Irish Times Waffle Alert

speaking

doctoremma wrote: »

This whole thread is making my head spin, with some people talking about "science" as if it's an object.

Science is knowledge. Everyone is a scientist, even if they don't wear a white coat and understand complicated maths. The scientific process describes how we acquire knowledge about the world around us (very few people take their knowledge solely from authority).

Humans do "science" all the time, unavoidably, as an intrinsic part of our learning mechanism. We observe, we measure, we test, in subject matters as diverse as how stars make heavy elements to what an extra egg will do to your cake to what happens if you stick your hand in a plug socket.

"Science" isn't a thing to make me happy, "science" is a process that my brain uses (not always consciously, I should add).

I see what your getting at but i think we can distinguish between how people use science at an ordinary day level with think kind of cutting edge science being engaged in within multinational corporations and universities. I do think there is a difference between the two in fairness. The discoveries from latter is increasingly bringing out ethical questions that I dont know can be answered by science. (or should be as someone else said)

Thats the danger, complicated ethical questions that sciencific discovery brings up, these questions are becoming more and more complexed in nature. yet the very emphesis on science and maths in schools for example at the expense of philosophical thinking type subjects may lead the population at large even less able to grapple with the kind of ethical questions scientific advancements bring up.

I know in France they learn philosophy in secondary school and I think that would be a good idea here too
Not that i am saying there should be less science in schools, there should be far more especially at primary school.

Morgase

speaking wrote: »

I see what your getting at but i think we can distinguish between how people use science at an ordinary day level with think kind of cutting edge science being engaged in within multinational corporations and universities. I do think there is a difference between the two in fairness. The discoveries from latter is increasingly bringing out ethical questions that I dont know can be answered by science. (or should be as someone else said)

I don't think anybody is advocating that science should tell us what to do, rather we can take new information discovered through the process of science and use this information to answer ethical questions. As regards the difference between science as the normal person uses it and cutting-edge science, I don't really see too much difference between the two other than the latter being more finely-tuned in terms of a professional being fully immersed in it and having techniques to hand. I say this from the point of view of a student of science and so I'm transitioning from one to the other.

Thats the danger, complicated ethical questions that sciencific discovery brings up, these questions are becoming more and more complexed in nature. yet the very emphesis on science and maths in schools for example at the expense of philosophical thinking type subjects may lead the population at large even less able to grapple with the kind of ethical questions scientific advancements bring up.

I know in France they learn philosophy in secondary school and I think that would be a good idea here too
Not that i am saying there should be less science in schools, there should be far more especially at primary school.

It's been a few years since I was in school, but I don't think there's teaching of science and maths at the expense of philosophy. I'll tell you what I'd love to see - a decent philosophy class (what I mean is teaching students how to think) instead of religion! Let's give people the thinking tools that they need in order to grapple with the complex ethical questions, because they do need to be answered.

Galvasean

doctoremma wrote: »

Everyone is a scientist

Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

I see what your getting at but i think we can distinguish between how people use science at an ordinary day level with think kind of cutting edge science being engaged in within multinational corporations and universities. I do think there is a difference between the two in fairness.

My post was in response to the very bizarre way the term "science" was being used, as if it was a discovery we wanted to undiscover, or an object we wanted to be free from the shackles of.

Nobody - nobody - here wants "science" to not exist. You wouldn't be able to espouse your views on the very subject without it.

speaking wrote: »

The discoveries from latter is increasingly bringing out ethical questions that I dont know can be answered by science. (or should be as someone else said)

I said it on another thread!

speaking wrote: »

Thats the danger, complicated ethical questions that sciencific discovery brings up, these questions are becoming more and more complexed in nature.

I don't think it's dangerous at all. I think it's part and parcel of a species intelligent enough to design the experiment and empathic/social enough to try to understand the ramifications of the result.

speaking wrote: »

yet the very emphesis on science and maths in schools for example at the expense of philosophical thinking type subjects may lead the population at large even less able to grapple with the kind of ethical questions scientific advancements bring up.

Sure, but at least they'd understand the science part in the first place.

I work in a medical research area, one that touches on the ethics of termination of babies with genetic defects, the diagnosis of future disease in children, the unintended discovery of something wrong with a person. I present my research plans to an ethics committee, people who are fully conversant with the philosophy and social history that I might lack. They are there to keep my research in the proper track, to guide me from the pitfalls.

