The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 59822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




Essentially I'm Arguing That Any Scientific Study Into Reality Tends to Increase a Person's Fascination Of And Interest In Life, Living And The Universe.

Whereas, Having Ready Made, Doctrine Based Answers, Such As Religon Teaches It's Indoctrinees, Does Not Increase Their Enthusiasm and Fascination For Life, Living And The Universe as Much as Scientific Studies do.

I will leave whoever takes the Con position to detail their argument first.

Thanks to whoever wants to take up the position.


Con is looking forward for a mutual learning experience in a constructive debate.

Con would not have taken on this debate if the titled began with the phrase, In General, "Scientific Knowledge ..." However, the current title “Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does,” is an absolute statement and would be unfair to a teacher I once had in parochial school.

In general, I would agree with Pro and it saddens me, for example, “True, there is the thesis of secularism, according to which science and technology, on the one hand, and religion, on the other, are inversely related: as the former waxes, the latter wanes” ( Yet, those of faith will take issue with this thesis of secularism.

Back to my teacher who taught both Religion and Science. Con found her approach simple and brilliant. The Religion class taught the handwriting of man about God, where in the Science class we studied the handwriting of God. Since God created everything, that includes the physical Laws of Nature and therefore, these Laws are the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to decipher God's handwriting.

In the Religion class she left the impression, for those of us of faith, including preachers when interpreting the prophets, should be careful when studying man's scripture about God. We must remember that man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets—and, in some cases, God help us all. Her focus was on the aspect of social morality, throughout the scriptures, being the fingerprint of God. Such a fingerprint, embraces peace, charity, goodwill, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, etc.

In Science class, we studied when man understands and morally follows God's handwriting, amazing things happen, advances in technology, the miracle of medicine, mass food production, the stables throughout the world today. As man understands more of God's handwriting, mixed with the wisdom of morality, the “interest in Life” is one of improving the standard of living mixed with social evolution in the pursuit of happiness, making this world a better place to live.

Needless to say, in part, her influence set me on a course in a rewording career in the sciences. Recently, I came across two complementary and interesting books. It was like meeting her again in a Science Class at the university level; seculars, need not be afraid.

In closing, the balance between “Religion” and “Scientific knowledgeequally increased myinterest in Life.” Therefore, the absolute statement of “Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person’s Interest in Life More So Than Religion Does,” is not true in my case. In addition, I'm sure most in my class, back in that day, would also agree today.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much Con for accepting the challenge and your argument!

Though for the matter of having a good debate and making it more interesting to the voter, I tend to disagree with your concepts of having a God involved in Science.

It also depends entirely on whose God you are referring to?
If it is the Christian, or God of Abraham, then you can forget about it being involved anywhere in science as the scriptures supporting that God are scientifically inept to the extreme and since the science I have most interest in is Neuroscience, the hiding place for the Christian God is now nowhere else in the universe but in the human mind and neuroscience is pushing this God further and further back into the mind's internal caves.
Gradually but surely neuro-psychology will likely discover how and why the human mind created the Christian God.

If you are referring to the God of Spinoza, Einstein or the Agnostic's/Deistic God that started the forces of the universe and no longer interferes (Performs Magic) then it can be acceptable in science, since Science cannot accept interference by an Agency (Magic) in any form.
Since Science is about predictability and having an Agent (Magician) interfering destroys any predictability.
Spinoza's God, which Einstein also referred to is more a collection of or source of the Universal laws and forces in an infinitely powerful entity which does not necessarily have an intelligence of its own.
Though it does not interfere with those laws nor have anything to do with Humanity or the Earth.
In other words, Spinoza's God does not interfere with it's natural laws in response to activities nor beliefs of humans, so it does not perform Magic on our behalf, like the Gods of other religions.
Though the Deistic/Agnostic's God does not interfere either, so they are also acceptable to Science.

A scientific statement with an existing meddlesome Agent included would have to be.

From the premises A, B and C, the resultant should be X providing the Agent doesn't interfere.

