The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?

by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  One thing that I have noticed on this particular discussion forum, is that if you spend a little time thinking out your arguments or responses and present them as a 'fait accompli' it does not go down well. It is at this stage that you become a dartboard for every frustrated poster who never won a point in debate to aim at, and then the thread gets buried in the drivel of wounded feelings.

  My advice is to flounder around posting the very first embryonic thought that enters your head on any subject, familiar or otherwise, put lots of brackets around peoples {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{names}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}, and never, but never describe a moron as a moron.

  It would also help if you were to title your threads more carefully. A few ideas : 'Oral Sex & Coffee - Do They mix?', 'Reality Shows Make My Dog Grin', 'What Do You Think Of My Tattooed Arse?' - that sort of thing.

  HS

  Thanks, HS. I wish I had this advice before I started this thread.

  I would begin it differently. Instead of "The Vote is in: Science vs Religion....who won?" I should have titled it:

  "I'm confused about my Spirituality...can a scientist help??"

  I'll get the hang of it if I practice.

  Thanks H.S. {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{hilary_step}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
• 

  Terry

  Also you don't only have technical sciences you also have social sciences (psycho stuff) ...

  I think you can call anything a science. But, if there are no predictions which can be measured in the practice of these things---they are something much less than science.

  Take Economics, for example. This isn't a science.

  Psychology is not a science. Psychiatry is not a science. There are behavioral studies, experiments and data involved but no predictability as in the REAL sciences.

  So, I agree with you here!

  Fields not canonically science

  The word "science" is older than its modern use, which is as a short-form for "natural science". Uses of the word "science", in contexts other than those of the natural sciences, are historically valid, so long as they are describing an art or organized body of knowledge which can be taught objectively. The use of the word "science" is not therefore always an attempt to claim that the subject in question ought to stand on the same footing of inquiry as a natural science.

  "Science" has in the 21st century largely become a short term to refer to natural science. The changing use of the word has resulted in much confusion (see above) when areas of inquiry and certain professions seem to have branded themselves as sciences, only for the added aura of seriousness or rigor that the term implies. Actuarial science, political science, computer science and library science sometimes make claim to the title because of their grounding in mathematical rigor. However, in such arguments it is better to remember (see the introduction) that the word "science" goes back historically to use of the term to describe an objective transferrable body of knowledge regarding the means to carry out a program or manual art, and a "science" therefore does not implicitly require use of mathematics (though quantitation always helps in making objective claims).

  Other fields recently named as "science" traffic less in quantitative methods, such as creation science. In these cases, the terminology is difficult, since these appear to fit into neither historical nor modern modes of the use of the word science.
• 

  Wafe

  Did you know the native Americans (Indians) who lived in Los Angeles before the white man arrived called the area Smoke Valley because of the smog??

  Irrelivent because it was not GLOBAL. The planet has the ability to heal pollution on a minor scale. Technology does this on a MAJOR scale. Suggestion read some current modern magazines on global warming and gas emmissions.

  Did you know that America (the Christian nation) is the only country on earth to have used atomic weapons on humans? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Did you know the bombs were not dropped on the selected targets, but, on secondary sites as a default?

  -I find that funny considering that congress (who approved the atom bombes use) were not all Christian. Suggestion, read some history. The United States, with assistance from the United Kingdom and Canada, designed and built the first atomic bombs under what was called the Manhattan Project. The project was initially started at the instigation of European refugee scientists (including Albert Einstein). I thought you said there was only ONE country involved.

  Did you know Global Warming has happened periodically all through Earth's history and BEFORE any man or technology could be blamed for it?

  -Theory unless you were there there is now way to prove it.

  Of course you didn't or you wouldn't post such statements.

  I am not the one stating things without checking my facts.

  But, thank you for sharing.
• 

  RAF

  again that's YOUR opinion (even if you are not alone to think that) :

  Take Economics, for example. This isn't a science.

  No but Marketingwhich have an influence on ecomony is a social science ... (but I guess we are playing with words here No?) ... science is about more we know about something (even if things evolve) more we are able to understand and explain it (*) use it and reproduce it.

