science.. However, people who get their morals from a book that is inconsistent with science have a dilemma to sort out..

excon

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Given that scientific research has ethical guidelines I'd say that "science", in the manner that we practice it, has morality built into it. One can dispute whether the guidelines properly serve morality but they do exist.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Given that scientific research has ethical guidelines I'd say that "science", in the manner that we practice it, has morality built into it.

So how do you explain psychopaths...

Side: No way.
1 point

Science must have morality so the facts presented can be verified as true. If science is void of morality, then the scientists cannot be trusted with the data they present or with their opinions about that data.

Usually, when people present science and morals as opposing forces, it's because they want to mutilate babies for research.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

In science you can coexist with morality. For example a pedophile who beats his kids to help deal with his hormonal urges to do sexual things with them is being very moral for scientific reasons.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

though its true that more often than not morality possesses itself as a hindrance to science but science itself is taken up for the betterment of human kind. how exactly are we helping humans by torturing humans unless we consider one life to be better than the other. when morality goes away from science, it pays way to ambitions that harm people, turning it into a viscious cycle. there has to be morality because there can always be another way to reach the desired conclusion.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science is a social undertaking and therefore is bound by society's determined morals. The scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion can not be completed without the morals that is the only way to determine the reliability of presented theories. Morality is a human feeling that can be explained by science. Just as logic and emotion co-exist, so can science and morality.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science is a social undertaking and therefore is bound by society's determined morals.

Pretty much true.

Side: No way.
1 point

Morality is science itself. The logic behind my statement is that morality comes with feelings which are the results of firing in neurons in your brain. So whenever you feel morally biased in any situation there is science behind it. In this case science and morality co-existed

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

If morality did not exist, then there would be no concept of what is good or evil. It would come down to what is beneficial to a person( or community) and what is not. Without the boundaries that morality imposes, arguments against evil things such as racism and genocide become harder to fight. From a purely scientific point, those ideas suddenly become more viable. Racism allows a population to protect itself from foreign pathogens and disease by secluding themselves from what they perceive as a threat. Genocide would allow for a community to guarantee that its genes survive. I understand that these evil actions still occur today, but because of morality, we are able to fight them and try to eliminate them from society.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Yes. Science explains questions about the universe, and morality is our perception of what is right and wrong. They can happily live side by side. Science and Religion is an entirely different matter....

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Why not? i mean first of all we have to go through the basic of this debate viz. "morality". the landscape of morality which we see, follow and on which we analyse today had been defined a long ago by theology. so we see everything from that point of view. let me ask some questions?

why don't we feel pain towards rocks while breaking them?

if we can reset the landscape of morality on the basis of science then i don't see why they cannot co-exist? does this mean couples will ask supercomputer to whether they want to have second child? then you didn't get it and that's not my fault.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Of course science and religion can co-exist. In fact religion can be the very reason one becomes a scientist and science has brought many to religion.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Of course science and morality can co-exist. They already do. Scientists are human beings too, influenced by the question of whether their work and research will lead to benefits for the rest of us. We can take the question and swap out 'science' for a number of categories - 'politics' 'religion', 'art', it all comes down to the people.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Thank you. I happen to agree.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

There hasn't always been a divide between science and morality or science and religion. But now it can be hard to tell how far science should go in finding answers. Can there be a co-existence between the two?

This really depends a lot on how expansive one takes the definition (and therefore enterprise) of Science to be. If you operate on a very expansive definition of Science then morality would necessarily become a scientific area of study such as in other areas of the Social Sciences. However, if you operate on a more "hard line/hard science" definition, then our Sciences are light-years away from being able to say anything about morality analogous to a principle of Chemistry (if it even proves feasible at all, that is).

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science has nothing to do with morality. Now, the application of scientific knowledge does. Science is simply the search for knowledge. How that knowledge is used is where morality comes into play.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science has nothing to do with morality

This depends on how you define science. Our science? God's science?

Side: No way.
1 point

Science is simply a way of rationalizing the world around us. Morality is acting acceptably and properly. They are completely unconnected. Scientists are generally moral. Look at Jonas Salk. He invented a cure for polio, a disease that ravaged children and left adults disabled worldwide. He decided not to patent his cure, so that the world could cure the disease without his patent interfering.

If that isn't moral, then I don't know what is.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

By very lexis definition, the Modern English term 'science' is a derivative of Old Latin's ‘sciēns,' which literally implies knowledge. Therefore, logic tells me the we learn about our true nature, the more sense we can make of morality in our Larger Scheme of Everything.

