Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science or Religion

SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 9:33:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The intent of religion is heart purification. Purity of heart is essential to be truly scientific.

You wouldn't have religion without science, and science without religion is corrupt.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 9:47:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 9:33:05 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
The intent of religion is heart purification. Purity of heart is essential to be truly scientific.

You wouldn't have religion without science, and science without religion is corrupt.

Of course I agree that historically - religious society was necessary to scientific discovery. But in theory, if one were to disappear - which would you choose? If it was hunting and gathering, but with an idea of God, that might be quite attractive in some ways. Or a high tech future in a scientifically described universe - which way would you go?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:02:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Definitions pulled from Merriam Webster..

Religion
1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religious
1
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <religious attitudes>
2
of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3
a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

~~~~
Now understanding these definitions, it is pretty clear that religion can refer to a lot of things, including the scientific method.
~~~~

Science
1
the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5
capitalized : christian science

~~~~~

Understanding this definition, realize that science is very integral to good religion.

What I'm trying to say is, they are very interconnected concepts. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

As it is written in Paul's Epistle to Timothy...

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith."

Paul is not saying that people are being swayed away by science, but "science falsely so called".

The scriptures teach sincerity of faith, and solid science makes for sincere faith.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:11:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 10:02:14 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Definitions pulled from Merriam Webster..

Religion
1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Religious
1
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <religious attitudes>
2
of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3
a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful


~~~~
Now understanding these definitions, it is pretty clear that religion can refer to a lot of things, including the scientific method.
~~~~

Science
1
the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5
capitalized : christian science

~~~~~

Understanding this definition, realize that science is very integral to good religion.


What I'm trying to say is, they are very interconnected concepts. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive.


As it is written in Paul's Epistle to Timothy...

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith."

Paul is not saying that people are being swayed away by science, but "science falsely so called".

The scriptures teach sincerity of faith, and solid science makes for sincere faith.

Okay, you've convinced me. Hover boots and robot butler here I come!
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:18:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Just remember, there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end leads to perdition.

Be sincere in faith, charitable with your love, and diligent in your struggle for these things. This is the healthy and self correcting way to have a relationship with God. Material things will only pacify for so long before they become childish and vain. The eternal is what matters. Godliness with contentment is the greatest gain. Strive for Truth, and you will find it.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:33:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 10:18:50 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Just remember, there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end leads to perdition.

Be sincere in faith, charitable with your love, and diligent in your struggle for these things. This is the healthy and self correcting way to have a relationship with God. Material things will only pacify for so long before they become childish and vain. The eternal is what matters. Godliness with contentment is the greatest gain. Strive for Truth, and you will find it.

No. I'm going with the science thing! I couldn't do without pain relief, dentistry, antibiotics, television, computers, automobiles and telescopes - much as I love running round in the woods naked, killing things with a sharp stick!
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:53:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I don't believe that scoffing leads to edifying discourse.

I can tell by your mockery that you either don't understand what it is I am trying to say, or your understanding of these concepts is not necessarily in line with what the concepts are defined to mean.

Cut me some slack.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 10:53:18 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I don't believe that scoffing leads to edifying discourse.

I can tell by your mockery that you either don't understand what it is I am trying to say, or your understanding of these concepts is not necessarily in line with what the concepts are defined to mean.

Cut me some slack.

How about you spare me the lecture - and answer the question. Maybe make a joke or two? It's precisely this that turns me off about religion. You're so.... pious.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 11:13:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Here is a joke for you...

A muse was considered to be a source of inspiration in Greek mythology.

The suffix "a" means "not or without"

Knowing that, what does that show about the word "amuse"?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 11:22:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 11:13:53 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Here is a joke for you...

A muse was considered to be a source of inspiration in Greek mythology.

The suffix "a" means "not or without"

Knowing that, what does that show about the word "amuse"?

About the word amuse? Not a great deal, given that a suffix is a group of letters at the end of a word. Maybe you meant prefix. Muse with the suffix a is the plural of museum - which is where your religion belongs! In museums!
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 11:29:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
prefix... suffix...crucifix? bleh..
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 11:36:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 11:29:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
prefix... suffix...crucifix? bleh..

