Neither. Humans are tool users. Knowledge, whether religious, philosophical, or scientific, is a tool for the mind. Surely, with the vast sea of information we have now, we can enjoy the best of both worlds, can't we?
Dave
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
PrimateDave
-
gumb
RAF, I love the idea of ex JWs becoming EWs (Evolution's Witnesses). The next thing you know they'll be knocking on our doors with their own version of the 'Evolution Book' (tm)!
-
fifi40
Ok now I am briefly interrupting ' A Life less Ordinary'.............
You say - Politicians & power brokers come to power by getting people alarmed over some - cause, are you saying scientists are not concerned over Global warming and the effects man is having on the Ozone.
-
fifi40
I really must learn to copy and paste or download the necessary tools
You said - The data & technology produced by theists or deists or even atheists is not because of their view for & against religion.
My response - Where did they say that?
-
Terry
Neither. Humans are tool users. Knowledge, whether religious, philosophical, or scientific, is a tool for the mind. Surely, with the vast sea of information we have now, we can enjoy the best of both worlds, can't we?
What I dispute is that there is any "best" in the world of religion.
What does it offer that benefits humanity that can't be better obtained elsewhere?
Does religion offer facts about the real world or does it substitute fantasy and mock history?
In a practical everyday world you need facts and not fantasy and fallacy to improve your lot in life.]
Religion is thumbsucking. It makes you feel better, but; in the long run it ruins the shape of your teeth.
Better to cope with reality by using information which measures, predicts and prepares you for choices that are genunine choices in the here and now.
What if somebody opened a bank in your neighborhood that promised 200% interest on your deposits? Would you put your life savings in the account and HOPE they'd pay what they promised? Or, would you be skeptical enough to investigate the track record of the bank over the long haul?
Religion is no different! Promises made in the name of religion are beautifully and abundantly thrilling to consider when compared to mundane everyday existence. But, if you measure the returns on these promises throughout history you find THEY NEVER PAY OFF!!
A promise is only as good as its payoff.
-
RWC
Thank you for the thoughtful response, but I think you missed my point ot I did not make myself clear. To say that morality is practical and then to argue that a person will adhere to the moral code of his society in order not to be shunned, to me is saying two different things all together. One does not support the other. First, your arguement appears to be that morality in a society is something that society determines what it will say is right or wrong. But there has to be a basis for that morality and those societial decisions. They are not just survival. To use your example, there are some communities that would not arrest you for going out in public in the nude. There are some communities that are exploring and even debating legal sanction of euthanasia of the elderly or sick (If my memroy serves, I think that was in Swedan or Norway). It was clearly the debate that arose in the Terry Shivo issue- Did her husband have the right to starve her because he said that was what she wanted. Killing has not always been against the norm of society. Just look at Nazi Germany, within that society it was not only legal but encouraged to kill Jews under the morality of that culture. What was practical about that morality? If your argument is that morality is practical because people will adhere to the moral code for their own survival, than you have to ask the next question, who establishes the moral code. What makes one moral code any better than another one? If it comes down to what one group decides is right for them, how small or big does the group have to be before it is recognized as a moral code? If it comes down to each individual's decision of right and wrong and they just have to find the right goup to fit in, than it is completely random. If there is no group that fits what I think is morally right, I will just make my own group only to be extingushed by a bigger group with more power so that they may place their moral code on me. The end result is that morality is not practical at all, it is just who has the power at the time to impose their version of it on the rest of us. For example, a slave may not run away because the moral code he lives under tells him he will be put in jail or killed for doing so, but that does not make his slavery or the moral code that permits it practical for him or anyone else. Why do you think that society, and as you have argued for all time societies, have made killing another human being immoral and something that would not be tolerated? Why do some societies think that cannablism is moral and others do not? They certainly aren't our societies but they do or at least did exist. And do you think that the role of a religious belief has played absolutely no role in steering soceity from allowing killings, murder, adultry, etc.? What early society that had these prohibitions did so without basing them upon a relgious belief?
-
fifi40
You say - The failure of science is what?
My response - I did not say that science had failed but I can give you a list of some of the failures of science
Smoking
Asbestos
Flat Earth
Piltdown Man
Thalidomide
Alchemy
Authenticated Hitler diaries exposed as hoax
Cold Fusion
Lead
Water fluoridation
-
Qcmbr
Terry - fine points but your only ever one step away from evidence that would change your whole outlook.
There isn't really any jury - the debate has gone on since records have begun ( I hardly think atheism or experential science are a modern day phenomenom) and the debate will continue. Religion will change just as scienctific conclusions do - anti-religionists slam religion with a standard not adhered to by themselves - change (change a religion and you're false - change a scientific belief and you're at the forefront on inovation.) What has science given us? A way to record our experience of the world - nothing more (that isn't to denigrate it) - from the scientific method we have a way of repeating experiences and recording laws - that's it.
The argument IMO is about the myth that scientists want to write to fill in the blanks because (maybe!)they feel religion didn't do such a good job of its myths - it is a condition of being human that we hate unanswered questions so scientists and priests fill in the gaps with myths. In the past when religious man observed something he could not undestand he applied a myth (take sun worship) , then along came scientific man - when he sees something he can't understand he does exactly the same thing - its called a theory (we have theoretical physics and unobserved guesses presented as fact - the core of the earth is a molten iron? Good guess - may even be right - but there is no actual direct experience of it - just the best guess that can be infer from other observations.) This is no different to the process of the sun worshipper who applied what he knew to a phenomenom he couldn't prove. Religion and science send men in search of answers and experience, in search of purpose and meaning, the stonehenge builder observing the heavens stands in an unbroken chain to teh hubble scientist observing distant galaxies on the computer. One's god may have been a zodiac sign while the other's may be a big bang singularity.
Science cannot disprove God - its utterly impossible but they pretend to have a go as though science could conceive the universe without conferring upon the observer godlike power - it cannot disprove God without creating God.
Science is actually the same as religion with one different aim - one seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from intelligence and the other seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from chaos. Both make things up to fill the gaps based upon observed fact and both bring great benefits (social cohesian through to dna studies) and both carry great risks (bigotry throughto nuclear war) they do not need to fight each other since there is far too much in this world to discover and too many myths to replace to waste time throwing rhetoric at each other. We all believe some as yet unprovable myths - so what. -
RAF
Qcmbr : good resume (really)
-
Terry
are you saying scientists are not concerned over Global warming and the effects man is having on the Ozone.
http://www.edsanders.com/global/warming.htm
The natural changes that the Earth itself is constantly undergoing have caused the most violent and far-reaching changes throughout the millennia. Rachel Carson in her book THE SEA AROUND US (published in 1951) identified one of the major causes of climate change.
Briefly, the core of planet Earth is radioactive material undergoing decay. As the radioactive material decays it creates enormous heat which causes the Earth's core to be molten metal and rock. This bubbles up under the ocean through funnels and volcanoes which erupt periodically. The warming of the oceans greatly impacts the air currents moving above the water. Read the above link.
So, the scientific community has noted for a long time the root causes of changes which impact the long term temperature on the surface of our planet.
That is ONE issue. The other side is ugly.
Briefly, as I previously mentioned, people who want to gain power will look for an issue---any issue of concern--to create a public awareness of fear which allows them to offer themselves up as the SOLUTION. Lacking an issue these people CREATE one.
The issue can be a silly one too. Tipper Gore chose naughty Rock lyrics as the cause to rally the fear of parents. Her husband Al picked Global warming. Experts can be bought. Remember the "science" behind the Tobacco companies disclaimers? Money has the power to corrupt.