Original post by Pridehmm... You didn't understand my points. Ok, let me slow down.
Moral responsibility. Let me explain it like this. In our society, we tend to go about our lives as though we are morally responsible for our actions. That is to say that we tend to believe that we are accountable for what we do, and we hold others accountable for their actions to. We have a criminal justice system that attempts to hold people accountable, and give people "what they deserve" in some sense. We also accept praise and recognition when we achieve things.
Now the issue with this is that if we are simply very complex computers - that is, that we are simply atoms, our decisions are solely the result of physics and chemistry in our brains, chemical reactions, electrons passing along axons in the neurons in our brains, then how can we claim to be morally responsible for our actions? We would never say this to a computer. If my decisions are the result of genes and their interaction with the environment, then why should I take credit for anything I do, and why should I accept blame for anything I do? Why do I say to the suicide bomber who killed those people at the Manchester Arena, "You should not have done that"? Surely, he did it because of his genes and the environment.
But the thing is, our society's view of justice and moral responsibility made more sense in the Christian worldview. Because we have moved into a post-Christian, secular phase, we are in this phase where we hold on to ideas traditionally held by Christians, like moral responsibility, hence the inconsistency. I hope that made sense.
Nobody is disagreeing with you about the value of science. What I'm trying to show you is that justice isn't a scientific concept. It's philosophical. Yes, science helps us to understand schizophrenia, we have some understanding of the neurochemistry, and we know the first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia because of science. But the question of justice presupposes this concept of "moral responsibility" which we were talking about earlier. It also leads us to ask whether "retribution" is a good aim of punishment. Should there be punishment? How serious should that punishment be? Should punishment only be about deterrence, or should it seek to bring "justice" as well? Why?
Do you see how these are philosophical questions?
Yes, I actually agree with this, mostly. It's never obvious why individuals make a decision. But we trust that patients with the tell-tale signs of schizophrenia are not morally responsible if they are suffering from a delusion or do not perceive reality because of hallucinations, we show grace to our schizophrenic friends when they are apathetic, etc because we attribute all these things to their mental health condition. I said "we trust", because indeed, it is faith-based. We don't know why people do what they do. We hold to philosophies that attempt to explain why people do what they do. We trust things. This is what I keep trying to explain to you in PM and here.
Again, this is an issue of epistemology. How do we know what we know? How do we know what is "fact and evidence" Science is philosophical. The idea that we can use science to obtain objective truth is philosophical.
The thing is, you are presupposing the validity of your senses and your reasoning to demonstrate that science is a valid way to obtain truth. This is what I was trying to explain when you said "science is the founder of reason". If you say you look at science to discern what is reason, but then use reason to discern the validity of science, that is circular reasoning. This is the nature of all epistemology - it is circular. So fundamentally, you are ultimately relying on an epistemic standard - this is faith.
Do you understand what I'm saying here?
No, we do have faith that you are breathing. You trust in the validity of your senses, and in your reasoning, and in the teaching you received at school that explained what breathing is. Now you may have reasons for trusting these things, but I could easily ask you why you trust those reasons, and keep asking you the same question, and it will eventually come back down to an ultimate epistemic authority. I suspect for you, it would be your senses or science or your reasoning capabilities.