Thus Science cannot function properly while an active intelligent agency can affect natural forces.

Thus Science cannot account for nor include the Christian God as that God has been demonstrated by scripture to mess with the natural forces by performing magic spontaneously and irrationally.
Though there is no evidence that any such magic has ever occurred in recent history.
So science essentially does not consider the existence of any such agency or God.
Religion and Science are not opposites in any form of dichotomy, but they have absolutely no convergence either.
The only agreement I have ever found between Religion and Science is apart from the Sun exists, is in Buddhism which also considers Consciousness and thus our Reality as an illusion constructed by our physical brain structures.

How Can Scientific Knowledge Make Life More Interesting:

Misconceptions Of Science: Many consider science as cold and uncaring, also they view it as a Reductive Model, where complexity is built like a building from bricks and naturally complex things, such as buildings/organisms are reduced to basic building blocks/bricks/cells/DNA.

Correcting these Misconceptions: They are partly right, as science often works at the basic level on Reductionism principles, but when things are reduced to what were once perceived as basic building blocks, Science suddenly changes and the principles of Reduction no longer apply.
Scientists have discovered that these basic building blocks are themselves equally as complex as the organisms they started exploring.

The complexity never diminishes, it can in some cases appear to increase as scientists get closer to the tiniest entities/particles they are able to observe.
Quantum mechanics is an example of this.

At one time, The Atom was considered the source of all matter, it was considered as the Brick that all matter was constructed from.

When the Atom was actually isolated, it was discovered to be composed of smaller particles, electrons and protons and these were the considered the smallest bricks until things did not add up mathematically with weights and isotopes of elements. So they theorized that other particles such as the neutron must exist.

Though it has snowballed and now no Scientist has any idea as to what the smallest particle may be, as according to such things as "String Theory" there may be an infinite array of smaller particles, each producing a smaller effect on matter, but still having an influence due to population of particles.
So, it is a never ending search for Scientists and the number of hypotheses increase, instead of the once perceived notion of ancient times, that if we can discover the smallest particle, science can solve all the questions in the Universe.

Instead, Science has now discovered that, the more questions it finds answers for, the more new questions it now has to find answers to. So Science is a Never Ending search for answers to many new and fascinating questions.

This is where Scientific Knowledge is constantly changing and for those who have developed an interest and studied Science properly, are often deeply fascinated by one of the many fields Science has to offer, and practically, science has a field for everybody.

My current interests are in Neuro-psychology, yet I still have interest in Archaeology, Anthropology, Electronics and some particle physics as well as biology and medicine.
Though I also have a vested interest in Information Science and Robotics.

For many with a broad knowledge of science, it is like a lifelong Romance and making even your own simple personal discoveries is often extremely enjoyable, some say making such discoveries are are more exciting than sex or skydiving.
These personal discoveries may already be discovered or known, but that doesn't matter nor diminish the finding in any way, if they are already known and published, it means you have been thinking and working scientifically.

So, a person can have an enthralling and consuming passion for Science for their entire life.
It can be a never ending, always exciting Romance.
I know now why many like Einstein valued Science far more than Religion.

Now back to Con for a differing opinion:


Thank you Pro for your response and the desire “of having a good debate and making it more interesting to the voter.” I agree with Pro, we do not want the voter to lose interest.

Instead of getting in the weeds with all those Gods Pro touched on, Con would like to cover a little history on the evolution of morality. Just after the Big Bang, the Second Law of Thermodynamics became the evolutionary engine throughout the universe. At the macro level, Constructal Law is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, explains how everything that moves or flows, whether animate or inanimate, naturally evolve in ways that facilitates such movement.

Constructal Law for the animate in the evolution of life, relative to facilitating movement, is dependent on all “Life” having the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of survival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Positive-feedback for humans, can be summarized to include the emotion of “Happiness,” in addition, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness.” This primeval working function of life having the freedom in the pursuit of survival, is the foundation to the Natural Selection Process. Unbeknownst to Thomas Jefferson (one of the founding Fathers of the US), he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function, and he claimed a polished version within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Therefore, all life, from a single cell to humans is dependent on this primeval working function and generalized to become known as life's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (survival, etc., Happiness for us humans).”