So now you've got to choose!
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:03:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Before there ever was Science, there were treatment and cures for what ails the human body.
Had such things reached there pinnacle by the time Science started developing?
Doubtful.
Critical thinking, logic, and reason, all existed separate from Science. Scientists borrowed these tools from philosophy.

The claim to fame of Science is that it offers a fast track to technological information and advances. Not the only path, as critical thinking and logic should be expected to get there too.

There were no "scientists" until the late 1800's, although we should consider Science to be older than that.
The fast track path that Science gives us is based on the Scientific Method.
This method is between 1000 and 2000 years old, depending on how you view its beginning.

Recorded history is about 5000 years old, so Science has been with us less than half of recorded history.

The question one might ask is, are humans more satisfied with their life today than they were 3000 years ago.
I think not.
So 3000 years ago, with Religion but without Science,humans had no greater satisfaction with their lives, compared to today. I have never seen an argument for the reverse.

The benefit of Science is creature comforts.
Science tells how, religion tells why.

Science does not add contentment to human life, religion does, as a species, perhaps not for you.
So if the goal is contentment of the human race, and the sacrifice is a slow path to technology, it's seems a small price.
If we are concerned about our own creature comforts, on a personal level, any sacrifice is too great.
The_Great_Amalgam
Posts: 1,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 2:10:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 8:05:48 PM, autocorrect wrote:
If one was going to disappear, and it was your choice - which would you choose and why?

Personally I would rather have a wall be built around the religion forum.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 8:30:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:03:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Before there ever was Science, there were treatment and cures for what ails the human body.
Had such things reached there pinnacle by the time Science started developing?
Doubtful.
Critical thinking, logic, and reason, all existed separate from Science. Scientists borrowed these tools from philosophy.

The claim to fame of Science is that it offers a fast track to technological information and advances. Not the only path, as critical thinking and logic should be expected to get there too.

There were no "scientists" until the late 1800's, although we should consider Science to be older than that.
The fast track path that Science gives us is based on the Scientific Method.
This method is between 1000 and 2000 years old, depending on how you view its beginning.

Recorded history is about 5000 years old, so Science has been with us less than half of recorded history.

The question one might ask is, are humans more satisfied with their life today than they were 3000 years ago.
I think not.
So 3000 years ago, with Religion but without Science,humans had no greater satisfaction with their lives, compared to today. I have never seen an argument for the reverse.

The benefit of Science is creature comforts.
Science tells how, religion tells why.

Science does not add contentment to human life, religion does, as a species, perhaps not for you.
So if the goal is contentment of the human race, and the sacrifice is a slow path to technology, it's seems a small price.
If we are concerned about our own creature comforts, on a personal level, any sacrifice is too great.

If people are not more satisfied in their lives today that 3000 years ago - maybe that says something about people, rather than about scientific advance. I rather suspect your idea of life back then is somewhat romantic - and that the description Thomas Hobbes gave 'nasty, brutish and short' is nearer the mark. No doubt, in such circumstances the relative consolation of religion would be much greater though. So amen to that, huh?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 11:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 8:30:40 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:03:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Before there ever was Science, there were treatment and cures for what ails the human body.
Had such things reached there pinnacle by the time Science started developing?
Doubtful.
Critical thinking, logic, and reason, all existed separate from Science. Scientists borrowed these tools from philosophy.

The claim to fame of Science is that it offers a fast track to technological information and advances. Not the only path, as critical thinking and logic should be expected to get there too.

There were no "scientists" until the late 1800's, although we should consider Science to be older than that.
The fast track path that Science gives us is based on the Scientific Method.
This method is between 1000 and 2000 years old, depending on how you view its beginning.

Recorded history is about 5000 years old, so Science has been with us less than half of recorded history.

The question one might ask is, are humans more satisfied with their life today than they were 3000 years ago.
I think not.
So 3000 years ago, with Religion but without Science,humans had no greater satisfaction with their lives, compared to today. I have never seen an argument for the reverse.

The benefit of Science is creature comforts.
Science tells how, religion tells why.

Science does not add contentment to human life, religion does, as a species, perhaps not for you.
So if the goal is contentment of the human race, and the sacrifice is a slow path to technology, it's seems a small price.
If we are concerned about our own creature comforts, on a personal level, any sacrifice is too great.

