Been poking away at this. It's barely started, really, but it's looking like I might end up busy with other stuff, so I figured I'd post what I've got and let people get a look. XD

https://www.gitbook.com/book/angular-angel/open-source-atheism/details

@Angle
Maybe we don't have to open this can of worms here, but I think the world of science is not so bleak. We should look to science not just to inform us about facts and outcomes, but also values. We are, after all, biological creatures. From basic needs of survival, to the kinds of contentment and personal validation studied by positive psychology, it's all part of the natural world. The book BrainTrust by Pat Churchland is a good primer

@abbenm @Angle but shouldn't we examine the values embedded in the science first?

@a_breakin_glass @Angle
I don't know if there's a correct order of operations here, some sort of PEMDAS of values, but sure. You should want the way you're doing science to withstand whatever critical scrutiny can be applied to it.

When I think "values" of science, I think truth seeking, robust connection to evidence, clarity, and a range of practical considerations about how to shape institutions that account for human flaws etc

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass I mean, I like thos evalues, but while they might be associated with science, they're not created by it. Rather, they come from the same place all ethics do, and just happen to hang around the same places that science does, so to speak. XD

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
I agree with all of that, in a way. Ethics comes from the natural world. The practice of science doesn't create ethics anymore than it creates biology or psychology or any other natural phenomena. Same with the values of science, to the extent we want to think of it as having values. It doesn't create them, they just are what they are.

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass Science doesn;t create natural phenomena, but it does explain them. And yes, it can explain ethics in much the same way. That's basically what game theory is. But the fundamental question of "Is this good or bad?" is not a scientific one.

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
Richard Joyce has a wonderful book called The Evolution of morality which explains the problems with taking an assumed fact value distinction as a starting point, rather than one view among many that needs to be argued for and defended.

And Richard Joyce isn't even a moral naturalist! He just happens to be an error theorist who's frustrated with some of the common arguments against moral naturalism.