Synergy. Scientists + ethicists. Brilliant.

doctoremma

Galvasean wrote: »

Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.

Ah, f*ck it. That's the last time I try that argument....

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Yet depression and suicide is at its highest since records began.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/recorded-suicides-rose-7-last-year-cso.html

Basicly he is saying that science cannot gaurantee happiness. To that he is right even though it may be badly written.

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a recession. You can blame unregulated banking not science.

And, science is everything. It's us and the world around us. It's reality.

Religion on the other hand is a business, dealing in fictitious tales of talking hedges and snakes, parted seas, stubborn fig trees, zombies and the supernatural.

I'm pretty sure that science has made many people happy.



In my view, no amount of prayers will work as fast on a hangover as a Solpadeine. (10 mins)

joseph brand

Galvasean wrote: »

Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.

Does he read? I mean, he's no Hitchens when it comes to absorbing books. :pac:

Sonics2k

Galvasean wrote: »

Ken Ham will be delighted to read that.

Here's hoping JC never finds out about this news.

robindch

joseph brand wrote: »

Does he read?

Not sure, but having seen up close the notes he scribbled down for that "talk" he gave in UCD some years ago, he sure as hell can't write -- the spidery, shaky scrawl (seriously) suggested to me he was suffering from early-onset Parkinson's Disease.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a recession. You can blame unregulated banking not science.

Ah yes and when the next boom comes around I guess hundreds of Irish men will stop killing themselves. The very fact people link material wealth and status as a means to happiness and acceptance should raise some eyebrows.

joseph brand wrote: »

And, science is everything. It's us and the world around us. It's reality.

Everything? How can you say then when it cant? There is no proof that science is everything yet you believe it is.... hmmm sounds like blind faith to me. :eek:

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Ah yes and when the next boom comes around I guess hundreds of Irish men will stop killing themselves. The very fact people link material wealth and status as a means to happiness and acceptance should raise some eyebrows.



Everything? How can you say then when it cant? There is no proof that science is everything yet you believe it is.... hmmm sounds like blind faith to me. :eek:

Suicide here could be linked to the lack of sunshine. Apparently there's a massive bright sparkly thing behind those clouds. Yeah right.

Do you believe in the internet and electricity? It's interesting that you need to be religious in order to be asked this question. Just poke around in your toaster or wall socket. Do some investigating.

You've obviously put a lot of faith in your pc/ laptop/ smartphone and internet.

Or maybe, just maybe, none of it is real. Maybe you're not real, maybe you are me. What if (insert other waffley garbage here)?

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Suicide here could be linked to the lack of sunshine. Apparently there's a massive bright sparkly thing behind those clouds. Yeah right.

Do you believe in the internet and electricity? It's interesting that you need to be religious in order to be asked this question. Just poke around in your toaster or wall socket. Do some investigating.

You've obviously put a lot of faith in your pc/ laptop/ smartphone and internet.

Or maybe, just maybe, none of it is real. Maybe you're not real, maybe you are me. What if (insert other waffley garbage here)?

I think therefore I am.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

I think therefore I am.

The banana fits in my hand, therefore god. /bangs head on wall

equivariant

Morgase wrote: »

It's been a few years since I was in school, but I don't think there's teaching of science and maths at the expense of philosophy. I'll tell you what I'd love to see - a decent philosophy class (what I mean is teaching students how to think) instead of religion! Let's give people the thinking tools that they need in order to grapple with the complex ethical questions, because they do need to be answered.

+100 to this. I have a feeling that much of the whole "science raises difficult ethical questions that scientists can't answer" muck would dissolve if we stopped trying to teach children about ethics and morality using iron age superstitions.

The thing is that science generally (as a beneficial side effect) solves many more ethical problems than it creates. However, enfeebling one's mind with superstition and religion often has the nasty side effect of obscuring this fact.

speaking

equivariant wrote: »

+100 to this. I have a feeling that much of the whole "science raises difficult ethical questions that scientists can't answer" muck would dissolve if we stopped trying to teach children about ethics and morality using iron age superstitions..

Are you saying that if we stopped teaching religion people would understand the value of science and that science itself would help up become more ethical in the future?