If people are not more satisfied in their lives today that 3000 years ago - maybe that says something about people, rather than about scientific advance. I rather suspect your idea of life back then is somewhat romantic - and that the description Thomas Hobbes gave 'nasty, brutish and short' is nearer the mark. No doubt, in such circumstances the relative consolation of religion would be much greater though. So amen to that, huh?

Well, my understanding is that quote about times before central government, not before Science.
He credits government with giving us the good life, not Science, unless you can show otherwise.

Some people are content with no technology, and others are extremely unhappy, even with all of the technology tons of money can provide - even commit suicide.
It all has to do with individuals, and the nature of mankind, absolutely.
It is not the fault of Science if people are not content. And of course, many of them are not.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 11:51:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
No science before the late 1800s?

pssht... Western education... They really keep a lot from you guys.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:19:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 11:43:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:30:40 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:03:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Before there ever was Science, there were treatment and cures for what ails the human body.
Had such things reached there pinnacle by the time Science started developing?
Doubtful.
Critical thinking, logic, and reason, all existed separate from Science. Scientists borrowed these tools from philosophy.

The claim to fame of Science is that it offers a fast track to technological information and advances. Not the only path, as critical thinking and logic should be expected to get there too.

There were no "scientists" until the late 1800's, although we should consider Science to be older than that.
The fast track path that Science gives us is based on the Scientific Method.
This method is between 1000 and 2000 years old, depending on how you view its beginning.

Recorded history is about 5000 years old, so Science has been with us less than half of recorded history.

The question one might ask is, are humans more satisfied with their life today than they were 3000 years ago.
I think not.
So 3000 years ago, with Religion but without Science,humans had no greater satisfaction with their lives, compared to today. I have never seen an argument for the reverse.

The benefit of Science is creature comforts.
Science tells how, religion tells why.

Science does not add contentment to human life, religion does, as a species, perhaps not for you.
So if the goal is contentment of the human race, and the sacrifice is a slow path to technology, it's seems a small price.
If we are concerned about our own creature comforts, on a personal level, any sacrifice is too great.

If people are not more satisfied in their lives today that 3000 years ago - maybe that says something about people, rather than about scientific advance. I rather suspect your idea of life back then is somewhat romantic - and that the description Thomas Hobbes gave 'nasty, brutish and short' is nearer the mark. No doubt, in such circumstances the relative consolation of religion would be much greater though. So amen to that, huh?

Well, my understanding is that quote about times before central government, not before Science.

The phrase 'nasty, brutish and short' is from Leviathan in which Hobbes discusses his concept of political legitimacy, that true, but he was describing man in 'a state of nature.'

He credits government with giving us the good life, not Science, unless you can show otherwise.

No, I agree - but I wasn't intending to adduce his entire thesis. Just his description of man in 'a state of nature.'

Some people are content with no technology, and others are extremely unhappy, even with all of the technology tons of money can provide - even commit suicide.
It all has to do with individuals, and the nature of mankind, absolutely.
It is not the fault of Science if people are not content. And of course, many of them are not.

We're not a very happy species, it seems - but it might be argued, this very fact has encouraged the development of civilization. So, why should we expect it to change - now we've got ice-cream in the freezer? (Please understand, I'm not suggesting that ice-cream in the freezer is the sole or defining benefit of scientific advance - it's just an example!) You might imagine that people would reflect upon the extraordinary achievements of civilization and be immensely grateful - but they take it all for granted, and would cast it aside like trash - for something else they think might make them happy. I think the key is not the pursuit of happiness so much as the avoidance of misery. It's not as compelling as a political idiom, 'life, liberty and the avoidance of misery' but may be more achievable, and afford some degree of contentment.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:58:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:19:09 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 11:43:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:30:40 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:03:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Before there ever was Science, there were treatment and cures for what ails the human body.
Had such things reached there pinnacle by the time Science started developing?
Doubtful.
Critical thinking, logic, and reason, all existed separate from Science. Scientists borrowed these tools from philosophy.

The claim to fame of Science is that it offers a fast track to technological information and advances. Not the only path, as critical thinking and logic should be expected to get there too.

There were no "scientists" until the late 1800's, although we should consider Science to be older than that.
The fast track path that Science gives us is based on the Scientific Method.
This method is between 1000 and 2000 years old, depending on how you view its beginning.