  Eddited to add (*)
• 

  RAF

  And the more I read you and the more I think you confused Technic and science ...
• 

  RWC

  "Religion has the same comfort quotient as lying"- That doesn't answer the premise that the person who believed in the religion did not receive comfort that came from that belief. You may view it as a lie and thus it gives you no comfort, the person who has faith that it is true does receive comfort and would receive a great benefit from talking with their priest. In the end, under this scenerio, science has let him down because he has an incurable disease and religion has offered him a benefit. Emotions come from our values? Emotions are innate. They exist long before there is a value system to tie them together. The fact that we experience different emotions based upon the support or denial of our values does not mean that one causes the other. If your idea is that the emotion of love is a logical result of your rational evaluation of the consequences, with all due respect, you must be a riot on Valentine's day. Man is not logical in all respects and there are aspects of our behavior that are innate and not explained away by a rational or even conscious thought. The best example I can think of right now is a very logical scientist astronaut driving 900 miles in a diaper to confront a rival all in the name of love. Clearly not a logic driven decision in the true sense of being rational. She was controlled by her emotions which overrode her logic and presumably her value system. I agree with you that war is war and that killing is killing. I also agree that the atomic bomb was a horrific way for thousands of innocent civilians to die. But to deny that science was not a party in these killings is to deny history. Actually, scientific advancements throughout history have made war more and more destructive and it has been the pursuit of nations throughout time to use science to make war worse for the other guy. Science may not have been the motivating factor, but you cannot deny that science was not only a willing participant but actually encouraged the notion that war would be made better through science. If truly logical scientists had stood up together and said no we are not going to use our knowledge to help kill other people we may never have gotten to the point we are now with the capability to destory all life on earth.
• 

  Terry

  "Religion has the same comfort quotient as lying"- That doesn't answer the premise that the person who believed in the religion did not receive comfort that came from that belief. You may view it as a lie and thus it gives you no comfort, the person who has faith that it is true does receive comfort and would receive a great benefit from talking with their priest. In the end, under this scenerio, science has let him down because he has an incurable disease and religion has offered him a benefit. Emotions come from our values? Emotions are innate. They exist long before there is a value system to tie them together. The fact that we experience different emotions based upon the support or denial of our values does not mean that one causes the other. If your idea is that the emotion of love is a logical result of your rational evaluation of the consequences, with all due respect, you must be a riot on Valentine's day. Man is not logical in all respects and there are aspects of our behavior that are innate and not explained away by a rational or even conscious thought. The best example I can think of right now is a very logical scientist astronaut driving 900 miles in a diaper to confront a rival all in the name of love. Clearly not a logic driven decision in the true sense of being rational. She was controlled by her emotions which overrode her logic and presumably her value system. I agree with you that war is war and that killing is killing. I also agree that the atomic bomb was a horrific way for thousands of innocent civilians to die. But to deny that science was not a party in these killings is to deny history. Actually, scientific advancements throughout history have made war more and more destructive and it has been the pursuit of nations throughout time to use science to make war worse for the other guy. Science may not have been the motivating factor, but you cannot deny that science was not only a willing participant but actually encouraged the notion that war would be made better through science. If truly logical scientists had stood up together and said no we are not going to use our knowledge to help kill other people we may never have gotten to the point we are now with the capability to destory all life on earth.

  Whew!

  I think the box above is a kind of diagram of your thinking. Everything is crammed together so tightly without any spaces or organization it becomes a jumble.

  You hypothetical is something I can't even understand much less address. So, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

  We don't have the same process of addressing our points of discussion. I'm trying to understand you, but; I've failed.

  Sorry.
• 

  RAF

  I'm trying to understand you, but; I've failed.

  No comment ...
• 

  RWC

  I type with spaces and different paragraphs but it comes out in one lump. How do I fix that?
• 

  RAF

  Sorry I am the one who messed up here (confusion) ... Marketing as economy are not sciences (but technics which use social sciences = psychology.