What about Plato Socrates are you seriously suggesting that because they are from the Iron age we should ignore what they have to say about ethics etc?

And although an atheist I still think the teachings of Jesus on treating your fellow person they way you want to be treated makes sense.

As an atheist I am perfectly happy to pick and choose in an a la carte way from history things that make sense to me and help me be a more moral person.

I am not just going to dismiss ancient teachings because they are old, where they are stupid and old i will dismiss them, but not just because they are old.

The thing is that science generally (as a beneficial side effect) solves many more ethical problems than it creates.

[/QUOTE]

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

Morgase

I suspect that by iron age superstitions equivariant was referring to Christianity (and maybe other old religions) specifically. Not philosophers.

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

Let's take an example (fictional but entirely plausible, it could happen in my work):

A patient with an eye disorder agrees for their genome to be sequenced in order to identify which genetic mutation underlies their eye condition (and thus, understand risks to children etc).

In the process of screening their whole genome, you discover a genetic mutation in an unrelated gene which will lead them to a painful and early death. There is currently no treatment available.

Should the patient be told? Do we have a moral obligation to tell them? Does what we consider to be the correct action to take (i.e. the ethical action) change upon a scientific discovery of a cheap and easy cure for the disorder?

I suspect you're asking a question far more vague than this though. Can "science" inform us of the human condition? Can it teach us how to be a nice person?

mikhail

speaking wrote: »

And you have met a lot of widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglots.

Yes, dozens of any one, and a handful who were all of that.

Well good for you.

Thank you. It feels good to feel superior to you.

seamus

speaking wrote: »

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?

Science: No.

Many ethics and morals are based on old superstitions and beliefs without foundation.

Science doesn't "solve" these ethical issues, but rather it simply shows that the premise on which they are based is incorrect and therefore the ethical problem goes away.

ShooterSF

speaking wrote: »

Are you saying that if we stopped teaching religion people would understand the value of science and that science itself would help up become more ethical in the future?

...

I am not just going to dismiss ancient teachings because they are old, where they are stupid and old i will dismiss them, but not just because they are old.

The thing is, schools that teach certain religions as true do not offer the option that parts of the religion may be wrong (the nasty/stupid parts). You and I can pick and choose because we work from a foundation that is the golden rule, so can agree on some issues like loving one another and disagree with the idea that a rapist should pay money to his victims father and then must marry their victim. Where as people who genuinely believe in their religion can not pick and choose (well not without doing some amazing mental gymnastics first).

These people are also quick to point to their deity as justification for their views on certain ethical issues such as abortion. This makes ethics discussions more difficult as they don't have to ethically argue their point, they can simply shoulder that responsibility on their higher power who knows better. Actually religion is much more of a problem when it comes to refining our ethics which by the way, unlike what these types would like you believe, have actually greatly improved in comparison to our history.

Dades

speaking wrote: »

As an atheist I am perfectly happy to pick and choose in an a la carte way from history things that make sense to me and help me be a more moral person.

The interesting thing is you're not using things that have been (allegedly) said by other people throughout history to mould your morality, you're just picking up on things that have been said that happen match your own inherent morality. You should give yourself more credit.

On the flip-side I'm reminded of the quote "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do".

seamus wrote: »

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?
...

Not forgetting the greatest revelation science has made for humanity - it's perfectly okay to eat pigs.

seamus

Dades wrote: »

Not forgetting the greatest revelation science has made for humanity - it's perfectly okay to eat pigs.

Well that just illustrates that science can be applied for good or evil. While science might have proven that eating pigs is not bad for you, it doesn't say whether it's right to eat pigs.

Poor little piggies

Dades

You are, of course, correct. Science does indeed stay quiet on the subject of whether it's morally okay to eat pigs. It's not it's job, after all.

I usually revert to my butcher for spiritual guidance in such matters of the flesh.

Penn

seamus wrote: »

Well that just illustrates that science can be applied for good or evil. While science might have proven that eating pigs is not bad for you, it doesn't say whether it's right to eat pigs.

Poor little piggies

If ever there was any sort of proof of a God, it's pigs. Sausages, rashers, ham, bacon, pork chops, gammon steak... Truly the work of a Creator.

doctoremma

seamus wrote: »

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?

