expelled

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I think we have to realise that information is morally neutral. Science per se is morally neutral. Individual scientific investigations may have ehitcal implications, yet that is a result of people's [b]actions.

Sure, knowledge gained through science can be used to bad effect. However, it can, and indeed has, been used for great amount It doesn't say much about religion's ability to instil morality into people, does it now?[/b]

My only point is that scienctific knowledge by itself is useless. It is the implimintation of the knowledge that provides us with benefit and unfortunatly, as well as harm. This is where science needs the help of other disciplines. It cannot function in and of itself.

I guess that is what troubles me with education in general. Usually the focus is knowledge and not the ethical use of knowledge when really the ethical use of knowledge is the most important aspect of attaining knowledge.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I think philosophy, empathy and logic are good places to start when trying to characterise good and bad. I don't know about religion so much though.[/b]

Even if it were the teachings of Christ? For example, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you?" Are there any teaching of his that trouble you?

Originally posted by whodey
My only point is that scienctific knowledge by itself is useless.

Do you really think knowledge has no benefit short of its application?

I hope you aren't implying that knowledge on it's own isn't beneficial without being able to apply it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Do you really think knowledge has no benefit short of its application?

I hope you aren't implying that knowledge on it's own isn't beneficial without being able to apply it.

I suppose you could argue that one may get joy from learing just for the sake of learning, however, if you are unable to impliment this knowledge in any way in your life it has no practicle value of any sort.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose you could argue that one may get joy from learing just for the sake of learning, however, if you are unable to impliment this knowledge in any way in your life it has no practicle value of any sort.

Well, by definition something that can't be used in practice has no practical value.

I'm asking whether you believe there is no value in knowledge that has no practical value?

Originally posted by whodey
My only point is that scienctific knowledge by itself is useless. It is the implimintation of the knowledge that provides us with benefit and unfortunatly, as well as harm. This is where science needs the help of other disciplines. It cannot function in and of itself.

I guess that is what troubles me with education in general. Usually the focus is know ...[text shortened]... ge when really the ethical use of knowledge is the most important aspect of attaining knowledge.

Do you think Ben Stein used the information he was given in an ethical way?

Originally posted by whodey
Even if it were the teachings of Christ? For example, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you?" Are there any teaching of his that trouble you?

As you well know, I think Christ was simply echoing the ethical standards of group living, along with exercising a bit of logic. I have no problems with most of that.

That alone doesn't make him the son of God though. That requires a bit more proof!! 🙂

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, by definition something that can't be used in practice has no practical value.

I'm asking whether you believe there is no value in knowledge that has no practical value?

All information has potential practical value, however. It's intrinsic, I think.

Whodey's viewpoint would rather religate history to the dustbin of time, since knowledge of the past can have little practical impact on the future.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All information has potential practical value, however. It's intrinsic, I think.

Whodey's viewpoint would rather religate history to the dustbin of time, since knowledge of the past can have little practical impact on the future.

All information has potential practical value, however. It's intrinsic, I think.

I actually thought about this after I posted and I think I agree. It may not be useful in a practical way immediately, but could in the future.

I also tend to think the knowledge of how our universe works is beneficial in general just for the sake of our own enlightenment even if it doesn't give us better technology.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Do you think Ben Stein used the information he was given in an ethical way?

If what he was doing was intentionally lying to prove a point, then no I do not.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn

I actually thought about this after I posted and I think I agree. It may not be useful in a practical way immediately, but could in the future.

I also tend to think the knowledge of how our universe works is beneficial in general just for the sake of our own enlightenment even if it doesn't give us better technology.[/b]

That is more in tune with my thinking. Just because knowledge is not used immediatly does not mean it cannot be used in a practicle way sometime in the future. Also becoming "enlightened" about something may mean that you live your life in a different way as a result. Therefore, the knowledge of something may have an indirect practicle application in regards to other things.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Whodey's viewpoint would rather religate history to the dustbin of time, since knowledge of the past can have little practical impact on the future.[/b]

That, of course, is assuming that the past can have little practical impact upon the future. However, I for one, think that the past has a great impact upon the future. Therefore, attaining knowledge about the past can provide someone with a great oppurtunity to have a substantial impact upon the future.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]As you well know, I think Christ was simply echoing the ethical standards of group living, along with exercising a bit of logic. I have no problems with most of that.

Then why the apprehension in using some of his philosophy regarding ethics for today? My guess is, is that if you stripped God out of his teachings you would have absolutly no problems with what he had to say.

Originally posted by whodey
Then why the apprehension in using some of his philosophy regarding ethics for today? My guess is, is that if you stripped God out of his teachings you would have absolutly no problems with what he had to say.

If we stripped God out of his teachings we'd have secular morality.

Doesn't make him the son of God though.

Originally posted by whodey
If what he was doing was intentionally lying to prove a point, then no I do not.

So being a theist makes you no more moral than anyone else?