G
Geremia
Guest
It is futile only if these things do not lead to wisdom. Do they?
- Status
R
Rocinante
Guest
why do you think that questions of good and evil, free will and the purpose of life have anything to do with some alternative reality that science can’t access? if these questions are important is only because they have something to do with the reality we experience, and science is not at all limited in studying human experience.
E
edwest2
Guest
The problem with Science today is not the data but the human desire to misuse the data to make a buck or control people. Science is treading on dangerous ground whenever it attempts to answer questions regarding who and what a human being is. Faulty and incorrect conclusions lead to the following actions:
Destruction of human embryos. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.
Euthenasia: The deliberate killing of other human beings with the assistance of doctors. Paliative care is available but rejected out of hand by some.
Treating other human beings purely as objects and thereby denying their inherent dignity. The hyper-sexualization of Western society is a direct result of years of gradual conditioning to accept a limitless type of hedonism that was formally practiced by only a few.
I’ll tell you one thing for certain: Even scientific experts don’t agree. And a future Technocracy will face a major fundamental problem. People will be told that something is bad for them or might even kill them. Six months later, another group of experts will tell us the exact opposite. We will be told that some food or drink that was called bad six months ago is now OK. So it will be a future of duelling experts.
I just read an article that quoted some experts saying that colonoscopies aren’t that useful in detecting cancer and may be a wate of time and resources.
Modern Science has become a deity in the church of constant change. The cult of anti-boredom builds their lives around it. Evolution is simply another form of Nature Worship. The Great Nothing made us what we are today. I can think of nothing more irrational.
God bless,
Ed
Destruction of human embryos. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.
Euthenasia: The deliberate killing of other human beings with the assistance of doctors. Paliative care is available but rejected out of hand by some.
Treating other human beings purely as objects and thereby denying their inherent dignity. The hyper-sexualization of Western society is a direct result of years of gradual conditioning to accept a limitless type of hedonism that was formally practiced by only a few.
I’ll tell you one thing for certain: Even scientific experts don’t agree. And a future Technocracy will face a major fundamental problem. People will be told that something is bad for them or might even kill them. Six months later, another group of experts will tell us the exact opposite. We will be told that some food or drink that was called bad six months ago is now OK. So it will be a future of duelling experts.
I just read an article that quoted some experts saying that colonoscopies aren’t that useful in detecting cancer and may be a wate of time and resources.
Modern Science has become a deity in the church of constant change. The cult of anti-boredom builds their lives around it. Evolution is simply another form of Nature Worship. The Great Nothing made us what we are today. I can think of nothing more irrational.
God bless,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
My observation is that people are not limited in their study of human experience. Thus, on their own they can come to some kind of knowledge of the marvels of their own human nature. All of us are mini-scientists.
A
Anselm33
Guest
Granny, I respectfully disagree. Science is the confirmation of theory by reproducible measurements. It is quantitative not qualitative. I think many people confuse rationality with science, and the two aren’t the same. You can have logic, metaphysics argued by logic, art…all not the domain of science. Ethics and morality are not the domain of science, but ethics and morality should govern the uses to which science is put. Many of us (not all) on this Forum are rational, but very few are scientists.
G
grannymh
Guest
Dang! I’ve misplaced the post which can support my statements. It had something to do with observable phenomenon. No matter. You present a good case.
Speaking of modern science. I just started the book
New Proofs for the Existence of God, Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy
by Robert J. Spitzer, ISBN:978-0-8028-6383-6
I won’t admit how long it took me to get through the introduction. However, the result is that I could actually understand what he is writing. I am now in Part One. This book is worth the time.
Blessings,
granny
“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
R
Rocinante
Guest
what sorts of theories can science have? why do you think that a theory about morality cannot be confirmed by reproducible measurements? for example, if masturbation is immoral (i.e. bad for people), there ought to be some evidence of that fact. that fact is either realized or not in the course of human experience. it may be difficult to get data, but there is nothing that prevents science in principle from studying such things.
i see science merely as our best attempts to not fool ourselves about what is true and false. i don’t see any area of study as outside of scientific inquiry unless the area itself is simply defined as such, i.e. the supernatural.
rocinante
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
R
Rocinante
Guest
exactly. there are objectively detectable ways of measuring aspects of human well-being such as divorce and addiction rates. what is good for humans is not some random phenomenon about which science has nothing to say.
R
Rocinante
Guest
suppose that scientists discovered that the communion wafers actually undergo a scientifically detectable change at a point during the mass. how many catholics do you think would respond to such news by saying, “that is entirely irrelevant. science can never say anything of interest about spiritual matters.” i suspect that such news would be trumpeted to high heaven. don’t you?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
If what you call wisdom does not value saving lives (medicine), protecting ourselves and what we care about (guns and other modern weaponry), and communicating better (telephones, internet, etc.), then it is worthless.
The physical world may be limited, but in a very real sense its all we have (at least while we are alive). Any philosophy or idealogy that completely disregards it is misguided at best.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Treating other human beings purely as objects and thereby denying their inherent dignity. The hyper-sexualization of Western society is a direct result of years of gradual conditioning to accept a limitless type of hedonism that was formally practiced by only a few.
-History is full of what you would call hedonism, its nothing new. The only thing really unique thing about the modern West in that regard is the easy availability of effective contraceptives.
I’ll tell you one thing for certain: Even scientific experts don’t agree. And a future Technocracy will face a major fundamental problem. People will be told that something is bad for them or might even kill them. Six months later, another group of experts will tell us the exact opposite. We will be told that some food or drink that was called bad six months ago is now OK. So it will be a future of duelling experts.