Science: No.

Many ethics and morals are based on old superstitions and beliefs without foundation.

Science doesn't "solve" these ethical issues, but rather it simply shows that the premise on which they are based is incorrect and therefore the ethical problem goes away.

Until you are confronted at the entrance to a temple by a gentle Granddad type who asks in a rather blunt fashion, "Are you bleeding at the moment?"...

speaking

Morgase wrote: »

I suspect that by iron age superstitions equivariant was referring to Christianity (and maybe other old religions) specifically. Not philosophers.

So why not just say that. By using iron age he is, to me anyway, suggesting that wisdom which is old is less than or not as good as modern wisdom (i suppose in this conversation science) Im not so sure we as people are much smarter than cave men myself.

speaking

seamus wrote: »

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?

Science: No.

Many ethics and morals are based on old superstitions and beliefs without foundation.

Science doesn't "solve" these ethical issues, but rather it simply shows that the premise on which they are based is incorrect and therefore the ethical problem goes away.

I really don't think such a question is an ethical one. Its more of a human rights issue.

I am more talking about ethical questions in the line of that posed by doctoremma

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

I'm not so sure we as people are much smarter than cave men myself.

Oh good, when did the caveman journey to the moon? Or elucidate the structure of DNA? Or heal themselves of bacterial infection?

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

I really don't think such a question is an ethical one. Its more of a human rights issue.

I am more talking about ethical questions in the line of that posed by doctoremma

What would be your position on that dilemma, given the circumstances where there was a. no cure or b. a very cheap and easy cure?

speaking

Dades wrote: »

you're just picking up on things that have been said that happen match your own inherent morality. You should give yourself more credit.

As an atheist I am surprised you think people have inherent morality?

You think morality is something that is part of us. That we are inherently good?

Penn

speaking wrote: »

So why not just say that. By using iron age he is, to me anyway, suggesting that wisdom which is old is less than or not as good as modern wisdom (i suppose in this conversation science) Im not so sure we as people are much smarter than cave men myself.

Many of the basics of "old" wisdom would still be relevant today, or been adapted with the times. But to suggest we're not smarter than cave men is pretty ridiculous. In the period between cave men and now, people have been able to rely less on basic instinct and been able to judge situations rationally and logically. As time has moved forward, we as a species have been able to think more about what we're doing and rely on more than just basic instinct, because instinct is not always correct.

speaking

doctoremma wrote: »

Oh good, when did the caveman journey to the moon? Or elucidate the structure of DNA? Or heal themselves of bacterial infection?

I dont know just because we can go to the moon or find the structure of DNA, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. When the cave man looked up from his cave at the moon and admired it and the nature around him can i honestly say that I as a person are smarter than him? For me absolutely not. He was smart. In a different way than me perhaps, but non the less smart.


In a hundred thousand years when people look back on us. Will we be considered cave men? I hope not.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

Many of the basics of "old" wisdom would still be relevant today, or been adapted with the times. But to suggest we're not smarter than cave men is pretty ridiculous.

Then call me ridiculous. I m happy with this view. I understand how you might think I am being ridiculous, but my gut is telling me not to be to sure of my superiority when it comes to judging others.

speaking

doctoremma wrote: »

What would be your position on that dilemma, given the circumstances where there was a. no cure or b. a very cheap and easy cure?

TBH I am not sure I understand the exact nature of the ethica issue you are talking about can you explain it again?

Penn

speaking wrote: »

I dont know just because we can go to the moon or find the structure of DNA, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. When the cave man looked up from his cave at the moon and admired it and the nature around him can i honestly say that I as a person are smarter than him? For me absolutely not. He was smart. In a different way than me perhaps, but non the less smart.

Not really. Bringing the topic back towards religion slightly, think about the story of Genesis in the Bible. Back then, people believed God just created everything. Why? Because to them, that was a good explanation for everything they saw. They didn't seek answers, they made them up and passed them on. And people believed it because they didn't want to go against what others told them for fear they'd be punished.

Now, people look for answers. People don't just take something as fact. 2000 years ago a man might say he's the son of god, and people believe him. Now, a man might say he's the son of god, and people lock him up because he's crazy.

