Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Science comes from religion by both asking 'how and why', but it's a bit like saying aviation came from some kid jumping off the swing set and flapping his arms.There is a need to chose as they have become very different ways of answering ( or in religion's case, not answering) our questions.
Intellectual history has shown this seperation of science and religion.
You might say they started from a common answer and one evolved...
Travis wrote: "Science comes from religion by both asking 'how and why', but it's a bit like saying aviation came from some kid jumping off the swing set and flapping his arms.There is a need to chose as they h..."
Travis wrote: "Science comes from religion by both asking 'how and why', but it's a bit like saying aviation came from some kid jumping off the swing set and flapping his arms.
There is a need to chose as they h..."
The science that upsets everyone so much came about as an attempt to understand the mind of God, to mimic it's processes...
but people were applying science to the world before they were trying to understand "god", because they were using it before the god you speak of was even a blip on the landscape. They could already make steel weapons by that point, thats applied science right there, the smelting of ore, the technology needed to make the sword, its all based on science and maths.
hazel--message 691--i finally got Father Ted--my computer is giving me a bad time--it took me quite awhile to get he link to work--this is your English humour-it was funny what i could understand--the english accent is sometimes hard for me--we do have "As Time Goes By" and "Keeping Up Appearances" here which i watch-they are my favorite programs--i have watched them for several years now.
Ah, its an irish accent in Father Ted, and that was a played down Irish accent. Its one of the best comedy series in the last 20 years, whereas I never rated Keeping up Appearances, it was definitely at the lower end of British comedy, it was horribly bad. The sad thing about Father Ted is that Dermot, the guy who plays Ted died before they finished making it, so he died without finishing the work he wanted to do. He was a brilliant comedian. Ardal O Hanlon, who plays Dougal is also an amazing comedian.
Hazel wrote: "Sorry, that was a shit post. Science is responsible for a fair few reprehensible things, its true, but just because it is doesn't detract from what religion has done. Both have done bad things, but..."The application of science is what got us into this mess, and you think it's science that will get us out Hazel? The application of science is the sole reason for global warming, it's not the solution. The only sustainable solution is not to use science at all, to accept that we are animals subject to life & death, just as every other living species on this planet is. Your post clearly states that science is the only thing that can fix the damage that science caused. This is madness incarnate. If an internal combustion engine is polluting the atmosphere in a finite environment, you don't add a catalytic converter & muffler to it, this only slows down the rate of pollution. The proper "solution" to the "problem" of an engine polluting the atmosphere is to stop running the engine.
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. There nearly always is method in madness. It's what drives men mad, being methodical."-G.K. Chesterton
hazel--well that's too bad about the actor playing Ted--i guess i am unsophistacated--i was too lazy to look up the spelling-but i really loved both those programs- see i couldn't tell an Irish accent-i listen to Pers Morgan here and i don't have a problem with his accent--it isn't too bad. i love English history--have read many books on English history-
Jeff wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Sorry, that was a shit post. Science is responsible for a fair few reprehensible things, its true, but just because it is doesn't detract from what religion has done. Both have done b..."Jeff, The fact that you're posting saying all science should be scrapped while doing so from a computer is massively hypocritical, if you want to live without science, great, fine, go do it, and leave the rest of us to get on with it without your finite wisdom.
The fact that we caused the mess means we are morally and ethically obligated to use all the means at our disposal to clean it up, not to turn our back on it, and claim we can live without science. Thats not only naive, but deeply deeply immoral.
Praying isn't going to do it, we can't sort out the mess by hoping that God does it. Whereas science can, and is, remedying many of the problems we have caused.
And the fact that you believe science is the only contributing factor to global warming is a big indicator of your scientific illiteracy. One of the biggest contributing factors is cows farting and burping, other ruminants like sheep contribute too. We have a lot of cattle, but before we had cattle there were a lot of wild cattle, you can watch wildebeest herds for days, passing by on their migration. Buffalo in the states used to number in their millions. And then of course there's the fact (yes, FACT) that the climate naturally cycles between hot and cold periods, we know this from drilling cores and investigating the different layers.
Also, please explain to me, assuming everyone agrees to give up science, how without intensive crop farming in scientifically controlled greenhouses, would you feed everyone who has "sloughed the shackles of science" and joined you in a science free life?
Do you honestly believe we can remove all science from the world? Maybe you should start by unplugging your computer and taking an axe to it.
