Either/Or
Offline It is evident that at the present time, neither Science nor Religion can offer solutions to the humanity. Atheist speaks as if there is rationality in Science. Man has never been a rational animal. Scientist proclaim to live by logic but yet then still find ways to bring the demise of our species. Experimentation with manmade Black Holes, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Genetically modified food all created by Scientist, many I assume were Atheist.
Religion on the other hand has failed to enlighten humanity. The hypocrisy of all religions is blasphemous. The countless deaths in the name of G_D, the contradictions and paradoxes it creates, it is no wonder why many denounce G_D. It is the sole responsibly of the individual to justify their relationship with G_D (or delusion as an Atheist friend once said. “Justify your delusion”).
I’m still waiting for the humanity to evolve. The irony is at one time both science and religion coexisted. It was called Alchemy.
- Login to post comments
Science is a tool we use to understand things.
NOTHING MORE!
Well, I'm not an atheist, not because of some of the horrible inventions science has brought us, but rather that atheists commonly have this doubtful, potentually irrational idea that naturalism is the best determining factor of reality.
While religion is certainly guilty of hypocrisy and horrible things, I wouldn't dismiss it for that reason in the same way I wouldn't dismiss atheism. Religion and its cousin, philosophy, can be dismissed as viewing reality as superstition though.
I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.
I see the Dualism in your agreement and you make some valid points. The whole matter needs to be viewed objectively.
Not evident. Sollutions must be in the realm of possibility. Science is 100% possible.
Own thought defeats own argument.
General truth or probability do not depend on existence of species.
Has not happened. I would like.
Perfecting a mechanism may involve creating an undesirable use for it. See atomic bomb, potatoes, deep fryers, McDonald's.
Mendel was a monk.
Itself yes. Through itself, no. Charities and schools for those who wouldn't benefit otherwise.
This implies there is one true religion which all the rest blaspheme. Science can't exactly be blasphemed, nor does it care about blasphemy.
Can't argue.
No, it was called "the dark ages".
Good luck.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Science reveals knowledge, and knowledge itself is not moral. That's our job. The universe probably doesn't care if we wipe ourselves out, even if we take all other life with us, so we have to look out for ourselves. Religion tell us that there's someone looking out for us, which enables much greater risks.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
The rest of your post is not interesting to me, and the following is why.
You refer to Nietzsche in your sig file, but obviously have never read Nietzsche. One of his many points is that humans are not rational animals, and was critical of science in many respects.
But Nietzsche also realized that the fact that humanity as a whole has not been rational doesn't imply that some people are, and that those people must be the Zarathustra's of the world, ushering in a new humanity--the new philosopher.
These new philosophers have no need for the hypotheses of gods. For these people, science will be that tool that allows us to transcend the metaphysical desires of our psychology, and allow us not to need religion or atheism.
Atheism is only even relevant in the presence of god-belief. Once (if!) humanity transcends this need, atheism will cease to have meaning. And at that point, there will be no argument about science v. ____, because science will simply be what we do to find information about how the world works.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
According to my source (google) Alchemy is "a pseudoscientific forerunner of chemistry in medieval times." With that it would be viewed by science as bullshit and view by most religions as evil. That would mean it really just disconnects itself from both areas.
As for "solutions to humanity" you have to ask yourself what you are looking for. Do you want to find the meaning of life or do you want to make shit work? When someone says solution I think more about the problem to begin with. You don't really state the problem so this is like asking what the answer is to a question you haven't asked.
As for evolving both might work. Religion evolves and sciences has genetic engineering.
What is it about people who self-censor the word "God" as "G-d" or "G_d" that makes it so difficult to take them seriously?
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
[MOD EDIT - remove duplicate post]
Well as a matter of fact, I have read Nietzsche to the point of obsession. Nietzsche detested Darwin and all his generalization of creation/evolution. At the core of Nietzsche's despair was his conflict of morality in the face of natural selection. Hence why both Christianity and Evolution were his enemy. His theory of "Higher Man" was to renounce both.For the same reason I don't take anybody seriously, who thinks that I came from a single cell organism that came from a rock that came from a big bang that came out of nothing. I do it cause it looks cool
I'm not so sure that Nietzsche thought that science would be the cure for our metaphysical ills. Depending on how you define science, this seems to go against his views on metaphysics, on history, his method of genealogy, his perspectivism, and his view that morality is value-creating. Where does he speak to this?
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
Unfortunately Nietzsche's "despair" proves nothing of worth. Truth does not depend on how much one loves or despises it. His "higher" man theory can be taken as a moralizing goal, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution does happen and it is most probably the source of humanity.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Sure, Nietzsche detested many things, but science as a general epistemological exercise was not one of them. He detested certain ways that particular people or groups of people used science, for sure.
What he dis-liked about evolution and morality is that the result is a morality that promoted what he saw as weakness--not that evolution happened! He was a critic of how the evolution of moral thinking, especially as it developed into a "slave morality," but didn't seem to have an issue taht evolution through natural selection actually was the process by which we developed these ideas.
And whether or not Nietzsche thought we should like evolution or not is simply irrelevant. The future of humanity--ubermenschen or not--can only come about through evolution. I don't think Nietzsche appreciated or truly understood evolution as we do. As a philologist, metaphysician, and a philosopher Nietzsche was a giant. As a scientific thinker, he was often lacking.
I'll remind you of Nietzsche's call for us to be attempters (with his play on words with 'versuchen'
, which I think scientists have responded to in many ways. This is what I was referring to.
But I don't want to get into an interpretation game with Nietzsche; his perspectivism makes interpreting him difficult. I'll remind you that he also said he wanted to be difficult to understand, and intentionally made statements that played both sides of many fences.
But seriously, who still needs the hypothesis of a God?
(I'd cite the paasages, but I don't have my library handy at the moment, being at work, and I'm working from memory).
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.