RE: Science: A Religion? (long post)
September 7, 2014 at 2:42 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2014 at 2:43 pm by ManMachine.)
(September 7, 2014 at 2:13 pm)Diablo Wrote:(September 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm)ManMachine Wrote: [quote='Diablo' pid='745452' dateline='1410105457']
I'm glad you're not anti-science.
Religion and its structures cerainly improved the lives of some people, and killed lots of others. Crusades anyone?
You said 'belief' has a positive effect on people. Does that include the gay men who have been and still are being demonised and persecuted, or the christians in Saudi, or the women in any muslim country? The safest places to be are in the secular democracries of western Europe where the the level of religion is the lowest.
That's the point I was making: we don't have to believe in a god so we don't have to kill in his name. There are people who are sometimes vicious but we no longer accept that they can act in that fashion, and we punish them when they do, unlike in religious wars.
Neither science nor religion kill anyone, people do. Whatever the reason they use to justify their behaviour is driven by their needs.
I'm not comparing scientific endeavour to the Abrahamic religions or any other religions, that would be meaningless. It is important to understand what my debate is, that scientific endeavour meets the same human needs as any other religion. The particular dogmas of other religions are not relevant.
Whatever part religion plays in war you cannot argue that, as I pointed out, knowledge and technology brought about by scientific endeavour has played no part because it has. That you choose to ignore this is part of the deception we play upon ourselves.
MM
You certainly choose to ignore most of the argument. OK, I'll address yours. IS are killing people in the ME precisely because their version of their religion tells them to do so, just as Christians and other religions have done over the years. No part of science tells people to kill anyone.
Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind. That includes keeping me alive , by the way. Religion does no such thing: it's a form of crown control as everyone knows. That is not the same thing.
Everyone knows that guns kill people; but the overwhelming effect of science has been for the betterment of mankind.
Yes, I ignored it because its not relevant to my post.
I am not suggesting scientific endeavour has to become more like Christianity, Islam or any other religion, I am not suggesting they have the same dogma nor should they, I am not suggesting any changes to scientific endeavour whatsoever, I am not comparing the particular types of censorship employed by other religions, all I am saying is we need to re-evaluate how we view it.
I have nothing to say about your (or anybody's) particular misgivings with Christianity and Islam.
What you are calling 'crowd control' I refer to as censorship, and that abundantly exists in scientific endeavour.
What I will say is I completely disagree with your statement that 'Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind.' There is nothing to support that point of view, it's species hubris.
Scientific knowledge and technology does not have to stop keeping you alive for being a religion.
MM
P.S. I am glad you are still alive and long may you be so.
(September 7, 2014 at 2:34 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: When all the environmental threats set in, will science be said to have been better for humanity or for the worse?
Great point.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