People are smarter now because we find ways of discovering the truth, rather than coming up with something and just believing it. 40 years ago, a man came up with the idea of the boson particle. People didn't just take it as truth, we tried to find out if it was true or not. And now we pretty much have.

We are definitely smarter than cave men. Sorry, but there's no doubt about it.

speaking wrote: »

Then call me ridiculous. I m happy with this view. I understand how you might think I am being ridiculous, but my gut is telling me not to be to sure of my superiority when it comes to judging others.

Even cave men?

Morgase

speaking wrote: »

As an atheist I am surprised you think people have inherent morality?

You think morality is something that is part of us. That we are inherently good?

I certainly believe people are inherently good, yes.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

They didn't seek answers, they made them up and passed them on.

They did seek answers but did not have science to help them answer them. There answers were as right to them as science is to me now. Were they wrong? Essentially, for me it does not matter. In the grand scheme of things we are probably all wrong in some way.

Now, people look for answers. People don't just take something as fact. 2000 years ago a man might say he's the son of god, and people believe him. Now, a man might say he's the son of god, and people lock him up because he's crazy.

I think you are comparing people 2000 years ago and saying because we know more stuff then them we are smarter or superior to them. We may know more stuff but are we as people smarter. I suppose it goes to what you consider smartness to be.

I'm not a scientist and as an atheist I just don't understand why fellow atheists are so sure science has all the answers for us. Personally I know science has answers but there really not the kind of questions I give a **** about anyway.

What I am trying to say I suppose is that i care about people more.

People are smarter now because we find ways of discovering the truth, rather than coming up with something and just believing it.

The truth? Thats a bold statement. Atruth maybe but the truth. that practically a divine claim.

We are definitely smarter than cave men. Sorry, but there's no doubt about it.

I know I am probably sounding stupid but I think there is a lot of doubt that we are are smarter than cave-men ( i am talking in a general way when it somes to smartness not in a one plus one scientific way)

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

*Looks around thread*



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddd I'm out.

Yeah, I have to say, between this guy and kidchameleon the forum seem to be attracting a really sh1t standard of atheist recently.

MrP

MrPudding

speaking wrote: »

Then call me ridiculous.

You are ridiculous.

MrP

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

I dont know just because we can go to the moon or find the structure of DNA, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. When the cave man looked up from his cave at the moon and admired it and the nature around him can i honestly say that I as a person are smarter than him? For me absolutely not. He was smart. In a different way than me perhaps, but non the less smart.


In a hundred thousand years when people look back on us. Will we be considered cave men? I hope not.

Being uneducated and somewhat slow, I'll have to ask for a definition of "caveman" and "smart" as I'm somewhat unfamiliar with these precise scientific terms.

Penn

I'm not talking about the amount we know, I mean that we as a people generally don't just take claims as being the truth. We think logically and analyse things. Cavemen generally did not do that.

Smart does not equal knowledgable. It's about how you think. How you analyse things. How you assess situations. And that has improved from the time of cavemen.

It's not about trying to feel superior to them. Hell, if cavemen we're just plain stupid, we may not have survived as a species this far. But tens of thousands of years ago, people lived on instinct rather than rationality.

speaking

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, I have to say, between this guy and kidchameleon the forum seem to be attracting a really sh1t standard of atheist recently.

MrP

Whats with the insults. I am trying to tease these out not insult. if I am wrong I am wrong.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

I'm not talking about the amount we know, I mean that we as a people generally don't just take claims as being the truth.

But we do all the time. We take claims from politicians as being the truth, we take claim from scientists

We think logically and analyise things. Cavemen generally did not do that.

The next time you are trying to stay alive in a forest full of wild animals and hostile other cave men tell me you did not think logically and analyse things.

Smart does not equal knowledgeable. It's about how you think. How you analysis things. How you assess situations. And that has improved from the time of cavemen.

It's not about trying to feel superior to them. Hell, if cavemen we're just plain stupid, we may not have survived as a species this far. But tens of thousands of years ago, people lived on instinct rather than rationality.

Again would have to fundamentally disagree with you. Cave men were must have lived with great rationality in order to survive.

Comparing the smartness of people today to cavemen of the past is like comparing apples and oranges I just dont see the point, other than to say that they were probably in their own way as smart then as we are now.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

Being uneducated and somewhat slow, I'll have to ask for a definition of "caveman" and "smart" as I'm somewhat unfamiliar with these precise scientific terms.

