You want fact? Humans are different from animals. Animals are in constant danger of their lives being ended at any moment, and thus have need for survival instincts. The majority of humans in North America are not on the brink of starvation, have need to migrate or have ANY natural predators. We can live almost anywhere. The environment does not affect us any more- we affect our environment and thus, our evolution.
Our dwellings provide formidable defense against weather, thus we are hairless. We never have need for food so obesity is rampant. Yes, the environment is still affecting us in this way, but it is an environment that we have created.
I don't know how you can acknowledge global warming as humans exploiting their environment and also believe that we still mainly adhere to our survival instincts.
An insect (which is an insect and not a human, btw) cannot tell the difference between chemicals and their natural instincts whereas a human can.
This leads me to agree with suzeshii that cheating is a moral argument and not a scientific one. Men aren't following their survival instincts- they're being selfish, pure and simple. And it's the same with women- they can be selfish too. If the number of women who cheat is disproportionate to men it is for social reasons- one of them being that it has been strongly imposed upon them by society to be nurturing and selfless (a trait which also keeps them subservient, doting, and barefoot in the kitchen).
Ethics influence science, not the other way around. We begin our development of morality since birth- from observation and the influence of peers and family- before we even have comprehension of science. Our instincts also play a role in forming our morals- learning what helps and what hurts enables our empathy so most of us have common knowledge of what feels good and bad to ourselves and to others. Morality is extremely important in our development and influences our behaviour greatly.
Science's purpose is to deal solely with fact, and religion is used to deal with morality. Morality is extremely ambiguous and cannot be represented by science because it is impossible to prove or disprove at what level morality is acheived and how. Is it physical, psychological or spiritual contentment? How can happiness be measured and how is it acheived? What is the difference between right and wrong? What is helpful and what is cruel? (i.e: why is something helpful to one person cruel to another) Humans need to know these things and science can't always provide it.
There are many, many different schools of thought that try to figure out morality- it's called philosophy. One can spend their entire life in the contemplation of these subjects.
I will be the first one to admit that I mistakenly equated religion with morals. Religion is a method through which we communicate and pass on our morals to each other. I have already said that we do not need religion to have morals, but I think it helps. Gathering with others with similar morals helps to reinforce and validate your own.
I happen to relate to Christianity because it stems from a fundamental basis of morality (what is good v.s. evil?) which has ties way back to the beginning of history in Mesopotamia. But do I believe that it needs to be updated? I am torn between "absolutely" and "definately". Religion needs to "evolve" (get rid of outdated beliefs) along with society and ours is just progressing too fast- via scientific discovery and technology- for religion to keep up. I defend religion because I am under personal bias- having witnessed religion garner positive effects versus your negative experiences. But will you admit that you have a bias?
What is important is to constantly reevaluate and consistently develop your morals as you move through life depending on what you witness and deem to be right or wrong, good or bad behaviour.
But people don't want to do all that work- they want a quick fix and someone to tell them what to believe- thus the installation of leaders (popes, priests, and preachers) who will always have biases- and thus the corruption of organized religion. But you cannot just scapecoat religion as the cause of the world's problems when it is the selfishness, violence and prejudice and overall faulty morals of humans themselves that is the problem.
|