Bunnie wrote: "hazel--well that's too bad about the actor playing Ted--i guess i am unsophistacated--i was too lazy to look up the spelling-but i really loved both those programs- see i couldn't tell an Irish acc..."Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were unsophisticated, of course your not, what I meant was that its a shame that you don't get some of the cream of British comedy over there. Please tell me you get Monty Python, and Fawlty Towers. What about the Mighty Boosh? Blackadder?
Hazel wrote: "Jeff wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Sorry, that was a shit post. Science is responsible for a fair few reprehensible things, its true, but just because it is doesn't detract from what religion has done. Bot..."Hazel, if you haven't realized yet that every single human being to have ever spoken is a hypocrite, then you simple aren't at my level of comprehension. Also, any knowledge/wisdom that humanity considers itself to have is finite in nature. If we caused the mess, we should not continue to believe in our "intelligent" use of science that caused it. I'm not saying turn your back on the "mess", I personally think every offshore oil derrick should be dismantled and the drill holes in the ocean floor closed. Also, it's in no way immoral of me to turn my back on "problems" that I had no part whatsoever in creating. And God always will sort out whatever mess there is, cuz God doesn't see it as a problem at all. You're still under the naive ideology that the world/universe is subject to human rule & dominion, which is minutely true, but the fact is the external world around you has a far greater influence over YOU than you have influence over it.... and praying doesn't do anything except increase the strength of the prayer's belief.
BTW, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to take an axe to every computer & television on earth, but I suspect that if I tried this, I would almost immediately be opposed by a far greater force than myself. And similarly, if you tried to remove all science from the world, your competitors (other people) simply wouldn't let you, the only way to remove knowledge/science from the world is to destroy anything containing that knowledge, whether that be a person or a database (books, computers, etc.) containing said knowledge.
"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays." –Soren Kierkegaard
"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world." – Francis Bacon
Love Father Ted!"What would you say to a nice cup of tea?"
"Fek off cup!
'As time goes by' is a favorite as well.
Jeff, you actually want to destroy everything that contains knowledge? That means you have to kill everyone too, you realise that don't you. We have knowledge in our heads, you do too. It would mean the extermination of the entire human race, because otherwise, we might (shock horror) write it down again. Tell me, would that give you as much pleasure as smashing all the TV's and then leaving the pieces to pollute the earth?Also, you didn't answer about how you'd feed everyone if they went along with this idea of yours to get rid of science.
"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."
Epicurus
"It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself."
Epicurus
See, I can quote stuff too.
Since caused the problems, so it's got to go, but religion gets to stay, despite the fact that it caused the problems too, it gets a free pass...?And we thought arguing against science on the internet was the extent of Jeff's hypocrisy.
If prayer does such a crackjack job of fixing things ( and I'd like to hear an example of something prayer fixed) why is the world still so screwed up?
Religion has had 2,000 years to fix things and you want to chuck science for not being able to fix global warming? Something that's only been occurring for a century tops?
Yeah, that's fair.
A world without religion, without science mankind would still be living in the dark and brooding stone age.
I turn my back for a couple of days and we get post 666 and a Father Ted mention...On the subject of Father Ted, I like Dougal's take on the church:
Dougal: God, I've heard about those cults Ted. People dressing up in black and saying Our Lord's going to come back and save us all.
Ted: No, Dougal, that's us. That's Catholicism.
Dougal: Oh right.
hazel,message 704--i didn't take offense --i know i am not as educated as many others and probably you too from what i am reading-in today's paper there is an article about subatomic particles known as neutrinos and the speed of light as set by Einstein-if it's true that they have broken the speed of light the world of physics would be turned upside down- for those nonbelievers in science--THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS--new facts come out changing the way we think-and leading to new discoveries.it might be that this discovery is incorrect.not sure hazel if you will get this article in your papers in the UK.