Stated in a simpler term, science entails demonstrable evidence, while moral values lack tangible substance but manifest in subtle details that are easily observable.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: No way.
1 point

If science and religion can co-exist, then yes, they science and morality can co-exits.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: No way.
1 point

I think science and morality is absolutely different area to each other and science and morality must co-exist. We have to hybrid this two fields even though it isn't.

Science is a powerful tool that can be killing weapon or can save countless lives. it depends on who is gonna use this tool.

For an example, Appropriate Technology now increase the standard of living for the developing world without condescension, complication, or environmental damage.

However, we all know many moral issues because of the development of science.

Making a rigid law for science based on human rights must take precedence so that we can prevent science to make problems.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: No way.

Science can tell us things but it cannot tell you how to get to those things, that is a job for our morals and ideals. Science continually updates our morals, but our ideals keep us from too much harm as science marches toward.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

That's an interesting statement. "Science continually updates our morals". I would agree with that, I could see how our morals are tested and "upgraded" as science pushes forward, but I also believe our morals would have to update our science as well. What can/shouldn't/could be done is dependent on which one comes first. Almost like a chicken and the egg thing. Thoughts?

Side: Yes, of course.

The thing about science is that you have to be constantly open to new ideas, even when you think you know everything, and the thing about morality is you have to constantly be open to new ideas because as society progresses, morality must evolve along with or risk being combatative with new ideas.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: No way.

In the right hands, yes....................................................................................

Side: Yes, of course.

Although there has been quite a debate till today about an "objective" morality of some sort, Science and morality can, in fact coexist.. While science tells you things the way they are, morality in my opinion, is objective in it's most agreeable statements, in other words, if someone would look into "morals" one can find that it all comes down to survival as a species.. we're genetically hardwired to survive, and we can draw comparisons to how groups in the wild behave and find out they too, have a certain innate sense of how to survive as a species. With all that said, while one can reach a point where you have two differing suggestions proposed by science and morality, you're the king and they're your ministers, choose to execute which best suits you.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: No way.
1 point

Eh?..............................................................................................................

Side: Yes, of course.

I think so. Saying otherwise is a false dichotomy.........................................................

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Of course they can co-exist.

Morality is something defined by the individual.

It is entirely up to the scientist to not let his search for knowledge override what he thinks is right.

That is not to say we should leave it up to a single individual to not break the ethics and laws agreed upon by society.

However that has little to do with whether or not the two can co-exist.

Now if the actual question is whether we should pursue science regardless of the consequences, then of course not.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Dupe

Side: No way.
1 point

Well, do they co-exist in the now? The question is simply can they which they do now you don't see a large scale conflict arising from it, in some cases religion ( which I will use as a standing point for morality ) has spoken of science in a way to support its claims and science tries to understand the other. They can co-exist now because they are two different things one is faith supported and more something naturally found within humanity while Science is the study of existing things, not opposites they both exist its just one is still being understood while the other is being followed and set. Somewhat.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Morality, weather in the context of religion or not, is rules defineing what is bad and what we should not do. Science, by the way of the scientific method, is how we find the truths of the univerce. So for one I don't see any contridections in the definitions, and two morality is not TM by religion in any socity the believe that some things are wrong and should not be done and that other things are great things to do should be done, that are the two side of morality and that ideal system, morality, can exist in in place that are not religios because people want to do what is right and not do what is wrong.

(yes I know my spelling is bad)

(btw this was written by a 13 year old)

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Yes, and it does coexist.

One’s subjective morality may impact one’s scientific pursuit.

For example:

Should I study this?

Should I perform experiments on human beings?

The scientific study itself is amoral and mechanical.

For example:

Let’s take cloning.

The cloning process is mechanical amoral process.

Putting it altogether in co-existence:

One scientist subjective morality says, “All cloning is evil.”

Another one says, “Well, we can clone plants and animals, but no human beings.”

The yet another says, “Hey we can clone everything.”

Side: Yes, of course.

Morality is a "subjective relative decision making over to what degree a behavior is good or bad". This can happen with an individual or a group of individuals. As soon as this becomes more than one individual, it becomes a Social Agreement between the individuals within the group over the "subjective relative decision making over to what degree a behavior is good or bad". This is not to say that everyone in the group would agree, but within any group some form of social leadership will arise and the leaders of that social group will determine what those moral rules for that group will be, either because the majority believes they are the right morals or because the minority has enough power to force those rules over the majority.