The evolution of morality can be seen in the subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant as it flows through life's Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong—such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality.

When two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive as a separate entity with its own Unalienable Rights. The pursuit of group Happiness through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for the Unalienable Rights of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

Morality is the thread that runs through the tapestry of a civil society. My parochial school teacher gave our Religion class the education where morality is the fingerprint of God.

Many religions focus on morality, which is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; and this being the traceability path to the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God.

Empirically, throughout recorded history all isolated human tribes developed their own culture, language, and they all had some form of belief as in a religion. Not one was found to be atheistic.

Religion was a way to deal with the unknown and to help a society morally survive relative to those tested norms. The evolution of dealing with the unknown has its roots from religion and morphed into science ( One may view Religion and Science are two manifestations of Wisdom, where the phrase “love of Wisdom” from the ancient Greeks is, Philosophy; how it all tides together looking back through the ages.

In modern time the gap between Religion and Science widen by the wedge of secularism. Seculars waste too much time arguing about God's existence and not enough time preserving the fingerprint of God, that taboo subject called morality and the history of tested social norms imbedded in man's written scriptures about God. Today's secular government controlled educational system is schizophrenic about morality and who is responsible for its teachings.

Morality is like a force that holds a society together. If a society does not have a good understanding of this moral force, it could fall apart. How long could a society function or achieve Happiness without morality? As morality declines throughout a society, more complicated laws emerge to keep the peace, institutional public surveillance becomes commonplace, an increase in armed law-enforcement is noticeable, and more convoluted regulations appear to circumvent economic corruption. Complicated laws morph into plundering dictates, while regulations kill economic freedom. In addition, the leaders of a social institution (the government) controlling such a society are also part of this population having similar moral standing. If the government controls education, then the moral decline may result in tyranny.

John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (

Today the US is in a post-constitutional soft tyranny era. For example, my Friend Pro probably did something “illegal” today. If the government wants to incarcerate Pro, or spoil his day, or freeze his bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.

Funny how many in the US, still feels they live in a free country. The price a nation pays for lack of moral education, the fingerprint of God.

Con see Science a part of Religion, where most Religions have an “Interest in Life More So Than” anything else, by the desire to live forever in a spiritual universe. This forever desire, or to prolong life, is also reflected in many areas within the scientific community, a likeness from its religious roots. Pro mentioned Quantum Mechanics, where there is a community of physicist who have theories of parallel universes or “multiverses” ( Perhaps, God exists in one of those universes.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank You Con, Side Shifting a Little:

Firstly I will take some time Rebutting Con's Points:

Con's Points 1: <Second Law of Thermodynamics became the evolutionary engine throughout the universe. >

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (Entropy) may have an influence on the Entropy of the Universe, but at a Biological Level, it has far less importance. It only means we need to keep consuming food to give us energy, which about sums up it's importance to biological Evolution. Since Biological Evolution on Earth is an open system, Earth receives plentiful energy from the Sun, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply and thus the rest of Con's considerations regarding this law and Biological Evolution doesn't apply.

So as far as Evolution of life on Earth is concerned, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is non-sequitur.


It is a law of Thermodynamics/Heat in a closed system only.

It simply states that in a closed system, where heat energy is not being added, the heat will dissipate until it reaches a state of energy equilibrium or simply the heat will fade, thus it is also known as the Law of Atrophy.

Though it is not a definite law, in that it can be broken and is broken many times a second somewhere in the universe. Such as in a gas, if a molecule of lower energy strikes a molecule of higher energy and imparts some of its energy to the higher energy molecule, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is Broken. This can happen if the impact is made at a particular timing of movement, and this likely happens billions of times a millisecond in the universe, so it is not an unbreakable law and does not apply to Evolutionary Biology on Planet Earth as this is not a Closed System.

