synth-what unexpected honesty. I can appreciate that.
What seperates religion and science?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
SAM,
Science is simply a disciplined approach to discovering how things work. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Religions assert with certainty they already know how things work – generally a god did it all. If religions were in any real control science would never exist. It is because religions have never discovered anything that leads people to use different approaches – e.g. science.
Science exists despite of religion and not because of it.
The only motive for science is to discover.
How scientists conduct their research can sometimes cross into controversial territory and there ethics standards are usually the primary governing influence. Such ethical considerations may sometimes coincidentally overlap with religious beliefs, but religions are not the driving influence. In the USA and Islamic countries politicized religion interferes more than the rest of the world.
Two examples here -
1. Experimentation on animals - conflcits with animal rights activists - religion is generally silent on that.
2. Stem cell research - religion in the USA attempts to control this becuase of an irrational notion that soul exists at conception. Islam has no such restriction since it teaches souls arrive later. Go figure all that total nonsense.
In general and throughout history, at least the history of relatively modern science, religions have tended to limit and restrict scientific discovery. That, I find, is totally reprehensible.
No on every aspect.
Science is simply a disciplined approach to discovering how things work. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Religions assert with certainty they already know how things work – generally a god did it all. If religions were in any real control science would never exist. It is because religions have never discovered anything that leads people to use different approaches – e.g. science.
Science exists despite of religion and not because of it.
The only motive for science is to discover.
How scientists conduct their research can sometimes cross into controversial territory and there ethics standards are usually the primary governing influence. Such ethical considerations may sometimes coincidentally overlap with religious beliefs, but religions are not the driving influence. In the USA and Islamic countries politicized religion interferes more than the rest of the world.
Two examples here -
1. Experimentation on animals - conflcits with animal rights activists - religion is generally silent on that.
2. Stem cell research - religion in the USA attempts to control this becuase of an irrational notion that soul exists at conception. Islam has no such restriction since it teaches souls arrive later. Go figure all that total nonsense.
In general and throughout history, at least the history of relatively modern science, religions have tended to limit and restrict scientific discovery. That, I find, is totally reprehensible.
No, she can't. She hasn't a clue.
I suggest you look up the astika philosophies of India. Religion is the basis from which science and logic springs. Societies which do not have religion, do not develop, full stop. If you go back to how scientific thought develops in any society, it always goes back to religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astika
They broke the mold with you.
You can generally tell right out when someone is actually working in a scientific field. They are usually beyond such gratuitous mental masturbation.
Thats not the motive of science. That MAY be A motive for A scientist. If he is not bothered by mundane stuff like tenure, job security and funding.
Last edited:
so SAM, what you are saying is that science denying religious influence is like the child who denies the parent?
The thought police are watching
The thought police are watching
Science can't deny anything. Its not a live being. Science is a tool. It doesn't do anything. Its people using science who do stuff. Its like saying a hammer built the house.
(sigh) Ok. I'll try being more literal. What you are saying is that those who deny religious influence upon science may as well be saying that they do not have parents(In that religious study led to scientific study, not scientific study developing on its own)?
Must be literal day today.
The thought police are watching.
Must be literal day today.
The thought police are watching.
Religion is a primitive form of inquiry into the nature of life, but religion is fixed, and our understanding changes. Religion doesn't allow for updating based on newly revealed information.
They like to ignore the fact that there has to-date been no successful and sustainable atheist society. Even the attempts in this century have been such miserable failures, they ultimately had to concede that religion was required. [And this was after trying so hard to make science all about atheism].
Actually stem cell research is limited for fear of abortions being performed specifically to get stem cells. I didn't know this was a religious issue.
Wait! I could swear we had discussed this. Didn't everyone agree that one's religious understanding could change over time?
I think freedom was required. The ability to create a unified, sustainable society is probably assisted by a shared ideology, however false that might be. It has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of atheism.
Then it's not Religion with a capital R, it's just religious feeling in general.
Yeah, apparently even with all that devotion to atheism and science, they missed out on the ethics that come pre-packaged with that duet.
The concept of 'purpose' requires sapient intent and some of the "Why" questions that are being asked above are questions of intent... which are simply not valid (i.e. mis-applied to non-sapient caused phenomena).
Some of your questions are questions of function. For example, Why does copper carry current from point A to B? The answer is that copper contains electric charges and applying current moves the charges (out with the old, in with the new).
Of course you could ask "whey does copper exist" and the answer would be somewhere in the properties of the universe. Then of course you might ask, "why do those properties exist" and the answer might be somewhere outside the univers... and the question chain can go on and on and on.
The trap that many people get themselves into is thinking that there is some magical "first cause" that turns "nothing" into "something". The reality is that there is no such thing as "nothing", which means that "something" always exists. That of course means that reality doesn't have a beginning or an end. It simply is and a question of "Why does it exist" doesn't apply under any interpretation of the word "Why".
*************Yeah, apparently even with all that devotion to atheism and science, they missed out on the ethics that come pre-packaged with that duet.
M*W: You are too thick-headed to understand. You keep spouting your lies about atheism. You are the liar who lacks ethics.
SAM,
People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.
In essence - religions are born from ignorance.
Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.
Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.
The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.
You are very confused here. You are attempting to assign a cause to an effect where no such relationship exists.
People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.
In essence - religions are born from ignorance.
Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.
Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.
The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.