Recorded history is about 5000 years old, so Science has been with us less than half of recorded history.

The question one might ask is, are humans more satisfied with their life today than they were 3000 years ago.
I think not.
So 3000 years ago, with Religion but without Science,humans had no greater satisfaction with their lives, compared to today. I have never seen an argument for the reverse.

The benefit of Science is creature comforts.
Science tells how, religion tells why.

Science does not add contentment to human life, religion does, as a species, perhaps not for you.
So if the goal is contentment of the human race, and the sacrifice is a slow path to technology, it's seems a small price.
If we are concerned about our own creature comforts, on a personal level, any sacrifice is too great.

If people are not more satisfied in their lives today that 3000 years ago - maybe that says something about people, rather than about scientific advance. I rather suspect your idea of life back then is somewhat romantic - and that the description Thomas Hobbes gave 'nasty, brutish and short' is nearer the mark. No doubt, in such circumstances the relative consolation of religion would be much greater though. So amen to that, huh?

Well, my understanding is that quote about times before central government, not before Science.

The phrase 'nasty, brutish and short' is from Leviathan in which Hobbes discusses his concept of political legitimacy, that true, but he was describing man in 'a state of nature.'

He credits government with giving us the good life, not Science, unless you can show otherwise.

No, I agree - but I wasn't intending to adduce his entire thesis. Just his description of man in 'a state of nature.'

Some people are content with no technology, and others are extremely unhappy, even with all of the technology tons of money can provide - even commit suicide.
It all has to do with individuals, and the nature of mankind, absolutely.
It is not the fault of Science if people are not content. And of course, many of them are not.

We're not a very happy species, it seems - but it might be argued, this very fact has encouraged the development of civilization. So, why should we expect it to change - now we've got ice-cream in the freezer? (Please understand, I'm not suggesting that ice-cream in the freezer is the sole or defining benefit of scientific advance - it's just an example!) You might imagine that people would reflect upon the extraordinary achievements of civilization and be immensely grateful - but they take it all for granted, and would cast it aside like trash - for something else they think might make them happy. I think the key is not the pursuit of happiness so much as the avoidance of misery. It's not as compelling as a political idiom, 'life, liberty and the avoidance of misery' but may be more achievable, and afford some degree of contentment.

At issue are these "extraordinary achievements of civilization". For Hobbes it was government, for you it is Science.
There is a difference.

I like Cheryl Crow's attitude.
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you have (that makes you happy).
Nothing wrong with wanting more than you have, and nothing wrong with being happy with what you do have, with or without Science.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:07:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 11:51:19 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
No science before the late 1800s?

pssht... Western education... They really keep a lot from you guys.

And apparently they didn't teach you how to read.
No "Scientists" before the late 1800's. That is when the term was coined. Previously, they were natural philosophers.

And I did say the beginning of the SM can be considered to be 1000 -2000 years old, guess you missed that too.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:33:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:58:57 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:19:09 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 11:43:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:30:40 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:03:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:41:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/12/2016 11:37:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science is my religion. Religion is my science.

Amusing!
Before there ever was Science, there were treatment and cures for what ails the human body.
Had such things reached there pinnacle by the time Science started developing?
Doubtful.
Critical thinking, logic, and reason, all existed separate from Science. Scientists borrowed these tools from philosophy.

The claim to fame of Science is that it offers a fast track to technological information and advances. Not the only path, as critical thinking and logic should be expected to get there too.

There were no "scientists" until the late 1800's, although we should consider Science to be older than that.
The fast track path that Science gives us is based on the Scientific Method.
This method is between 1000 and 2000 years old, depending on how you view its beginning.

Recorded history is about 5000 years old, so Science has been with us less than half of recorded history.

The question one might ask is, are humans more satisfied with their life today than they were 3000 years ago.
I think not.
So 3000 years ago, with Religion but without Science,humans had no greater satisfaction with their lives, compared to today. I have never seen an argument for the reverse.

The benefit of Science is creature comforts.
Science tells how, religion tells why.

Science does not add contentment to human life, religion does, as a species, perhaps not for you.
So if the goal is contentment of the human race, and the sacrifice is a slow path to technology, it's seems a small price.
If we are concerned about our own creature comforts, on a personal level, any sacrifice is too great.