So there is also a Scale Of Reference Error in Con's Statement.

What affects the Universe in a certain way and time scale, say many Billions of years, does not have the same affect on the life on individual planets who measure time in thousands and millions of years.

2: <Thomas Jefferson (one of the founding Fathers of the US), he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function, and he claimed a polished version within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” >

Thomas Jefferson was using this to sway opinion his way with the term Unalienable Rights, yet no such Unalienable Rights actually exist in the real world, it was a political ploy, not an actual assertion on reality. The full sentence from Thomas Jefferson was:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is an Assertion of Self-Evidence Fallacy, as Jefferson gave no evidence to support his Assertion and what is Self-Evident to the Asserter (Jefferson) is not necessarily Self-Evident to the reader/listener.

Jefferson's Assertion of Unalienable Rights is Baseless and so is any Hypothesis based on his statement.

He was referring to a political contention with the British form of Government.

Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacyto assert that disagreement with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.


3: <“Constructional Law for the animate in the evolution of life, relative to facilitating movement, is dependent on all “Lifehaving the freedom (“Liberty) in the pursuit ofsurvival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Positive-feedback for humans, can be summarized to include the emotion of “Happiness,” in addition, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness. >

Adrian Bejan Constructional Law has been touted by Bejan for more than 20 years now and has not been accepted by the Scientific community as it suffers from the same Fallacies as the Fine Tuning argument, in that Bejan goes from stating it explains rivers and root systems, but then goes onto attaching it to psychological issues like happiness. So he has extended it into realms that make it into a False Analogy Fallacy. He should leave it at river systems and roots and not try and make it appear as a Snake Oil cure for Cancer.

Publishing it in a book, does not make it Scientific, nor mean that a single real scientist actually accepts it as Valid. So it is still not verified as being Scientific and it is not Science.

Adrian Bejan is only trained as an Engineer not a biologist, thus his theory can only be applied to Engineering, until a Biologist confirms it has biological merit.

Constructional Law, is an Engineers Explanation for What he does not Fully Understand, as Engineers are not Biologists, Bejan should get Biologists to verify his claims, so far they are again Baseless.

BTW: Bejan does not believe in God as the Designer for his Constructional Law, he believes he has discovered a Design Law that Excludes any Designer. He calls it Design without a Designer.

So his Hypothesis may have some credibility, but the Jury is still undecided.

So Constructional Theory Denies God and thus has nothing to do with Religion.

It is similar to saying Design comes from Fractal Geometry which was once my own field of study.

A fair Critique of Bejan's Book “

Point 4: < If a society does not have a good understanding of this moral force, it could fall apart. How long could a society function or achieve Happiness without morality? >

Con treats Morality as if it was a divine set of Tenets, in fact, different societies have completely different moralities, whereas once in humans and possibly still in some isolated cultures, infanticide and genocide are still viewed as moral. Morality evolved from the environmental and social constraints on a population, though as a global community forms, this global community is developing a consistent set of morals through Consensus. With such organizations as the United Nations standing in judgement of organizing the consensus of World Morality discussions.

Kitcher (2006a,b; 2011) has proposed a three-stage account of the evolution of morality. It begins with the evolution of an early but fragile form of psychological altruism among hominins in the context of “coalition games” in mixed adult groups. The social structure would have been similar to that of contemporary chimpanzees and bonobos, where cooperation among the relatively weak (or those in weak stages of life) is beneficial to them, but strategic calculation is infeasible. These conditions may have led from simpler forms of biological altruism developed through kin selection to the evolution of a psychological altruistic disposition involving “a blind tendency to respond to the preferences of another animal with whom you might engage in cooperative activity,” as a simple but effective mechanism for promoting advantageous participation in coalitions and subcoalitions (Kitcher 2006b). (This is the ‘indiscriminate’ altruism discussed in the previous sub-section.)


