[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Proper Role of Science (Page 1 of 7)
Posted: 5/2/2015 9:00:18 PM EDT
|
A little dated now but still good stuff.
-Humans are reduced to “objects” that can be inspected, experimented on, and ultimately controlled. In 1922, G.K. Chesterton warned that scientism had become a “creed” taking over our institutions, a “system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics.”- BreakPoint |
|
lol bioconservatives. They know so many things that just ain't so, and are so enthusiastic about spreading their lack of alternatives.
It's easy to propose technological advance masks social decay because greater tool use entails a greater fraction of meanings about tools. But spiritualism doesn't run economies very well. It's more accurate to describe the same trend this way: the place the machines are incomplete is you. Evolution, intelligence, capitalism: these entities demonstrate daily the traits that believers once ascribed to magic spirits. If you must be religious, why not at least choose a real god? |
| Science is our understanding of the universe through the scientific method. What you're essentially asking is, "When should we be willfully ignorant"? That's more of a personal philosophy, thankfully for the species as a whole the answer is a resounding, "Never!" |
|
Believe it or not, your average scientists aren't out to get you or your bible.
On another note, I love the opposition to science when it challenges one's worldview, but acceptance of microwaves, airplanes, television, the internet and the vast number of other things that modern science has contributed or improved for humanity. 
|
|
Quoted: Believe it or not, your average scientists aren't out to get you or your bible. On another note, I love the opposition to science when it challenges one's worldview, but acceptance of microwaves, airplanes, television, the internet and the vast number of other things that modern science has contributed or improved for humanity. The bible is as relevant to science as Barny the dinosaur is relevant to mathematics. Just because Barny counts and performs addition and subtraction occasionally on his show doesn't mean anything to a mathematician. |
|
Quoted: It's as relevant as Dawkins' view of the proper role of religion. Quoted: Quoted: Googling the author confirmed my suspicion. I can't think of a single reason to care what some born-again Evangelical thinks is "the proper role of science". My view: The proper role of religion is whatever you want it to be as long as it doesn't deprive others of liberty. |
|
Quoted: Believe it or not, your average scientists aren't out to get you or your bible. On another note, I love the opposition to science when it challenges one's worldview, but acceptance of microwaves, airplanes, television, the internet and the vast number of other things that modern science has contributed or improved for humanity. There's a difference between science of a observational nature and science of a forensic nature; worldviews don't affect the former much, but they can infect the latter. |
|
OP, what do you suggest we replace "science" with? Evangelism? In your opinion, does the bible provide enough knowledge about the world to make scientific studies unnecessary?
Serious question. If you are going to post something like this, I think it reasonable to hear some alternative replacements. |
|
Quoted:
You think science will be the downfall of society. Quoted:
Quoted:
Agree 100%. Science has helped our society a lot, but it will be its downfall. You think science will be the downfall of society. Eventually we will create a singularity and suck the whole planet into it. Mark.my.words. |
|
Saying "-ism" behind "science" and "Darwin" is transparent and makes Christians sound like troglodytes, and makes it look likes Christians believe that Darwin's hypothesis is some rogue kookery unsupported by all of the rest of modern science. It's dumb, and Christians should stop it. The only reason, and I mean the only one, that using science to discredit Chrisitian beliefs is done so often is that so many Christians* don't accept modern science. Except of course, as noted above, when it involves technology like the internet. *Though it's too many, I'm not saying it's a majority. |
|
Quoted: From the article Is there anything Christians don't want to take undeserved credit for? Quoted: From the article ...because it was a Christian view of reality that led to the scientific method, investigating all the things God has created. Is there anything Christians don't want to take undeserved credit for? |
|
science is great, so long as you NEVER listen to them until they can prove something. Otherwise you wind up actually acting on the gems like 'men are smarter because they have larger brains!' and all the other completely wrong 'ideas' and 'theories' that scientists have had over the years. Science is devoid of morality, which is not to say that people who use it are without morals, merely that they aren't required. That's how you wind up with Nazi scientists doing incredibly vile shit. It is what it is, a tool for understanding, and nothing more...everything that happens prior to that understanding is subject to ALL of the failures of man. Like this global warming bullshit. There is MAJOR influence from political agendas and landing grant money.
That said, personally, I think the idea that there is some kind of battle between science and faith is completely ridiculous. There may be an ideological war between people who ascribe to either, but I see minimal contention between them. Like evolution vs creation. Who the hell says that God didn't create evolution? Whoever it is, get back to me when you prove it. 
|
|
Quoted:
Then go live in a cave,you need science for everything you do now days.Lmao Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus didn't need science when he wrote the bible and neither do I. No you go worship your science God, see if he saves your soul. |
|
Quoted:
science is great, so long as you NEVER listen to them until they can prove something. Otherwise you wind up actually acting on the gems like 'men are smarter because they have larger brains!' and all the other completely wrong 'ideas' and 'theories' that scientists have had over the years. Science is devoid of morality, which is not to say that people who use it are without morals, merely that they aren't required. That's how you wind up with Nazi scientists doing incredibly vile shit. It is what it is, a tool for understanding, and nothing more...everything that happens prior to that understanding is subject to ALL of the failures of man. Like this global warming bullshit. There is MAJOR influence from political agendas and landing grant money. That said, personally, I think the idea that there is some kind of battle between science and faith is completely ridiculous. There may be an ideological war between people who ascribe to either, but I see minimal contention between them. Like evolution vs creation. Who the hell says that God didn't create evolution? Whoever it is, get back to me when you prove it. That has more to do with power, influence and fear. Also the Russians are a better subject for that analogy. 