I actually started a new thread about that exact story. Its been all over the BBC news site.
that link isn't working :(
hazel--i'll try from here and see if i can get it to work
hazel--i did get a page that had a lot of stuff on it- something about Cornel university i am going to e-mail this link to my daughter--she works with computers --i'll ask her how to get this stuff--my computer is so slow and i am so inept at using it it's a wonder i can do anything--give me time--she is coming over tomorrow so it may take awhile.
hazel--my daughter tried and said she could not get it either--i told her to try again i did get something-just not sure what.we'll keep trying let you know tomorrow. this would be a great site if we could get it-she knows a physicst --she could ask him.
hazel--just noticed message 713--so you do have information on the article?might havae known BBC would have the info--
Yeah, it would have been good to see what the link you put said too, but meh.As I promised Bukky, I started reading the bible (third attempt). I got through Gen 1-8, and it occurs to me (between cursing the inconsistency within just that small section) that it wasn't actually God who gave people free will, he in fact denied it to them by forbidding the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus denying them the understanding needed to make informed decisions, or to understand right or wrong, and keeping that as his own personal little domain, and that it was actually the snake who gave free will to adam and eve, and that God then had a panic, responded like a jealous child who's angry that you touched his toy by cursing them with pain, suffering and deprivation, and then banished them from eden in fear that they may gain immortality too... I only mention because I gave such a wonderful explanation (i'm so humble :P) of the fallacy of free will if its granted by a higher being earlier on.
Hazel wrote: "Yeah, it would have been good to see what the link you put said too, but meh.As I promised Bukky, I started reading the bible (third attempt). I got through Gen 1-8, and it occurs to me (between ..."
May I recommend: The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible
Very good look at the development of the bible from a Hx and textual perspective.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Yeah, it would have been good to see what the link you put said too, but meh.As I promised Bukky, I started reading the bible (third attempt). I got through Gen 1-8, and it occurs t..."
Shortlisted at my local library... I'll put it on hold to read it when I've read through the dozen or so books I currently have out on loan. I think I may have overdone the number of books I have out at the same time >.>
Hazel wrote: "I think I may have overdone the number of books I have out at the same time..."Huzzah! Always a good place to be...
About a 1/4 of them are even fiction :OSpeaking of fiction and non fiction, I nearly had a conniption fit at the TV the other day, it was advertising a dramatisation of Anne Franks Diary, and used the line "the best selling work of non-fiction after the bible". If I could have worked out how to contact the person responsible, they'd have had a letter, but I couldn't find any details.
Hazel I am really glad you're reading the bible and I hope you're enjoying it.However,I do not see the denial of free will as you pointed out.If that was the case God would have for instance completely made them unaware of the tree but he instead(despite orders against the forbidden tree), gave them the opportunity to express their power of choice and humans never satisfied of God's already sufficient provision went ahead of their creator.And as it goes, everybody is responsible for their own decisions
Yes, he not only denied them the fruit, he made sure they knew he was denying them it. Again, like a child waving a new toy in another childs face saying "nyer nyer nyernyer nyer, you can't have it".And I disagree, if there is a god that has given us free will, or if it came from the snake (the devil), then our decisions are not our own, because free will given can be withdrawn by a being who is more powerful than you, thus it must agree with your decisions to not take the step to prevent them. Free will provided by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being is a fallacy, as you only have it at that beings sufferance. Perhaps therefore, it did come from the devil, as there does seem to be a fair amount of nastiness in the world, which a loving god would prevent, but the devil would actively encourage (unless of course, God is evil).
Are you reading any science books as agreed? Or watching those lectures i linked you to?
hazel--i sent the link to my daughter and she sent it back telling me that i had gotten it wrong--it is www.arxiv.org--i thought i gave it to you correctly but maybe not--i did get a page on Cornel university --she is coming over here later and maybe she can get more info from this link.last night Bill Mahar was on with his program RELIGILOUS--he tells it like it is--it is amazing the number of people that buy that fiction.they obviously don't ever think about anything except that imaginary being that will save them from ?
hazel--i just looked--i did give you the correct link--so we'll wait until she comes and see what we can get.
I can use that link as a search tool on google and get a link to an index at cornell university, so I can access the information :)
Some speak of the atomic bomb as science gone wrong, but President Truman, the man who made the decision to drop it, was a Christian.
Hazel wrote: "Jeff, you actually want to destroy everything that contains knowledge? That means you have to kill everyone too, you realise that don't you. We have knowledge in our heads, you do too. It would mea..."Talk to me after you've realized that every homo sapien is in competition with every other homo sapien. Check this out and you'll have a better idea where I'm coming from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2r...
Constant growth is unsustainable in a universe where all energy is constantly moving toward equilibrium.