Science is about learning how our existence really works and doing this in as objective a manner as possible while critically attacking every answer found to be true, thus trying to prove all existing truths found false, if possible. Those things which cannot be objectively proven false rise to become what is "Scientifically Most Likely True". Science is all about probabilities of what is most likely being true while constantly testing all results.

Science has nothing to do with deciding what is moral and what is not; but science is all about understanding why we chose morals and providing us as objective as possible arguments to decide one moral over another, thus can have a great influence over morals, but not decide morals.

Both obviously co-exist, meaning the answer to the question is obviously "Of Course", all one has to do is look at the existence we live in for scientific objective proof of this.

Side: Yes, of course.
0 points

Science is morally neutral. So this question is pretty stupid.

Side: Yes, of course.
2 points

No questions are stupid.*

Side: No way.
2 points

Science cannot answer anything in the realm of morality because when you dive into morality that falls under the categories of philosophy, theology, etc. Science cannot tell you what it morally right and wrong.

Side: No way.
SamJ(1) Disputed
3 points

Science can actually answer many questions in the realm of morality and that science is called psychology, also with the help of Neuroscience. In the same way for example that psychologist can determine if a person has psychopathic tendencies which is mostly about the lack of empathy; in many cases This specific part of your brain is called the the right supra-marginal gyrus. When this brain region doesn't function properly—or when we have to make particularly quick decisions—the researchers found one’s ability for empathy is dramatically reduced. This area of the brain helps us to distinguish our own emotional state from that of other people and is responsible for empathy and compassion.

But if we're gonna take logic with no science references I think when it comes to morality science is the closest thing that can explain or interpret our moral compass because science is about evidence and proof and studying multiple cases before coming to any conclusions which is more co-existence with morality than any other method created by mankind.

Many people claim that Religion is a better answer for human's morality, as much as I would like to agree with this point because it would be much easier to determine which acts are moral and which are immoral by just reading it from a book but I can't really Agree for the reason that different religions has different books which makes them have different moral reasons for certain acts. which makes the morality dependable on what the person has been taught from a young age, or what societies claims moral reasoning for certain immoral acts, like Honor killings for example is a very big issue where I come from and the Killer can go without an equivalent punishment for the homicide he committed just because culturally it is in some way acceptable to kill your sister or wife if you caught her in the act of having sex with another man. and that's not just in a court of law, its also acceptable in society which sometimes even praise this act and make parents or relatives of the killer even proud of his doing.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science can actually answer many questions in the realm of morality and that science is called psychology,

Indeed.

Side: No way.
1 point

And here we have another ignorant fool who does not understand the "is/ought" problem.

Side: Yes, of course.
NKJV(511) Disputed
2 points

Moral and honorable things can be done with science as well. I am alive today because of neuorscience.

Side: Yes, of course.
NowASaint(1388) Disputed
1 point

Science must report what is true about nature or it is immoral. In the true presentation of facts it is moral, and those facts can be observed, tested, repeated for anybody to see. Abuses of science are immoral while true presentation of facts, even when science is abused and immoral, is moral.

Usually, when people want to rule morality out of science, it's because they want to mutilate babies for research.

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(17) Disputed
1 point

You cannot tell what science is or not. Just not lest ye be judged little boy preacher!

Side: No way.
Mint_tea(3566) Clarified
1 point

The question isn't so much, can Science replace morality, it is can the two as separate entities co-exist?

Side: Yes, of course.
dharmendrac(2) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, that's the problem buddy that you analyse everything from point of view of theology and it's the religion which sets the rules. now set rules according to science we'll know what is morally right or wrong including you.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

I agree. Everyone has their own interpretation of philosophy and theology, it is a very gray area. Science on the other hand is very black and white, which is a good thing in my opinion, because if it weren't for the clarity of science, scientists would put unfair biases on discoveries that may not have enough evidence to back it up. However, it is true that nothing in science is definite. Everything is an estimation backed up by evidence, but that is not saying that the theory is definitely correct, or incorrect. Also, the biosphere is always changing, and that is where science is subdivided into different categories, in which different people study different things. Also, it depends on what someone's definition of morality is. If their definition of morality is "do good", then of course they can co-exist. If their definition is religion, then even then they can co-exist, because they compliment each other. Take the Bible, in the beginning, it is discussed how everything developed (evolution) from the sea. This actually is backed up by a scientific perspective, where the first cells were created by the bonding of amino acids. One of the rules of cells is that they can not just form, they have to come from other cells, and again for most things, there is no definite definition, or definite theory that can stand alone without biblical and other religion's values and what they believe is right. Now if our definition of morality is Medieval thinking like the dark ages, then no. They can not co-exist because in this instance, they did not compliment each other, they defied each other, because they believe that the only option was the Bible, and everything else was heresy.