-Good.
A scientist who does not question is worthless.
Scientific experts are SUPPOSED to change or at least question their old views when contradictory evidence comes up. That is what separates them from most other experts.
-History is full of what you would call hedonism, its nothing new. The only thing really unique thing about the modern West in that regard is the easy availability of effective contraceptives.
I’ll tell you one thing for certain: Even scientific experts don’t agree. And a future Technocracy will face a major fundamental problem. People will be told that something is bad for them or might even kill them. Six months later, another group of experts will tell us the exact opposite. We will be told that some food or drink that was called bad six months ago is now OK. So it will be a future of duelling experts.
-Good.
A scientist who does not question is worthless.
Scientific experts are SUPPOSED to change or at least question their old views when contradictory evidence comes up. That is what separates them from most other experts.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
R
Rocinante
Guest
i’m not why you are bringing this up here. can you explain further?
i agree that god is not a random phenomenon so can be studied scientifically if that is what you mean.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Is God good for humans, then? If God is good and God has provided laws which humans should follow, should those laws not control over any other laws from any other source?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
You nailed it. Look at the drug industry. One day, there will be advertisements and rave reviews of Drug X. The next year, there is an ad that says “DRUG X has been linked to [insert horrible disease here]. CALL 1-800-SUE-THEM. You may have a claim for money damages!”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
*suppose that scientists discovered that the communion wafers actually undergo a scientifically detectable change at a point during the mass. how many catholics do you think would respond to such news by saying, “that is entirely irrelevant. science can never say anything of interest about spiritual matters.” i suspect that such news would be trumpeted to high heaven. don’t you? *
This is a truly ridiculous statement. How is science going to prove any such thing? Can you put Jesus Christ under a microscope? What priest or Catholic would give you permission to do such a thing? You would have to steal the Communion wafer to study it. So much for the morals and wisdom of science … that it holds all reality to be its own bailiwick.
However, if science can tie AIDS to homosexual sex or drug use, that would be a useful fact to condemn homosexual sex and drug abuse. Just as when science can tie lung cancer to cigarettes, that is a useful fact to help in the condemnation of tobacco. Likewise, if pornographic movies can be studied to show the dehumanizing effects on the actors in them (suicide, drug abuse, venereal diseases, etc.) then a statistical result should prove informative. However, the underlying principle behind all such behavior is that it is self destructive. We really don’t need science to tell us that self destructive behavior is immoral.
*suppose that scientists discovered that the communion wafers actually undergo a scientifically detectable change at a point during the mass. how many catholics do you think would respond to such news by saying, “that is entirely irrelevant. science can never say anything of interest about spiritual matters.” i suspect that such news would be trumpeted to high heaven. don’t you? *
This is a truly ridiculous statement. How is science going to prove any such thing? Can you put Jesus Christ under a microscope? What priest or Catholic would give you permission to do such a thing? You would have to steal the Communion wafer to study it. So much for the morals and wisdom of science … that it holds all reality to be its own bailiwick.
However, if science can tie AIDS to homosexual sex or drug use, that would be a useful fact to condemn homosexual sex and drug abuse. Just as when science can tie lung cancer to cigarettes, that is a useful fact to help in the condemnation of tobacco. Likewise, if pornographic movies can be studied to show the dehumanizing effects on the actors in them (suicide, drug abuse, venereal diseases, etc.) then a statistical result should prove informative. However, the underlying principle behind all such behavior is that it is self destructive. We really don’t need science to tell us that self destructive behavior is immoral.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Angry
*
Scientific experts are SUPPOSED to change or at least question their old views when contradictory evidence comes up. That is what separates them from most other experts. *
Could you give some examples of “other experts”? I think experts in any field are experts because they value improvements in their field based on new knowledge. For example, an ice skater who learns a new move that has never been discovered before is quick to adopt it if that move proves to be do-able in spite of its degree of difficulty. A poet who discovers a hitherto unknown rhythmic or rhyming device, if he is an expert in writing poetry, will not be reluctant to use it.
*
Scientific experts are SUPPOSED to change or at least question their old views when contradictory evidence comes up. That is what separates them from most other experts. *
Could you give some examples of “other experts”? I think experts in any field are experts because they value improvements in their field based on new knowledge. For example, an ice skater who learns a new move that has never been discovered before is quick to adopt it if that move proves to be do-able in spite of its degree of difficulty. A poet who discovers a hitherto unknown rhythmic or rhyming device, if he is an expert in writing poetry, will not be reluctant to use it.
R
Rocinante
Guest
indeed. if god is good, then his laws are what is good for us. whatever laws prove to be good for us are the laws we should follow. given that there are lots of differences of opinion on which laws are god’s laws and which ones are not, then the way to decide which one’s are really moral is to inquire rationally into the question of what is good for humanity and what is not. what could possibly help settle such disputes if not the exchange of reasons for our beliefs, i.e. rationality, i.e., science?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
given that there are lots of differences of opinion on which laws are god’s laws and which ones are not, then the way to decide which one’s are really moral is to inquire rationally into the question of what is good for humanity and what is not.
One man’s rationality is another man’s insanity. People who are determined to be irrational cannot be persuaded to be rational. Ask an man who want to marry another man.
given that there are lots of differences of opinion on which laws are god’s laws and which ones are not, then the way to decide which one’s are really moral is to inquire rationally into the question of what is good for humanity and what is not.
One man’s rationality is another man’s insanity. People who are determined to be irrational cannot be persuaded to be rational. Ask an man who want to marry another man.
- Status