If you take a “least harm” approach

Plus quantifying collective harm is actually rather difficult to do.

How does science explain scientists believing in god?

SaxonRider- I take your point about Brian Cox. I think he is good at explaining complex physics in a way that the general public can understand, but I also think he got a bit big for his boots. Furthermore, he’s a physicist and I didn’t like his attempts to pretend to be an expert in biological sciences.
I do like Jim Al-Khalili though 🙂

How does science explain scientists believing in god?

As Neil Degrasse Tyson points out elsewhere, there is no contradiction because the knowledge that science pursues, and the faith that pursues God, constitute completely different epistemic categories.

If you take a “least harm” approach, advances in science could give concrete answers to previously woolly ethical questions?

But why ‘least harm’? Because our middle-class, liberal values currently demand it? It hasn’t always been that way, so why not subscribe to an evolutionary ethic, for example whereby what is right is determined by majority opinion?[/quote]

Hence my use of the word “if”.

Plus quantifying collective harm is actually rather difficult to do.

At the moment.

I’m quite happy for philosophy to keep going, investigating and considering ethical questions. I think we need it; for example, the Google Car is the trolley problem.

Reading what The Science Guy and others have said about philosophy, it seems they were talking about philosophy’s contribution to discovering how the natural world works, rather than moral dilemmas. For that, it does seem that the scientific method is more successful than thinking really really hard about something and then declaring it to be true.

How does science explain scientists believing in god?

Do you count psychology as a science?

And don’t I get anything for that Kent gag? Tough audience.

At the moment.

It’s been pretty difficult since John Stuart Mill, what invention are you waiting for that’ll make it easier mike?

We do it already, to varying degrees. Look at an argument on changing speed limits or helmet compulsion. We quantify the harm caused by either side of the decision.

How does science explain scientists believing in god?

As Neil Degrasse Tyson points out elsewhere, there is no contradiction because the knowledge that science pursues, and the faith that pursues God, constitute completely different epistemic categories.

That is a philisophical answer…..

Look at an argument on changing speed limits or helmet compulsion. We quantify the harm caused by either side of the decision.

We attempt it, yes. We don’t succeed though, that’s why the arguments are a) inconclusive and b) bitter.