- 05 Jul 2016 13:35
#14698660
I was reading a novel called "Adrift on the Nile" by Naguib Mahfouz. Mahfouz is the only Arab novelist who received the Nobel Prize of Literature. His novels usually involve some philosophical thoughts. In this particular novel he made a bold claim that science can be a source of morality. He says that science entails (1) love of truth, (2) honesty in judgement, (3) devotion in work, (4) collaboration in research, and (5) willingness to view the world through the lenses of humanism.
Compare this to, say, Dawkin's view of science, that science is not in the business of morality, except perhaps to show logical inconsistencies of moral claims.
Which view of science do you prefer? I prefer Mahfouz's view. I believe that studying science have had a deep moral impact on my life.
Compare this to, say, Dawkin's view of science, that science is not in the business of morality, except perhaps to show logical inconsistencies of moral claims.
Which view of science do you prefer? I prefer Mahfouz's view. I believe that studying science have had a deep moral impact on my life.