The first step is to draw a clear distinction between our morally-relevant evolved dispositions and our shared moral code. The latter does not have a direct evolutionary origin. It is a cultural product, and is the outcome of many different factors. Let's now consider some of the most important of these. First, to some degree, our moral codes are simply reflections of our evolved human nature. A good example relates to incest. Many cultures (though not all) have formal moral rules proscribing incest. It is tempting to ask: If our aversion to incest has an evolutionary origin, why would we need a moral injunction against it? But this question raises a possibility: Maybe we don'tneed a moral injunction against incest. The vast majority of people just don't want to engage in this form of sexual expression; they feel an acute and pronounced disgust at the prospect. So, in this instance at least, formalized morality may simply embody or reflect people's values, values they would have anyway.


My own Argument:
What makes Science fascinating is Con's final statement: Imagine being the person who makes such a discovery???

Anybody can be considered a Scientist,
All you need is an original idea (Argument/Concept) and gather some Data (Evidence) to support your Hypothesis (Concept + Evidences) and present it to a relevant Scientific Organization for testing, such as a University.
They will do their best there to disprove your Hypothesis.
As the way science proves a Hypothesis is by trying to disprove it, which they have tried to do to Evolution for 160 years without success.

If the scientists at the University cannot disprove your Hypothesis, they will pass your Hypothesis as a package, with all the evidence you discovered and all that they tried to disprove it with to other universities around the world and relevant scientific bodies.

If they all Fail to Disprove it, then it becomes a Theory!

Thus you are now a Scientist and get to name your own Theory.

Regardless of whether you were a scientist previously.

This is why the Constructional Theory Con mentioned is not a True Theory at all and why Creationism is not a Theory, as none of them have been properly tested and verified by Scientists. So neither the Constructional Theory, nor Creationism are Scientific Theories.

Back to Con for some interesting rebuttals.



Thank you Pro for your enthusiastic reply. You made a lot of good points and Con will try to address most of them.

Out of the gate, Pro provides a good rant about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Perhaps, too detail and incomplete that may confuse the voter. We know from Round 1 Pro's concern about “making it [the debate] more interesting for the voter.” The last thing one should do is get into the weeds at such scale where a “molecule of lower energy strikes a molecule of higher energy...” this may confuse the voter. Defining a “Closed System” on a molecular level you will naturally find what appears to be conflicts in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, such conflicts diminish within “Closed Systems” from the macro level up to the level of the universe as a complete “Closed System,” which is the proper range of scales dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

At the macro level Pro left out an important simple part of the Second Law relating to flow. That is, when dealing with heat, there is a natural flow from high temperature to a lower temperature. When dealing with pressure, there is a natural flow from high pressure to a lower pressure. Everyone could relate to a pressurized aerosol spray container. Did anyone ever notice, the spray from a hair spray container going in the opposite direction? That is, back into the can. The answer is NO, thanks to the Arrow of Time and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To continue, electrical current flows from high resistance to low resistance. Water flows from the height of a mountain to the lowest level in a valley or the ocean. And so on.

Flow within the matrix of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the key to the current evolutionary state of the universe. Since humanity is a product of God's handwriting, aka the Laws of Nature, it is fascinating to see symmetry in human behavior relative to the Second Law. That is, the desire to take a path from high to lower resistance. Do less work for the same result. Migration from the high resistance found in tyranny, to the low resistance found in freedom. The desire to move from a higher taxed area, to a lower tax community having the same standard of living. The desire to move from the high resistance of finding employment to the low resistance of employment found in prosperous areas. The enjoyment of the transition from high emotional stress to lower stress. Choose the lower price supplier for a given product. And so on.

Of course, on the individual level there are always exceptions, like Pro pointed out on the molecular level. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the flow of populations of molecules, and through symmetry, empirically, it is interesting to find human populations have the tendency exhibiting the same patterns of flow from high to low.

Why does human behavior seem to have the same pattern of flow relative to the Second Law of Thermodynamics? We could trace this behavior back to life's primeval working function also known as Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (Survival, etc., Happiness for us humans).” Con mentioned in the previous round that unbeknownst to Thomas Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function found throughout all living-systems. Pro is correct about Jefferson “using this to sway opinion.” Jefferson used this “opinion” to upset His Royal Highness King George III with such a phrase, as it flew in the face of the prevailing political theory of the day. Also, Jefferson's term of Unalienable Rights became the foundation to the US Constitutional design of governance, which sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.