For cave man read people from the Palaeolithic era.

Smart? You decide. I suppose i am talking about smart in terms of an existentialist understanding.

Not purely in a scientific way.

I take it you dont think your uneducated and somewhat slow do you? I bet you think your somewhat smart.

Sycopat

speaking wrote: »

I'm not a scientist and as an atheist I just don't understand why fellow atheists are so sure science has all the answers for us. Personally I know science has answers but there really not the kind of questions I give a **** about anyway.

What I am trying to say I suppose is that i care about people more.

By the reading of your posts the only questions you give a '****' about are ones with subjective answers.

As to 'You care about people more' that's a deeply weird statement to me. It seems incomplete. You care about people more than what?

speaking

Sycopat wrote: »

By the reading of your posts the only questions you give a '****' about are ones with subjective answers.

As to 'You care about people more' that's a deeply weird statement to me. It seems incomplete. You care about people more than what?

I care about people more than blindly following the assumption that scientific thinking will lead us to some utopia, while along the way we fail to properly address some of the ethical questions that science seems to bring about.

I am all for science don't get me wrong. I just cant believe it will free us to the extent that other atheists do.

I am willing to be wrong.

I dont understand what you mean by subjective answers?

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

For cave man read people from the Palaeolithic era.

A period covering about 2 billion years. If you're referring to modern humans, thats somewhere around the 200,000 year mark.

speaking wrote: »

Smart? You decide.

How can I decide what you mean? is this poetry comprehension?

speaking wrote: »

I suppose i am talking about smart in terms of an existentialist understanding.

...vague waffle. Be specific please.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

A period covering about 2 billion years. If you're referring to modern humans, thats somewhere around the 200,000 year mark.

when I said cave men I was refering to stone age people lets say around 10000 years ago in ireland

...vague waffle. Be specific please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartre.27s_philosophy

See Camus, Fredrick N for what I am trying to get at.

Quatermain

10,000 years ago, people were just arriving in Ireland, having migrated from Continental Europe. We know they had knowledge of navigation and boatmaking. They fished and preserved food for the voyage. Given that their descendants also built Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth, they had knowledge of architecture and astronomy.

This speaks of a tremendous amount of intelligence for "cavemen", a term which is both nebulous and misleading.

equivariant

speaking wrote: »

Are you saying that if we stopped teaching religion people would understand the value of science and that science itself would help up become more ethical in the future?

I think that it is likely that people would be better able to reason if they were not taught superstitious nonsense about the nature of the universe. Christian mythology and morality (I am most familiar with that one) is so full of inconsistencies and nonsense that teaching it to children is bound to make them a bit more stupid than they would be without it (especially if you tell them that it is absolute truth about the universe and about human nature). So, in answer to your question, basically "yes".

What about Plato Socrates are you seriously suggesting that because they are from the Iron age we should ignore what they have to say about ethics etc?

Not what I said. I specifically said "iron age superstitions".

And although an atheist I still think the teachings of Jesus on treating your fellow person they way you want to be treated makes sense.

I don't need Jesus to tell me that - the key phrase here is "(it) makes sense". As long as you can reason, who need iron age mythology to come to a sensible conclusion. BTW, Jesus also supposedly tells us to put our trust in a non existent superbeing, which is a pretty dodgy thing to promote.

As an atheist I am perfectly happy to pick and choose in an a la carte way from history things that make sense to me and help me be a more moral person.

I am not just going to dismiss ancient teachings because they are old, where they are stupid and old i will dismiss them, but not just because they are old.

I never said that we should dismiss old teachings. Much ancient knowledge is still vital - Greek Geometry, Newtonian Physics for example. However, iron age superstitions about the orign of the universe are clearly rubbish.
Of course iron age people didn't have the evidence available to us to today, so they can be excused their superstitions. They were just trying to
make sense of the world as best they could. However modern day humans do not have that excuse. It requires wilful ignorance to ignore the mountains of scientifically based knowledge about the nature of the universe and instead choose to believe in a sky fairy.

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

One simple example. How many terrible ethical dilemmas about choosing between the life of mother or life of baby due to complications during childbirth have been completely avoided due to modern medicine. Of course there are many more such examples.