If people are not more satisfied in their lives today that 3000 years ago - maybe that says something about people, rather than about scientific advance. I rather suspect your idea of life back then is somewhat romantic - and that the description Thomas Hobbes gave 'nasty, brutish and short' is nearer the mark. No doubt, in such circumstances the relative consolation of religion would be much greater though. So amen to that, huh?

Well, my understanding is that quote about times before central government, not before Science.

The phrase 'nasty, brutish and short' is from Leviathan in which Hobbes discusses his concept of political legitimacy, that true, but he was describing man in 'a state of nature.'

He credits government with giving us the good life, not Science, unless you can show otherwise.

No, I agree - but I wasn't intending to adduce his entire thesis. Just his description of man in 'a state of nature.'

Some people are content with no technology, and others are extremely unhappy, even with all of the technology tons of money can provide - even commit suicide.
It all has to do with individuals, and the nature of mankind, absolutely.
It is not the fault of Science if people are not content. And of course, many of them are not.

We're not a very happy species, it seems - but it might be argued, this very fact has encouraged the development of civilization. So, why should we expect it to change - now we've got ice-cream in the freezer? (Please understand, I'm not suggesting that ice-cream in the freezer is the sole or defining benefit of scientific advance - it's just an example!) You might imagine that people would reflect upon the extraordinary achievements of civilization and be immensely grateful - but they take it all for granted, and would cast it aside like trash - for something else they think might make them happy. I think the key is not the pursuit of happiness so much as the avoidance of misery. It's not as compelling as a political idiom, 'life, liberty and the avoidance of misery' but may be more achievable, and afford some degree of contentment.

At issue are these "extraordinary achievements of civilization". For Hobbes it was government, for you it is Science.
There is a difference.

It doesn't make life in a state of nature any less nasty, brutish or short - whatever you attribute the achievements of civilization to. But it's noteworthy that the kind of government Hobbes was defending was absolute monarchy - justified by the divine rights of Kings, broken down by commercial interests - in turn based upon scientific discovery. It's the essence of the Enlightenment. So arguably, the difference is merely a matter of where you draw the line. Perhaps, if all you are foregoing is science - everything before the 1630's is yours. Holy Roman Empire burning witches and books, 100 years war, primae nocte - the lord banging your wife before you, 30% infant mortality, absolute dependence upon the harvest. Sounds delightful. Not quite a state of nature, but still life would be quite nasty, brutish and short compared with modern standards.

I like Cheryl Crow's attitude.
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you have (that makes you happy).

That's great advice for the poor!

Nothing wrong with wanting more than you have, and nothing wrong with being happy with what you do have, with or without Science.

Yeah, thank God for smallpox!
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:23:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2016 8:05:48 PM, autocorrect wrote:
If one was going to disappear, and it was your choice - which would you choose and why?

Why?
Is science alternative to religion?
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:16:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 8:23:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 4/12/2016 8:05:48 PM, autocorrect wrote:
If one was going to disappear, and it was your choice - which would you choose and why?

Why?
Is science alternative to religion?
Do you always answer a question with a question?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:51:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:07:56 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/13/2016 11:51:19 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
No science before the late 1800s?

pssht... Western education... They really keep a lot from you guys.

And apparently they didn't teach you how to read.
No "Scientists" before the late 1800's. That is when the term was coined. Previously, they were natural philosophers.

And I did say the beginning of the SM can be considered to be 1000 -2000 years old, guess you missed that too.

Your argument is based on language, not reality. It's also based on the horse crap they teach in schools, which is understandable. It's simply not true. There have been scientists for thousands of years even before 2,000 years ago. Sure, the Greeks had their scientists, but so did the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, etc.

The scientific method is not new at all, people have been practicing it for a very long time.

I also don't care to argue about this.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:36:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:05:25 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Discretion is the better part of valor.

...and misdirection the better part of fraud!

Scientific method was formalized in the 1630's by Galileo. Calling anyone before then a scientist is opening the door upon astrology, alchemy, shamanism and witch doctory of any description. Mathematics and deductive reasoning existed - yielding knowledge that was applied in architecture and metallurgy, for example - but a formalized philosophical understanding that valid knowledge is achieved through systematic observation and falsification of hypotheses was Galileo's subject in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:41:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Ibn al-Haytham
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,