But I digress, getting back to life's primeval working function and its symmetry to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we may view this function as a bio-program throughout all living-systems, including social systems. That is, once alive, or a social identity comes into existence, there is a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve “Life.” At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom (“Liberty”), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during “the pursuit of” an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, “fine-tuning” algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights is the foundation to the Natural Selection Process.

This study of flow systems, relative to the Second Law of Thermodynamics either animate or inanimate, Constructal Law by Adrian Bejan, and the study of animate systems via Constructal Law relative to some primeval working function by Michael Takac are relatively new concepts of interpreting the empirical, presented to the scientific community. These new concepts are on the scientific stage for verification—as Pro pointed out by his highlighted text of a different color. This is a natural process within the scientific community which could take decades to shake out. As it did for Einstein, at the beginning of last century, when claiming Newtonian physics was wrong. Imagine the upset in the scientific community over that claim. Still today, there is more mainstream controversy over Darwin's work than Einstein's, however, the scientific community is mostly in alignment with Darwin.

Too bad Darwin, 80 some years after Jefferson, failed to explore Unalienable Rights as the foundation to the Natural Selection Process, but instead fell in love with Herbert Spencer's popular phrase of “survival of the fittest.” Imagine, during the beginning of the last century, what the world would be like today if the popular political fad then, of Social Darwinism, would be founded on the phrase “survival of the Happiest,” instead of “survival of the fittest.” Just a thought, or food for a future debate.

Con thanks Pro for quoting Jefferson's celebrated statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Con would like to point out the importance Jefferson gave to our “Creator” (aka God), relative to this debate's title pertaining to the “Person's Interest in Life.” That is, the first Unalienable Right being the Right to Life, “endowed by their Creator” implies most Religion Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest in Life More So Than Science Does. This scholarly insight of Jefferson, took place during the Enlightenment Era.

However, Pro took issue with Jefferson using the phrase “self-evident.”

Self-evident: “containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration” (

We may treat life's Unalienable Rights as “self-evident” or an axiom presenting a self-contained closed system of binary outcomes. That is, we may test “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback” in a binary premise. Either we have Life or no-Life, either we have freedom or no-freedom, either we have energy in the pursuit, or no-energy; all binary states determent whether the outcome is positive- or negative-feedback.

In the field of mathematics and logic, such a closed system of propositions brings into existence a logical axiom being final and binary resulting in a proof (

Pro covered morality from a classical metaphysical standpoint, having no conflict with the scientific vantage point of mutually embracing Unalienable Rights for group positive-feedback. Group positive-feedback happens throughout the spectrum of species in group formation ether genetically and/or cerebrally.

Con made reference of the previous Round of the empirical diversity, throughout recorded history, of all isolated human tribes developed their own culture, language, “moral code,” and they all had some form of belief as in a religion. Not one was found to be atheistic.

Pro made reference to “psychological altruism” in the evolution of morality. Altruism also maintains a mutual moral embracement of the Unalienable Rights of inter-specie group formation as in the bond between a human and a pet. The human scope of language includes the term morality when loving a pet. The pet returns positive-feedback in many different ways, for example, a wag of the tail. Their relationship is positive-feedback via life's Unalienable Rights, where the language, concept and experience of positive-feedback are not the same. Even between humans, the experience of positive-feedback is an isolated event, where no two humans can be sure the experience is the same.

Pro's should understand the Constructal Law is on the scientific stage, where Creationism is just mainstream noise.