Side: No way.
JTrudeau(7) Clarified
1 point

This isn't really in either side though, it is almost arguing both sides

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Everyone has their own interpretation of philosophy and theology, it is a very gray area

Agreed.

Side: Yes, of course.
darthtimon(41) Disputed
1 point

The thing is, science doesn't try to dictate morality. This doesn't mean that science cannot be used morally. In that respect, they co-exist.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science cannot answer anything in the realm of morality

Morality can't answer anything in the realm of science.

because when you dive into morality that falls under the categories of philosophy, theology, etc.

Philosophy and theology are both sciences.

Science cannot tell you what it morally right and wrong.

Nor can morality tell you what's scientifically right and wrong.

Side: Yes, of course.
KJVPrewrath(955) Disputed
1 point

You're presenting a false dichotomy..............................................................

Side: Yes, of course.
CJBPrewrath(23) Disputed
1 point

It depends on the situation. I believe science can be conducted in a morally correct manner. Meh.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

And morality cannot tell you what is scientifically right and wrong. What's your point? The question isn't asking if one can explain the other, it's asking whether or not both can exist at the same time.

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(17) Disputed
0 points

Prove that! What if it can? What if science can prove right and wrong?! For you to say it can't is to say that it's wrong... HAHAHAHAHA

Side: Yes, of course.
Srom(12204) Disputed
1 point

When it comes to science, you can't put good or bad in a test tube, and test it. It falls into the categories of what I said above.

Side: No way.
2 points

This is why our culture is dying. The Left hs done all in it's power to separate God from our public, and without God, mankind has no clue of morality.

The first thing they say is Whose Morals? No man can agree on what is moral and what is immoral. This is why we now have nine States making No Restriction abortions legal! We have millions of Democrats voting for the Democrat Party that keeps it legal to do so.

Our nation's majority Christian faith once lifted up the obvious values that created strong committed families. We had no need for a Government playing mother and father to our children.

Without faith in God, we see our welfare roles filled with unwed mothers. We see record numbers of people living off food stamps.

Nations fall from within and America is doing the same. We are going bankrupt supporting people that once supported themselves. This is how important moral values are to a nation.

Side: No way.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The Left hs done all in it's power to separate God from our public, and without God, mankind has no clue of morality.

That's not true at all.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(3566) Disputed
1 point

without God, mankind has no clue of morality.

Are you suggesting that believing in God is guaranteeing all actions done by the believer are done with morality?

That people who don't believe in God will automatically have no morals?

Side: Yes, of course.
FromWithin(6611) Disputed
3 points

I am saying exacty wat I said. Without God, a nation has no morl foundation to stnd on. Without moral alues being lifted up, a nations value fall into the gutter as we are seeing.

Christians are not perfect and have sinned. The difference is that even though we have sinned, we do not say our sins are ok. We do our best to always improve our faults and live up to the vaues from our Christian faith.

Mankind without God refuses to admit his sins because in his no fault world, anything goes.

One night hook ups, living together with no committments to their children, promiscuous sex, etc. etc. are no problem in man's world.

Christians do not want moral laws. What we want is for our nation hold onto moral values tht helps all people. We want them to care about our children and try to live in ways that does not harm children or others who must pay for the irresponsible lifestyles.

Side: No way.
NowASaint(1388) Clarified
1 point

Probably totally naive.......you don't want to know the evil of Wicca, witchcraft, Satanism. They are your friends, and you love them as you love your own sin.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

No, moron, he is stating that without God, what is moral cannot be know. Learn to read.

Side: Yes, of course.
NKJV(511) Disputed
1 point

I am alive because of neuroscience....................................................................................................

Side: Yes, of course.
0 points

Fuck off, you troll. No one cares what you nthink....................................................

