I would take it further and say gods are conditions of several sciences: psychology, anthropology, sociology, ...
Do You Believe in Science?
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
I would take it further and say gods are conditions of several sciences: psychology, anthropology, sociology, ...
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I find both of your uses of 'condition' odd. But I suspect yours was more ironic.
There is very good reason to choose between them. When you have an ultra-religious President, such as we have now, scientific endeavor needs to be protected from his or her belief system. He viewed funding stem cell research as a moral decision...and to me, that should have qualified him for life in prison.
But this is nothing new. Scientific advancement has always been threatened by religious authority.
Then how about you either learn about science or religion? As it is you just give opinions after having mastered neither.
If my theories were as weak and flimsy as some so-called "scientific" theories I would feel threatened by religion as well.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, did you want to contribute anything useful to the conversation, or did you just want to stalk me? The second one? Thought so.
Don't flatter yourself.
Science and religion are at ends with each other if you understand either. But you can't agree with the driving philosophy of both simultaneously, you have to choose one.
I've personally chosen religion over science; mostly because science isn't behavioural ideology, whereas religion is.
And what about the "philosophy" of science can't you dig? The learning part? The exploring? What about science doesn't jive with your faith? Ohhh...the part about Earth being 4 billion years old, right? Or is it evolution?
As for me, I pick science, because I don't need an old book to tell me how to behave.
The philosophy I disagree with is; We need to recreate the world to be hospitable opposed to changing our actions to allow the world to be hospitable. I don't care how old the Earth is, or how it evolved. However; I am aware of the fundamental principals of both.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I don't like Bush, to put it mildly. I don't need to make the choice I mentioned above to be against him or his policies.
He was just playing up to the religious fanatics. He's a pragmatist. An effective one from his perspective and those he fronts. Unfortunately.
And while I don't have concerns about stem cell research, I do have moral and practical problems with certain possible and current scientific 'advances'. Take much of gene modification technologies. There is also a moral out there that says if we can, we should, especially if there are profits involved. This morality functions like a religion - albeit generally a godless one. I do not see the huge difference in this last point.
There's no way of knowing. Anything that may indeed be the work of a god, we would interpret only as nature.
The problem is, we can figure out how something works, but not really understand the forces behind it; without understanding why. Not a philosophical "why", but instead a sort of "why does all of this produce this and what leads it to produce this? Why is it as it is?"
Regardless, if we're discussing the values of science and religion, they are each valuable in their own way. Science, in improving quality of life and human knowledge, and religion, in the social system.
Simon:
Of course, morals play a decision. In everything, especially society and government.
Science without ethics and morals might result in a lot of progress, but it will also result in alot of cruelty. The Nazis, for instance.
Diseases great & small (Do I need to list them all?), mental illness, mental retardation, drug addicts, 2 headed babies, babies with vestigial tails, babies with ambiguous genitalia, crack babies, attacks on humans by animals, humans' apathetic or malicious attitudes toward animals, man's inhumanity to man, rape, false accusations of rape, child molesters & other child abusers, drunk drivers, diarhea, farting, bad body odor, wars, falling bridges, unmitigated greed, animals' need to kill to survive, short lives full of misery, inherently human problematic sexual desires, tortuous deterioration of the body in old age, xenophobia, fear, foolishness, stupidity, enormous natural difficulty getting out into the heavens to explore, trillions of unanswered prayers, religious books that contradict each other, religious books that contradict themselves, religious books that claim things which we know are not so, hate, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, etc, etc, etc declare the glory of god & proclaim the work of his hands.
I have huge problems with some "science" theories but you still have a puffed up strawman there. If we accept that some are flimsy, that says nothing of most science theories & discoveries or the scientific method. Humans aren't perfect. Scientists have flaws. Yet science is the only method that does work. Faith is ridiculous. Religion is nonsense. The Holy Babble is the most horribly cruel book I've read. Nearly all religious claims have been proven false.
Religion & morals are trillions of light years apart.
Religion without ethics and morals will also result in a lot of cruelty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you can thank Satan for that. And if it wasn't for those things you wouldn't know what good is.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Good point. And thus I think experimenting on prisoners is not ethical.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Used to be the smith could work in the house next to the carpenter.
Then, what happens when science discovers that which contradicts your beliefs?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member