Religion or science?

Originally posted by @whodey
What do you think will happen to all the people once they no longer are needed?

Either killed off or rebellion.

Originally posted by @whodey
Agreed.

Jesus only condemned the religious leaders of his day for their hypocrisy. Sinners he embraced.

How is my post suggestive that we stop thinking? I would think the opposite has occurred. My question is, how do we adopt wisdom on such matters? Additionally, does science seem to be an even bigger threat to human survival when devoid of wisdom than religion?

"How is my post suggestive that we stop thinking?"

Well, you seem to be implying that the application of science has negative consequences, to witch I agree. It can and quite often does. You used the development of the A-Bomb (I believe) for an example of scientific misstep (and I believe alot of its developers shared in that sentiment). But was it truly a misstep? Should it not have been concieved? ( as an exageration ...I hope) WW2 may still be raging had it not been utilized.

"My question is, how do we adopt wisdom on such matters?"

How do we adopt any type of wisdom? We try...fail...and try again, and again, and again...adinfinitum. Thats really what science is...trying. If there is any truth to religions moral compass, you mustn't wory about it, for it will be found scientifically.

For the sake of argumemt: lets say that religion can be thought of as a father showing you to ride a bike. All he can really do is pad you up and give you a push. Everyone has to pedal for themselves and learn to ride the bike themselves. When you crash and hit the ground the only wisdom he gave that really mattered was the padding. He knew one thing for certain, you would indeed eventually fall, but obviously knowing that didn't stop him from wanting you to experience the joy of riding the bike.

So in that respect science was basically birthed from religion. Now we are riding the bike...padded up with some ethical guidelines. If indeed there is a creator of the universe, after manay many falls, science will someday find it. So whats your rush?
we're cruising now so just sit back and take in the scenery.

If indeed there is a creator of the universe, science will someday find it

That's a pretty weird theology.

Originally posted by @eladar
[b] If indeed there is a creator of the universe, science will someday find it

That's a pretty weird theology.[/b]

Thats probably because its not really a theology, its my take on it...you may leave it right where you found it if you desire so.

But also, in case you haven't noticed the universe is a pretty wierd place.

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
Thats probably because its not really a theology, its my take on it...you may leave it right where you found it if you desire so.

But also, in case you haven't noticed the universe is a pretty wierd place.

If there is a creator of the universe, would it exist within it?

It would be like a computer program claiming it could find the programmer inside the computer.

Originally posted by @whodey
So what is the bigger threat to humanity, religion or science?

I often hear people say that religion is the cause of all our wars, thus it is evil and if not destroyed will destroy us. However, when looking at the world the opposite seems to be true.

Speaking of war, why do we have guns? Why do we have tanks? Why do we have WMD's? Is it not because ...[text shortened]... get? Is the true danger to mankind partaking of the tree of knowledge that is devoid of wisdom?

The problem with people are people, not science or religion.

Are people getting more moral? Always which is why there could never be a WWI.

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
Well, that begs the question; What exacly is "good" and "evil" in the eyes of science?

No it doesn't, because that is a stupid question.
That is just as idiotic as asking "What exactly is "good" and "evil" in the eyes of mathematics?"
Science is not something that makes moral judgments because science is evidence-based knowledge, not mind. Only people (with their minds) make moral judgments.

Originally posted by @whodey
Religion tells us how we should treat our fellow man and relate to God. Would you agree that most do not adhere to the example of Christ?

Conversely, science empowers us over the material universe. There are no standards set as to then treat our fellow man with such power and knowledge.

I would think that those who focus only on the material aspect o ...[text shortened]... eir time with spiritual teachings such as telling others to love their fellow man as themselves.

Science is evidence-based knowledge. How does learning/using evidence-based knowledge (science) prevent one or be in opposition to loving other people? -you make no sense.
You seem to have chosen to convinced yourself for religious reasons of the idiotic delusion of believing being kind/moral and learning learning/using evidence-based knowledge i.e. learning/using science, is mutually exclusive; they certainly are not. I can guess your motive for choosing to delude yourself that science is against kindness/morality; it is because some of that evidence in that evidence-based knowledge (i.e. science) disproves your religion. So obviously, for religious reasons, you would be against the teachings of such evidence-based knowledge (i.e. science). The thing is, science doesn't say anything about how we morally should live or what we morally should do and isn't supposed to; that is up to us. And when I say that is up to us, I don't mean up to a stupid religion; I mean up to us. That is because at least some of us have an independent mind and wish to use it and we should us it even if (and especially if) religion tells us not to.

Originally posted by @eladar
If there is a creator of the universe, would it exist within it?

It would be like a computer program claiming it could find the programmer inside the computer.

I don't know.

How is that different from catholisism? They believe in a creator that enters or exists inside the program, or at least "can".

Originally posted by @humy
No it doesn't, because that is a stupid question.
That is just as idiotic as asking "What exactly is "good" and "evil" in the eyes of mathematics?"
Science is not something that makes moral judgments because science is evidence-based knowledge, not mind. Only people (with their minds) make moral judgments.

Stupid question?!? You were the one using the language of "good" and "evil", not me...

This seems to be a thread about which way to "go", religion or science. You say to go "science" and whodey seems to say go "religion". Yet you are using terms like "good" and "evil" to describe a scientific ethical code that should be applied to gaurd against miss application. So I ask you to define those terms as they are to be applied in science. You have an understanding of those terms, but where exactly did that understanding come from?

Originally posted by @humy
Science is evidence-based knowledge. How does learning/using evidence-based knowledge (science) prevent one or be in opposition to loving other people? -you make no sense.
You seem to have chosen to convinced yourself for religious reasons of the idiotic delusion of believing being kind/moral and learning learning/using evidence-based knowledge i.e. learning/ ...[text shortened]... wish to use it and we should us it even if (and especially if) religion tells us not to.

Love has nothing to do with science. In terms of science, love does not actually exist other than to describe it as a complex mixture of chemicals providing an emotional response. Even though love is the most important aspect of our existence, science says it does not really exist in and of itself.

As for applying science, it can be done in an "evil" way, however, science in no way addresses what is evil. Science is, therefore, woefully lacking in the proper application of it's finding.

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
I don't know.

How is that different from catholisism? They believe in a creator that enters or exists inside the program, or at least "can".

Would the one who created be limited to the created laws?

My example of the programmer is limited. We are not God and the universe is more than a computer program.

If the creator is not bound by the laws of science, how is s ience supposed to find him unless he shows himself to us?

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
you are using terms like "good" and "evil" to describe a scientific ethical code

no, just an ethical code. Note sure what a "scientific ethical code" is supposed to mean and don't try and define one.

Originally posted by @humy
no, just an ethical code. Note sure what a "scientific ethical code" is supposed to mean and don't try and define one.

" scientific ethical code" can be literally translated as an ethical code for the application of science. Don't overthink it.

I was asking you what you meant by "good" and "evil", and how you came to understand those terms. You failed to respond.

Originally posted by @whodey
Love has nothing to do with science. In terms of science, love does not actually exist other than to describe it as a complex mixture of chemicals providing an emotional response. Even though love is the most important aspect of our existence, science says it does not really exist in and of itself.

As for applying science, it can be done in an "evil" wa ...[text shortened]... hat is evil. Science is, therefore, woefully lacking in the proper application of it's finding.

science doesn't say what 'love' is let alone says it "doesn't exist"; you are talking nonsense.