In closing, Con thanks Pro for this debate and wish Pro a long and healthy Life, with ample freedom (“Liberty” aka money), and the moral pursuit of Happiness, in the shadow of the Laws of Nature (God's handwriting). And Con looks forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Notice that a lot of people are voting on DDO.
Though, by scores, it was a pretty close debate, only one vote apart.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Though I don't know how people will consider the Unalienable Rights nonsense.
That one is a strange, unsupported concept.
No creature has such rights.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Though I was in a hurry and put Atrophy instead of Entropy, though they mean essentially the same thing except I'm more a Biological person than a Physics person, so Atrophy is the Biological (wasting away of muscle tissue) than Entropy (fading away of Energy).
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Though anybody can do science and become known as a Scientist, such as a 13 year old boy who took an interest in studying and documenting his observations of Dust Mites.
His work has opened up new ways of dealing with Dust Mites.

Anybody can become a scientist if they are innovative and bother to document their research properly.
There are lots of things yet to be discovered about the world we live in.
Some, like dust mites were ignored by mainstream science, leaving an opening for a young boy to become an Authority on them.
And thus he is noted as being an Entomologist.
Even though he was not Qualified through doing any University course.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
It appears that the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" has been bolstered massively above it's purpose and usefulness. Explaining Biological Evolution is a Fallacy.

The Sun is a victim of Entropy, but even then it may last another 5 Billion years before it succumbs to it.
While we on earth enjoy the External Energy provided by the Sun in our Open System.

Sun provides all the energy and more, than we need for Evolution to continue gaining in complexity.
plants absorb the energy from the sun and produce sugars and carbohydrates which store the Sun's energy and animals and insects consume these sugars and carbohydrates to increase their own metabolic energy for producing new life and more complexity in their own genes.

So life on Earth is not suffering from Entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics as does the Celestial bodies in their much larger time frame of billions of years.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
So True DonRCavalier, it's basically that the more fascinating the deeper you understand it, it is a never ending romance, like some find with music or art, the more you think you understand it, the more you realize there is so much more to understand.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
So True DonRCavalier, it's basically that the more fascinating the deeper you understand it, it is a never ending romance, like some find with music or art, the more you think you understand it, the more you realize there is so much more to understand.
Posted by DonRCavalier 2 years ago
As a scientist, I'm fascinated by Con's statement about science as the handwriting of God. Like many people who are labeled as Atheists by religions zealots, I've never flatly denied the existence of a God. What I and many others labeled as Atheists reject are the various interpretations and stories that Man has created about what they believe God to be and their subsequent attempts to manipulate or force others to conform to their beliefs. The more I learn about the various scientific theories of existence and reality based on Quantum Mechanics. the more in awe I am and will go wherever the science takes me.

And if it takes me to God I will not be disappointed!
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
cool, cool.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Many people see science as a clinical, reductionist separation of everything into empirical quantities.
They think of it as cold and calculating.
That is only because they don't understand science for a number of reasons.
1: Poor teaching.
2: Cultural anti-science attitudes from peers and parents, often evangelical and Creationist groups.
3: Not being introduced to it at all until too late where catching up is difficult and it seems out of reach, so they simply ignore it. Some societies have little or no science education in early life, such as some of those cultures in 2.

I had a friend that never did any science in primary school and early secondary, so when he came to our school, he was already 4 years behind, he couldn't catch up so failed the compulsory science classes and did not get interested in it until I started working with electronics.
I made a few simple projects that were useful for us, and he became curious about my radio in a matchbox.
So I explained to him bit by bit on how it worked so he decided to make some projects himself.
So I showed him some simple teach yourself electronics books and he found he could understand them with a little help.
He went back to school to get the science subjects he missed out on at school and went on to doing an engineering course at university and is now overseas working somewhere in China as last I heard.
So, some, with the right influences may discover science is not as bad as they thought it was.
Which is the underlying reason for this debate.
Most I've met have been turned away from Science by their Religion, as some religions prefer their flock stayed naive of science, as they know that knowledge and improving their RQ may cause some to leave the flock.
Thus my inclusion of Religion in the debate title.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In a debate with Sagey. . . Doing research. . . It was an interesting argument. . . however the odd text and hard to read narrative of cont, pushes it to pro . .