Nicker on 8/9/2010 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Kolya
Science is far from being innocent in regard to human conflicts. Very far.
Yes like when the darwinian gradualists and the punctuated equalibrialists started bombing each others' laboratories...
Blaming science for human conflict is like blaming trees for causing house fires.
Shug on 8/9/2010 at 01:57
Quote Posted by daniel
Would you use math to come up with a dessert recipe? Certainly some people would try to calculate the perfect dessert, but how well would that turn out compared to the creativity of a chef?
I'd probably drop this analogy, given that pastry cheffing is usually pretty mathematical. The temperatures and cooking times are very precise in that area
Kolya on 8/9/2010 at 02:46
Quote Posted by Nicker
Blaming science for human conflict is like blaming trees for causing house fires.
Science doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is not exploring random subjects and scientists are not trees. They have a responsibility for how their work will presumably be used. If one decides to go to Iran and work in biochemical weapon lab I wouldn't let him get away with that excuse.
jtr7 on 8/9/2010 at 03:21
Side effects (in our trusting human test subjects) may cause...
Nicker on 8/9/2010 at 03:21
Quote Posted by Kolya
Science doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is not exploring random subjects and scientists are not trees. They have a responsibility for how their work will presumably be used. If one decides to go to Iran and work in biochemical weapon lab I wouldn't let him get away with that excuse.
Scientists are not science. Thus "Science is far from being innocent in regard to human conflicts. Very far." is nonsense.
Science, a methodical pursuit of understanding, is only responsible for the accuracy of its results, not their uses. It tends to the constructive over the destructive because reason tends that way.
Religion, to rob from Wilde, is a case of "The irrational in pursuit of the invisible". Religion trumpets unreasonable foregone conclusions and can only ultimately defend those prejudices with equally irrational behaviours, systemic and sustained violence being one common and repeated result.
In the distant past, religion was our proto-science. It sought to explain why and how things happen and what we should do about it. It is clearly outclassed in that capacity now. We have science to explore the mechanics of the universe and democratic discourse to devise the moral and ethical rules by which we interact. Religion has no viable or necessary explanations for nature and it's parental function has been replaced by adult to adult negotiations.
If religion wishes to remain viable it must stop pretending it can explain anything and start creating positive theatre for the soul, that is, ritual to nourish connections to each other and to the natural world that sustains us, not pandering some pie in the sky afterlife ego fantasy that denigrates this world and the lives of its all inhabitants (human and otherwise).
Pardoner on 8/9/2010 at 03:37
This discussion needs to acknowledge at some point that religion and science are not singular.
Nicker on 8/9/2010 at 03:50
Quote Posted by Pardoner
This discussion needs to acknowledge at some point that religion and science are not singular.
As misused terms they are all over the place but as approaches to knowledge they represent two clear and opposite positions.
Pardoner on 8/9/2010 at 04:24
Quote Posted by Nicker
As misused terms they are all over the place but as approaches to knowledge they represent two clear and opposite positions.
Empiricism has been the property of "each", at one time or another.
edit: Placing religion and science in a dichotomy seems like a mistake to me. Not because I'm eager to recite cliches of how utterly identical they are("But isn't science really its own form of religion, questionmark eyebrow raise expression of self-satisfaction"). But because it ignores any elision between the two, and establishes as each as 'forces' rather than contingent on the variety of their actual practice.
edit, edit, edit: post swallowed, rewritten, and then more posts
Your arguments are well taken, above and below. I was thinking about the historical relationship between the two, as well as the apparent homogeneity each has been given in this thread. Both are messy, fractured entities either necessarily piecemeal and isolate (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism) or as products of history (nearly every 'organized' religion remaining).
Nicker on 8/9/2010 at 05:42
Quote Posted by Pardoner
Empiricism has been the property of "each", at one time or another.
Religion claimed empiricism; that's not the same as possessing it.
Name ten practical technologies that Vatican Labs have produced in the last century. Name one developed by the theology department of a baptist university... ever.
While one day what we call science may be deemed as quaint and naive as alchemy and astrology, right now, religion / superstition cannot hold a candle to science in terms of accuracy, predictive power and just plain usefulness.
P.S. With regards the singularities of religion and science (if I understand what you mean), in fairness this thread presents them as discrete and conflicting positions in need of compromise. Even if they are founded in the same instinct for understanding and have shared some history, they are now light-years apart in every significant sense.
Vasquez on 8/9/2010 at 05:47
Quote Posted by Kolya
scientists are not trees
:joke:
Quote Posted by Nicker
As misused terms they are all over the place but as approaches to knowledge they represent two clear and opposite positions.
I've said this before, but since everyone else is also repeating what they've said before, I'll say it again.
Religion is not even SUPPOSED to be about knowledge, it's about believing without evidence. The whole question is objective vs. subjective, and it makes no sense to even try to compare them.
However, considering how strongly religions have attacked science in the past (and still do, in some backwood parts of the world) I understand why scientists want to throw some of that old shit back by "proving" god's nonexistence.