...and i never claimed to want to kill everyone, STOP twisting my words. I'm simply saying that's the ONLY way in reality to rid the world of human knowledge. This is why the medieval period of european history occurred. Tons of people died from plague, drought, etc. and therefore knowledge that only certain individuals knew was lost.... meanwhile at the same time, aboriginies in Australia were getting along fine... until 500 yrs later when a Christian & scientific culture came along and annihilated them.
I also don't pray that other people are set upon by evil, I pray that I accomplish and procure the things I want. I wouldn't worry about feeding everyone if science/knowledge were suddenly gone from our minds, I'd worry about feeding myself and the relatively few people who are important to me (which pretty much excludes everyone in this discussion... this is not meant to offend, it's just the simple truth). I mean really, is your top priority in life right now to feed all the starving people around the world? Or is your top priority to feed yourself?
2 questions for you Hazel so I might better understand the person I'm discussing this topic with. 1)How old are you? 2)Where are you from?
Here's a simple argument for faith (NOT religion) over science/civilization:
"Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished." –Lao Tzu
"Time passed. Art came off the walls and became rituals. Ritual became religion. Religion spawned science. Science led to big business. And big business, if it continues on its present, mindless trajectory, could land those lucky enough to survive its ultimate legacy back into caves again." –Tom Robbins
I didn't twist your words, I simply extrapolated the logical extension of what you were proposing with the wish to destroy everything that contained knowledge.by the way, I love the humanity you display in your message when stating you'd not give a shit about anyone but you and your closest family/friends. So, you would leave all those millions of people to starve to death because you've implemented a system that removes the ability to grow enough food for them, and yet you said earlier that you didn't think you should clean up a mess you didn't make. Well, this would be a mess of your creation, you're implementing this science free system, you have a responsibility to everyone effected by it. And what about all those people who rely on medical science to not be in constant pain every day, or to get their insulin (the list goes on), you would be responsible for these people living in agony and then dying in misery, because you're the one who insisted upon this science free world. If you expect science to accept blame for the wrongs that its done, you by logical extension, have to except blame for all the repercussions of your decision to remove all science from the world.
tell you what, you answer the same questions first,and then I'll consider whether I'll answer them. On top of that, what faith/religion do you follow?
Wrong Hazel, there's no logical extension there at all. What you did was make an assumption, and certainly a plausible extension of what I typed, but an assumption none the less. There's no logic whatsoever involved in human communication, there's only probability of meaning/intent and assumption; Language itself is in no way logical. And in this case, your plausible assumption that I "wish to destroy everything that contained knowledge" is inaccurate.I'm 30 and I'm from Boston.
No, my statement wasn't a logical extension, it didn't need to be: You actually stated you want to destroy all things that contain knowledge, including people.Jeff wrote:the only way to remove knowledge/science from the world is to destroy anything containing that knowledge, whether that be a person or a database (books, computers, etc.) containing said knowledge. message no 705
I believe the modern term the kids use is pwned?
I too am 30, I'm from York. By the way, knowing this makes no difference to what you understand of me, it simply would give you something to try and use as a stereotype or prejudice against me. I suspect if I'd said I was 18, that you'd have decided that I was too young to know what I was talking about, or some such.
Hazel, my mom Bunnie gave you a web address that attached a few characters at the end of it - the good address is www.arxiv.org
Travis wrote: "Since caused the problems, so it's got to go, but religion gets to stay, despite the fact that it caused the problems too, it gets a free pass...?And we thought arguing against science on the inte..."
Fairness, like morality, is a fallacy created by man. The world isn't screwed up at all, it's exactly how it should be based on all things existing & interacting with each other. I'm not arguing for religion over science at all, and certainly don't advocate tossing out science cuz it won't fix global warming. I'm simply saying that it was the human application of science that caused global warming, whereas the human application of religion only causes cultural, interpersonal, & societal conflict (which is a purely natural process anyways).... and you won't get rid of either science or religion anyways. Also, religion itself DOES get a free pass when it comes to global warming, as religious belief and ritual practice doesn't contribute in any significant way to global warming.
Travis, you're clearly the most misinformed (or rather the most uncomprehending) individual involved in this discussion. Never in any of my posts did I claim that praying fixes anything, as it does nothing at all except to increase the strength of the prayer's belief.
3 questions for you Travis: 1)how old are you? 2)where are you from? 3)does scienctific knowledge provide certain outcomes in the real world?
don't answer the questions Travis, your age and location (I never expected A/S/L to show up in a mature conversation...) make no difference to your contribution to this conversation.
