Do you mean to say that religion is NOT defined by extremists or that scientists ARE defined by those who build weapons?
Religion Just Sucks Hairy Balls and then Some
- Thread starter falcon22
- Start date
Do you mean to say that religion is NOT defined by extremists or that scientists ARE defined by those who build weapons?
actually it is advocated by some modern historians that there was no need for the states to drop the bombs in japan at such a late stage during the war - some say they did it for reasons of display of political prowess - some say they did it because they were curious to examine this scientific invention
actually the ethics of science is becoming an increasingly discussed issue even amongst scientists - why?
Yes. And ethical religious and political leaders would never comission the development of such weapons to implement genocide and terrorism.
Clearly the former. I never claimed otherwise.
so why condemn religion if its proper application leads to a strengthening of ethical charcater?
So scientists are designing weapons out of fear and due to coercion?
They are afraid of the politicians and religious leaders more than they are afraid of the consequences of their weapons? They would rather defend their own skins than those of innocent women and children???? (since most of them KNOW that there is no afterlife, and this is all there is?)
We do, we simply don't let it rule our lives or use it in debate.
Did you read your own post? Scientists were almost unanimous in their desire to NOT have the bombs dropped.
Truman was reported to have said of Oppenheimers claim of responsibility for the deaths of the victims "Who the hell does he think he is? I ordered the goddamned thing to be dropped".
What about the 20,000 bombs built later?
More curiosity?
edit:
Hell this is a LOT of scientific curiosity.
http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/50.htm
If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.
Me too (in absence of religion).
Please, sam, I'm dissapointed. The true science part was over when the concept of critical mass and nuclear chain reaction was demonstrated in a basement at the university of Chicago. The original atomic bombs and all of the subsequent thousands of them were a politically motivated exercise in engineering and manufacturing. If anything, blame the engineers. I worked on DOD weapons projects for the first nine years of my carreer.
Even many atheists acknowledge that the primary establishment of religious norms enabled the development of trade and agriculture which in turn gave rise to abundance and which enables for pursuit of knowledge, philosophy and science since such things require money and a civil atmosphere to take place - in other words the fact that you have the luxury to debate on a net forum and not worry where your next meal is coming from indicates the contribution of religious principles
Amazingly, many are. More than I ever would have guessed.Are engineers religious?
Sometimes, yes. My degree is in Electrical Engineering Science. But there is a basic difference between fundamental discovery science and applications science. Scientists discover the fundamentals, and engineers refine the ideas into practical realities. There is much crossover between the two, but that's the basic division of labour.
I find it hard to disagree with this.
I must be slow. What are you talking about?So if I learn philosophy and arts, I can become an engineer?
so how do you reconcile your conclusion with your initial response ....
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so why condemn religion if its proper application leads to a strengthening of ethical charcater? ”
If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.