Quantcast
Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

bdbdbd said:
o_O.Q said:

" The science itself never said anything about what to do with the data."

ok and who did? the scientists who did the evaluations right? so what's your point? mine is simply that eugenics came about as a consequence of science, do you disagree?

can we agree that science has to have a practitioner? and that you cannot separate science from its practitioners?

Umm. No. Eugenics is an ideology. You need to understand that the "social sciences" are typically equal to religions that more often push politics than anything else.

You don't practice science the way you practice religion. There's no "different interpretations" in science. Surely there are rivaling hypotheses and bad science, but eventually it will find the truth.

eugenics came about because of science, can we agree on that?

and look dude you might think that you can take people and make them completely objective and strip away all of their ideological leanings when it comes to doing experiments, but i don't buy that personally

" There's no "different interpretations" in science. Surely there are rivaling hypotheses and bad science, but eventually it will find the truth."

science inherently is about different interpretations of data made by different scientists... over time we choose one interpretation as fact and dismiss the others sure but that doesn't change the fact that its about different interpretations of data being compared to each other



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

" The science itself never said anything about what to do with the data."

ok and who did? the scientists who did the evaluations right? so what's your point? mine is simply that eugenics came about as a consequence of science, do you disagree?

can we agree that science has to have a practitioner? and that you cannot separate science from its practitioners?

That's no different than saying scientists built the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan.   The science did not tell them to make a bomb and use it. 

Science does not dictate action. 
Scripture dictates action.

That is the inherent difference.  While it ultimately comes down to the choice of action by people, one explicitly tells you to perform violence.  The other does not because their does not exist a doctrine to begin with.

fair enough but regardless that doesn't change the fact that science presents us with tools that have a great capacity for harm, the topic isn't about science or religion inherently motivating action but about which is the greater threat

if i lay a gun and a knife on a table neither has inherently the ability to motivate action but we could argue that a gun is more capable of causing harm right?



Hedra42 said:
bdbdbd said:

Most often they propose hypotheses. Theory is the explanation for said phenomenon (or the most probable explanation). Though, the theory might have already been tried and when it's put for other scientists to test, so that they could verify it by ending up with the same results.

I stand corrected on the use of hypotheses, although the testing of theories can also lead to further investigation. The point of my response to the OP was not to confuse the use of hypotheses and theories with his suggestion of employing faith in the absence of conclusive evidence.

I only pointed this out, because in a debates like this, you often see "theory" interpreted as "hypothesis".

o_O.Q said:
bdbdbd said:

Umm. No. Eugenics is an ideology. You need to understand that the "social sciences" are typically equal to religions that more often push politics than anything else.

You don't practice science the way you practice religion. There's no "different interpretations" in science. Surely there are rivaling hypotheses and bad science, but eventually it will find the truth.

eugenics came about because of science, can we agree on that?

and look dude you might think that you can take people and make them completely objective and strip away all of their ideological leanings when it comes to doing experiments, but i don't buy that personally

" There's no "different interpretations" in science. Surely there are rivaling hypotheses and bad science, but eventually it will find the truth."

science inherently is about different interpretations of data made by different scientists... over time we choose one interpretation as fact and dismiss the others sure but that doesn't change the fact that its about different interpretations of data being compared to each other

No, we don't agree on that.

As I said, there exists bad science. And some fields have more bad science than the others - nutrition science is perhaps the worst.

Look, as I said there are rivaling hypotheses. One research may provide data that support or contradict multiple hypotheses. What this means, that one thing may be true under certain conditions and some other under some other conditions. Let us take four imaginary hypotheses: 1. The sky is blue, 2. the sky is red, 3. the sky is black, 4. the sky is green.

You can easily understand that all the hypotheses can't be true. Or can they. So we do some research by observing the sky. Based on the data gathered, we end up in a conclusion that MOST OFTEN the sky is blue, so we say that the sky is blue. Based on the data, we understand that under certain conditions the sky is black (at the nighttime) and red (during sunset), but it was never green (although some colour blind observers could not tell if the sky was red or green). So, technically the same data confirmed total of THREE hypotheses and contradicted one.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

That's no different than saying scientists built the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan.   The science did not tell them to make a bomb and use it. 

Science does not dictate action. 
Scripture dictates action.

That is the inherent difference.  While it ultimately comes down to the choice of action by people, one explicitly tells you to perform violence.  The other does not because their does not exist a doctrine to begin with.

fair enough but regardless that doesn't change the fact that science presents us with tools that have a great capacity for harm, the topic isn't about science or religion inherently motivating action but about which is the greater threat

if i lay a gun and a knife on a table neither has inherently the ability to motivate action but we could argue that a gun is more capable of causing harm right?

It can provide tools that can have great capasity for harm, but also tools that have great capasity for good.

Which one causes more harm depends on the gun and a knife and how they are used.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

It looks like somebody here wants to live an Amish life. lol

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 10 January 2018

Around the Network

A long time ago I'd say religion, but today, science.

I mean cigarettes, alcohol, drugs... People die from car accidents every single day.

The leading cause of death in the world is heart disease, and that comes from eating garbage food created by science.

And you don't even have a choice anymore. Pretty much all the food has been modified in some way, it's all poisonous.  Even the fruits and vegetables get sprayed with pesticides and other chemicals before they're sold to us.

Even medicine can kill you if you don't take it right.  Medicine we probably wouldn't even need if it weren't for the garbage we either ate or inhaled, created by science.

Last edited by Paperboy_J - on 10 January 2018

Obviously Science, right? I don't know of any product of religious belief that is capable of ending all life on the planet.



Religion.

That was the easiest question of my life.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Trunkin said:
Obviously Science, right? I don't know of any product of religious belief that is capable of ending all life on the planet.

Science doesn't make you fly airplanes into buildings, arf.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti 11GB VRAM | Asus PG27AQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 | HTC Vive Pro :3

Reached PC Masterrace level.

o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:
It seems that science is being equated with either progress, technology, or knowledge...

Moreover though, it's kind of a silly question to be honest. We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale.

The more relevant question would be which has a greater net benefit to the world. Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means. For example medicine, antiseptics, locomotion, long range communications, videogames, potato chips that taste like tacos, a drastic decrease in poverty and hunger, a drastic increase in life expectancy and quality of life, and so on. So, even if science is potentially dangerous, it is worth keeping and fixing, because we have no other way to get the benefits.

On the other hand, there is, to my knowledge, no benefit that we can get through religion that we can not achieve through other means. There's no benefit that requires religion to balance out the dangers, so it's not useful to keep it.

"We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale."

nuclear war or accidents cannot kill on a large scale?

 

"Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means."

as i asked someone else, what is the point of those benefits if due to global warming we all drown when the ice caps melt?

The point is quality of life.  We're all (individually and as a species) going to die eventually.  That does not mean that quality of life isn't important.  Personally, if it was a choice between humanity living for 1,000 more years with a high quality of life, or for a million more but in the condition of cavemen, I'd take 1,000.