That's quite a comparison. The problem with that argument is that the line between knowledge and theory is far more arbitrary and subjective than would be applicable in the idealistic pseudo-logicism you suggest. The issue with arguing scientific subjects in the context of religious ideologies is the necessary prevalence of ambiguous and mutually divergent assumptions. Evolution is scientific theory, born out of the scientific method. But religious texts are inescapably symbolic and are therefor inherently unstable foundations for any deductive or analytical argument. They can always rely on some previously ignored subtext to justify the dismissal of whatever recent discovery would contradict their preconceptions. What about thermal radiation, the theory of elastomers, galaxy distribution, cosmological inflation, general relativity, theoretical chemistry, the entirety of our knowledge of the quantum realm or anything else that can't or hasn't been explicitly proven and completely understood? |
|
Quoted:
No you go worship your science God, see if he saves your soul. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus didn't need science when he wrote the bible and neither do I. No you go worship your science God, see if he saves your soul. Clearly the best way to present the appearance of sympathy and concern for a person's soul, is to contrive an irrelevant issue into a strawman of perceived moral superiority. |
| I think that some people are forgetting that human psychology, the importance of the group interactions is also part of science. Eugenics only makes sense if you don't consider the other societal ramifications. All of that still falls within the realm of science. In total, ignorance is never bliss. We should always be in pursuit of new scientific knowledge, IMHO. |
|
Quoted:
Clearly the best way to present the appearance of sympathy and concern for a person's soul, is to contrive an irrelevant issue into a strawman of perceived moral superiority. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus didn't need science when he wrote the bible and neither do I. No you go worship your science God, see if he saves your soul. Clearly the best way to present the appearance of sympathy and concern for a person's soul, is to contrive an irrelevant issue into a strawman of perceived moral superiority. Raaawrr, science bad. |
.
|
Quoted:
I think that some people are forgetting that human psychology, the importance of the group interactions is also part of science. Eugenics only makes sense if you don't consider the other societal ramifications. All of that still falls within the realm of science. In total, ignorance is never bliss. We should always be in pursuit of new scientific knowledge, IMHO. But you're making philosophical assumptions whose ramifications extend far beyond the scope of this inescapably irreducible paradox. Is eugenics an intrinsic aspect of the human condition, or is it an artificial construct resulting from some other elemental human predisposition? Or am I engaging in the linguistic homomorphism of proof by invalid reduction? 
|
|
Quoted: There's a difference between science of a observational nature and science of a forensic nature; worldviews don't affect the former much, but they can infect the latter. Quoted: Quoted: Believe it or not, your average scientists aren't out to get you or your bible. On another note, I love the opposition to science when it challenges one's worldview, but acceptance of microwaves, airplanes, television, the internet and the vast number of other things that modern science has contributed or improved for humanity. There's a difference between science of a observational nature and science of a forensic nature; worldviews don't affect the former much, but they can infect the latter. |
|
Quoted: science is great, so long as you NEVER listen to them until they can prove something. Otherwise you wind up actually acting on the gems like 'men are smarter because they have larger brains!' and all the other completely wrong 'ideas' and 'theories' that scientists have had over the years. Science is devoid of morality, which is not to say that people who use it are without morals, merely that they aren't required. That's how you wind up with Nazi scientists doing incredibly vile shit. It is what it is, a tool for understanding, and nothing more...everything that happens prior to that understanding is subject to ALL of the failures of man. Like this global warming bullshit. There is MAJOR influence from political agendas and landing grant money. That said, personally, I think the idea that there is some kind of battle between science and faith is completely ridiculous. There may be an ideological war between people who ascribe to either, but I see minimal contention between them. Like evolution vs creation. Who the hell says that God didn't create evolution? Whoever it is, get back to me when you prove it. Neither of these groups of people have any way to back up their assertions. |
|
Quoted:
science is great, so long as you NEVER listen to them until they can prove something... Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories, which always remain malleable in the face of new evidence. |
| When science becomes all about politics and money it fails in its utility . There are far more important things to learn and invest our tax dollars on than funding grants to study the sex life of lemmings or how to make snow flakes all look the same. If tax dollars are going to be spent then it should focus on potential benefit not egghead job creation. |
|
Quoted:
When science becomes all about politics and money it fails in its utility... While individual scientists can of course be swayed by money and political agendas, the scientific method itself has scrupulous honesty built into it by design. The truth eventually comes out. |
|
The fascinating bit about biocons is how human-centric their teleology is. It's got a kind of quaint charm, epitomized in incidents like Leon Kass' railing against public icecream-eating as demeaning the integrity of the human soul and social fabric.
IMO, abstracted teleologies are BS, but if you like them, then induction, or "by their fruits ye shall know them," suggests something radically incompatible with the aesthetics of that platform - evolution, interpreted through a religious lense, implies Azathoth, not Yahweh. A blind, stupid process, indifferent to the agonies of its subjects. Not a planned system with a just patriarch. Unbeknownest to its advocates, bioconservativism is a sincere expression of moral relativity. |
|
Quoted:
The most endangered species The honest man Will still survive annihilation Quoted:
Quoted:
Science, like nature, must also be tamed; With a view towards it's preservation. Given the same state of integrity, it will surely help us along. 
The most endangered species The honest man Will still survive annihilation One of their more underrated albums, IMHO. |