Bunnie wrote: "Hazel, my mom Bunnie gave you a web address that attached a few characters at the end of it - the good address is www.arxiv.org"Ta muchly :)
Hazel wrote: "No, my statement wasn't a logical extension, it didn't need to be: You actually stated you want to destroy all things that contain knowledge, including people.Jeff wrote:the only way to remove kn..."
Well you're right about the 18 yr. old thing. However, your quote from my previous post in NO way implies that I personally desire such a thing to occur. It's just simple logic and the pragmatic reality that IF you want to get rid of scientific knowledge, the only way to do so is to get rid of our species, which of course our self-serving application of science will eventually accomplish.
18 year olds are definitely too inexperienced & uncomprehending to know what they're talking about, and to be perfectly frank, you seem to be as well. Your moral inclinations have nothing to do with reality, only with your perception of reality, which along with everyone else's is inherently inaccurate. You and Travis are both moralists, and it amuses me to no end. If a man holds a loaded gun to your head, you thinking he's an "evil" man has nothing at all to do with the outcome of said "evil" man pulling the trigger. Take a lesson from one of your most comprehensive & intelligent countrymen:
"Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." -Shakespeare
I think you are misunderstanding Jeff, I'm not "too inexperience and uncomprehending", you are quite arrogant to suggest it in fact, because it implies that you aren't. I do however believe that at the age of 30, I (and thus by extension you, being the same age) have a long way to go before we are truly informed. It can take a lifetime to answer one question, I know I don't know much, I'm pretty comfortable with that idea. I do however continuously increase the knowledge I have.You find it amusing that I have morals? Well, I guess you would when you've already stated that you have none in regard to the world in general, and only care about yourself and a select few people. I care about people, are you suggesting this is a bad thing? I care about the world in general too, is this bad too?
Actually, if a man holds a loaded gun to my head, I'm not gonna be thinking about him being evil, or not being evil, I'm gonna be working out how likely it is I'll survive if I kick him in the bollocks.
I don't actually hold to the idea of good and evil. The world is not black and white for me, and thats BECAUSE I have a moral outlook, every case is individual. Evil, as you've rightly said is subjective, the KKK member hanging that black man believes he is doing good and right, that same KKK member will go home to his family and raise his kids, kiss his wife, walk the dog, all the normal things we do in life. There isn't evil. there is morally objectionable. Being moral is no bad thing. Stating that you would happily remove all science from the world, which you have stated would need to include killing people (thus suggesting - and I admit, I may be wrong, you may be being hypocritical, its not like you don't have form - that you would be willing to carry out said killings), and that you then would ignore all repercussions and care only about a select few people while everyone else struggled and failed and died as a direct result of you removing science from the world, is morally objectionable however, and I reckon a lot of people would agree with that, especially as most of them probably had childhood diseases that would have killed them without medical scientific advancements.
By the way, I know some 17 year olds who have more sense than I reckon we'll get out of you, especially when you quote a phrase from Hamlet, in which the characters madness is being portrayed through his existential angst, rather than something that Shakespeare himself expounded. There is no suggestion that because Shakespeare portrayed a character in such a way that he in any way held to that philosophy. In the same play, Hamlets closest companion, Horatio, is presented as a skeptic, a reasonable and rational counterpoint to Hamlet himself.
Hazel wrote: "I think you are misunderstanding Jeff, I'm not "too inexperience and uncomprehending", you are quite arrogant to suggest it in fact, because it implies that you aren't. I do however believe that at..."Everyone has morals, that's a fact of life. But you seem to imply that killing a person is necessarily a bad thing. And I'm not saying it's right either, I'm simply saying there are situations where not only is it necessary, but morally correct. You're morals ironically seem to align themselves with Christian guidelines, though most of your posts imply that you support science over religion. I suggest that you caring about every other human on earth is not at all good for you, but that caring about some of the people on earth is. Also, I didn't say I would happily remove all science from the world, I said I would happily take an axe to every computer and television in the world. You continue to misinterpret my posts as well as my intentions.....And EVERYONE continually adds to the knowledge that they have, it's impossible not to. What I find amusing is your moral perspective, not the fact that you have one.
actually, I want to retract one thing (I wrote this before seeing your most recent post). Being willing to remove science, and stating it would need to involve killing people does not automatically mean that you would be willing to kill people. It probably means that you're going to have to admit that you can't live up to your ideals. Its quite a sad thing to not be able to live up to your ideals. Maybe you should reset your ideals to something more reasonable and achievable? You can definitely smash up your own computer and TV, and burn all your books (but as a bibliophile, I'd urge you to give them to a charity shop or something, rather than destroy them), and you could certainly set out to try and live without science. Actually, I'd be interested to see how it went, maybe you could do it, and keep a diary, get published, and have a little nest egg to retire on.I actually agree on a couple of things in your last post, yes, sometimes, it is morally better to take a life - usually to save others... I'm starting to think that we're getting wires crossed somewhere in all this....