Side: Yes, of course.
2 points

There is something in the middle that science and morality can't co-exist . The intrest which comes to the scientists in the experiments takes them far away from the point of morality . Scientists do experiments on animals , on land which if seen with the point of morality is wrong but for welfare it's right . Bomb tests are executed in which lands soil etc is destroyed which is not in favour of morality but yeah it's in favour of welfare protection etc so it can be said that there isn't a co existence between both

Side: No way.
2 points

No science and morality cant co exist because there are many situation when science become fail. Like that in case of the topic of soul science says that there is nothng about soul but in reality soul exist so that science cant explain all problem in this nature

Side: No way.
2 points

No. They can not co-exist.

The reason being that Science can not tell you what morality is.

Can Science explain why I shouldn't rape women? No. According to science, I'm just spreading my seed. It does not dictate why I shouldn't rape women. In nature, animals rape each other (Of course not all the time, but it does happen) and again, according to Science, that's just what happens. But we all know that rape is wrong. Why is it wrong? That's what science can't answer.

Morality is an abstract thing; the difference between right and wrong. The word "Science" originates from Latin, which means "Knowledge" We have KNOWLEDGE that rape occurs. Is it moral to rape? No. Can science tell you that? No.

In conclusion, Science and morality are two completely separate things, and anyone who says otherwise has not spent the time thinking about the subject.

Side: No way.
1 point

No, because in order for science and morality to coexist it must centre itself around philosophy and religion which hold basic morale that science ignores or is not a part of, combining science with religion, morality and philosophy would destroy the whole point of science, to discover new things and seek out the truth behind the universe's biggest questions.

Side: No way.
NowASaint(1388) Clarified
1 point

The point of science is to observe and understand nature. If the scientist is not moral, then the data and his or her opinions about that data cannot be trusted. if you exclude morality from science, you have no way of knowing if the things presented by scientists are true or not......and you will probably believe them when they tell you that you descended from some sort of primate critter and you are exonerated in death so that God cannot hold you guilty of your sins in the fire of Hell.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science presents facts and nothing more. It does not form the truth. That is something that rests only with God.

Side: No way.
Quantumhead(733) Disputed
1 point

Science presents facts and nothing more. It does not form the truth. That is something that rests only with God.

By your own (il)logic God is not a fact because science is unable to present God as a fact. Hence, you have raised a dichotomy between facts and non-facts, and seem to be insisting that the non-facts are factual (i.e. "truth"), while the facts do "not form the truth".

In sum, you have a mental illness.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

You speak very true things here. You are the best arguer in the last century!

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(17) Disputed
1 point

How you can say that?! Who you are to know the 'truth' then?

Did God make himself be true as he is the source of truth? What a bimbo argument!!!!!!!

Only the lowest kind of person do the 'prove itself true' argument!

Side: Yes, of course.
KJVPrewrath(955) Disputed
1 point

You have an interesting screenname...............................................................................................................................................................................

Side: No way.
1 point

Science and morality can never co-exist because we all have seen the top class people are dominating the field of science and they care only for money as trend of artificial intelligence is going on..People are getting thrown out from their posts and machines are doing work of humanity but we forgot to mention important issue if everyone will be fired by company than who will buy their products?People will be jobless

Side: No way.
1 point

Science and morality can seemingly co-exist but with a cost of limited improvement in both terms. The question would be more appropriate by changing it into , "Should science and morality co-exist?". For instance, in order to push human's physical limit science need to conduct some unethical things like playing with DNA sequence to create improved embryo.

Side: No way.
1 point

For instance, in order to push human's physical limit science need to conduct some unethical things like playing with DNA sequence to create improved embryo.

Interesting.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science and morality cannot co-exist because for science and morality to co-exist scientists have to give way to morality to be the guiding force for all actions scientists take.

Example, look at how science uses animals, cruelty to animals is illegal but why can science use animals to advance their efforts?

Science uses animals to advance their research and this is immoral, but the argument against this is it is for the greater good.

Who's greater good, the greater good of general population or mega corporations? Science is steeped in greed and self glorification; greed from the business perspective and self glorification from the nobel prize perspective

Science and morality will never co-exist, because for science to advance (in one of many aspects) there always has to be a guinea pig and money, and the only way to prove the scientists efforts are worth funding is through experimentation or some profound find.

Side: No way.
1 point

True

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science and morality cannot coexist because there is no objective definition of the latter. The way we use morality is as if there exists some form of ultimate, black-and-white list of right vs. wrong. This does not exist. Many people try to claim intellectual dominance through some kind of superior understanding of morality, but their version is just as subjective and abstract as everyone else's.

Science can, however, coexist with empathy- which does not claim an ultimate knowledge of right or wrong but is merely the practice of doing the best you can to help those around you in need.

Side: No way.