Science isn’t limited to studying chemical reactions. Again, I refer you to the social and behavioral sciences, which are still sciences, even though they are less precise than the ‘hard sciences’ such as chemistry or physics.——(Sorry for using ‘science’ redundantly.) —–Granted, since the time of Freud or before, scientists and philosophers have speculated that sooner or later all psychological phenomena would be explained with an understanding of brain chemistry. That hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen.——-
The complexity of consciousness that humans and other animals have migtht be forever beyond the grasp of human understanding. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take evidence-based and rational approaches (as distinguished from superstitious ones) to expanding our knowledge within our limited human capacity for understanding. ——Sorry I didn’t clarify the following point earlier, but ‘science’ is just one part of using rationalism to better understand how our empathy and compassion waxes and wanes and how we can enhance it. ——-The humanities, including the study of history or the field of cultural anthropology is part of rationalism. The evidence-based approach of those humanities fields distinguishes them from religion and other forms of superstition. —–So, to be more accurate, I’d say it’s both science and the humanities that comprise an overall rational framework for how best to develop our empathy and compassion, as a means to the goal of reducing suffering and promoting well-being (on Earth, as distinguished from trying to please a god whose plan involves causing a lot of suffering in hell). ——Some might say that physical and social and behavioral sciences, combined with the evidence-based humanities fields comprise ‘secular humanism.’ —–I’d suggest a term better than ‘secular humanism’ is needed; mounting scientific information indicates future human survival and quality of life requires us to do better at living in harmony with the nonhuman life forms with whom we share Earth.
—–Aside from you, Curt, who said anything about “reduc(ing) the empathy and compassion we feel to chemical reactions” ? Thru neuroscience, we can better understand electro-chemical phenonema of the human brain. But does that mean we neglect to study how social interaction (among humans, among non-humans, and between humans and non-humans) pertain to empathy and compassion ? ——Assuming that we ‘reduce’ empathy and compassion by studying it scientifically reminds me of how theists and even some atheists sort of assume, perhaps subconsciously, that if we set aside mysticism, then our attitude toward life becomes base and cynical. ——The scientists that come to mind, such as Sagan and Einstein, weren’t base in their attitudes about life. They had a sense of wonder and reverence toward the myriad beings on our planet and toward the cosmos in general. —-Thru reason, we can pursue truth with an open mind. We can have the wonder we’ve felt thru religion without dispensing with healthful skepticism. We can question without believing we’re being unloyal to a supernatural being.
Leave a Reply