Edit: OK, I have re-read through some of your previous posts, and I will admit, I seem to have misinterpreted much of what you are saying (give me hard science to discuss any day, I can wax lyrical on that...). I agree completely that morals shift with the paradigm, and from person to person. I agree there are often moral reasons to do things that are usually considered immoral (shooting the man with a gun to someone's head, for eg). I think maybe I had a few problems with how you structured your posts, and then there's the fact that I know I can be like a dog with a bone. Can we call a truce, while I consider all that you have said again?
in the meantime, I often say finish on a song, and this one seems appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD...
OK, here goes:I wish to retract message 670 because I realise, looking through the messages that you'd actually mentioned religion as something animals can do without in your post as well. I had a memory fail, and apologise completely for this unwarranted post.
I still feel that science is our best hope for fixing the problems that humans (through whatever means, be it science, religion or just plain laziness) have caused on this planet. It will make discoveries and find methodologies for remedying the mess. As I accept that the evidence is against there being a god of any sort, and reject the idea of god, I cannot in all good conscience accept any form of god will clear up the mess for us. I do not believe that the world would be better without science. The thing about scientists is they learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, and as such, place guidelines as to what is ethical; they build upon what they know, and move towards something better. I feel it would probably be better without religion, but I also agree that religion has contributed much, and that we'd be without a lot of beautiful things if it hadn't existed. I do however believe that reason and rationality, based on the lack of any evidence of a god of any sort, and on all the evidence for evolution and all that astronomy and physics has taught us, as well as geology and psychology, has made religion moot.
You claim that I have a naive ideology that the world is subject to human rule and dominion, not at all; I believe we are part of the world, not rulers over it. We should make it better because we can, not because we rule it, in the same way as we should make our individual lives, and those of other people, better if we can. The idea that humans have dominion over the world is a Christian one, it appears in the first couple of pages of the bible, and is certainly not one I adhere to. We barely have control over ourselves some (possibly most) of the time.
I don’t believe every homo sapien is in competition with every other, we are evolved to be a co-operative species. We form tribes, we work together, and we tend towards depression when we are isolated. We do, however, tend towards favouring "tribe members" over other people, hence why religions fight over interpretation etc. However, with the decoding of the human genome, and the knowledge that there are very few genetic differences between, well, anyone, and that those that there are tend to be based on aesthetics from sexual selection, it may be time to stop drawing a difference between the different "races" and "tribes" that we pigeon-hole people into.
Morality, we seem to have got our wires crossed on this one, and I'll admit, that’s probably my fault, as I got my hackles up about the science stuff, and so that carried on into the morality stuff. I agree wholeheartedly that it’s not cut and dry. You are correct, if we had none of the knowledge that we currently possess, so our minds were, I suppose, more primitive, more like other animals, then I wouldn't feel morally obligated to help others in the same way as an educated and enlightened person would., I admit, I misinterpreted what you said, and in a second reading have come to see what you were aiming at. I would however feel morally obligated to stop anyone who tried to do it (again, you rightly pointed out that this reaction would occur), as there are many people in the world who depend on science in their everyday lives, who would be condemned to death by the removal of it. I also completely agree that sometimes you have to do so called immoral things for a moral reason, as I mentioned before.
I do still consider it hypocritical to state that you dislike mass communication, and want to avoid anything that catalyses globalisation, and then use a computer to go on the internet, and post on a forum where people all around the world can read your posts.
hazel-message 739----i;m not very good with the computer as you can see. you are doing ok with Jeff i see. keep up the good work
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Thus, as scientists (and philosophers) were persecuted by the ancient religions, and the monotheistic ones funded the bits they were interested in (in order to prove the existance of god, which is why a lot of the results were quickly muted), religion cannot be, and is not, the origin of science.