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

[o_O.Q]

SpokenTruth said:

o_O.Q said:

i'm not saying that's the case all the time but clearly when the (1) laws of physics are broken and need to be (2) rewritten for something to be verified ( as is the case with singularities ) then there is (3) some degree of faith involved

the hypothesis i believe is that singularities are points in space where gravity/mass become infinite

There is so much wrong with this one comment.

1. It doesn't break the laws of physics. We simply don't have a law written to correctly quantify them yet.  No different than needing to add onto Newtonian physics to correctly quantify quantum mechanics.
2. They won't be rewritten but added to.  Think of it like a new chapter rather than a whole new book.
3. That doesn't require faith.  That requires more study.  To simply, we know 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + X = 20.  It doesn't take faith to know we must solve for X.

o_O.Q said:

"I think you'd be hard-pressed to defend the claim that technology is intrinsically harmful to the planet and people"

nuclear waste? oil spills? fertilisers? CO2 emissions? etc

Those are not intrinsic factors of technology in itself.  I get what you are trying to say but you worded it incorrectly.  A technologically developed product can result in nuclear waste but technology itself is not nuclear waste.  A technologically developed product can result in CO2 emissions but technology itself is not CO2 emissions.  Oil spills are neither a byproduct of a given technology nor is it a technology itself.  They are the result of human error.

 

"1. It doesn't break the laws of physics."

anything that is infinite does not fit into our current physics laws in a way that  can be applied to the real world

 

"They won't be rewritten but added to."

you can't know that for certain since they might have to rethink certain aspects as they move forwards, that's a possibility... or they may just realise that they don't exist...

 

"That doesn't require faith."

to me it does when you don't even have any evidence that they exist, which they don't

 

"Those are not intrinsic factors of technology in itself."

of course they are, they come directly from the technology we use

the technology we use takes raw materials and in order to produce certain products waste is always produced

 

"I get what you are trying to say but you worded it incorrectly.  A technologically developed product can result in nuclear waste but technology itself is not nuclear waste."

this is a strawman, i at no point said that nuclear waste all by itself is literally technology

 

"technology itself is not CO2 emissions"

again this is a strawman, i at no point said that CO2 all by itself is literally technology

 

"Oil spills are neither a byproduct of a given technology nor is it a technology itself.  They are the result of human error."

again this is a strawman, i at no point said that oil spills alone are literally technology

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 15 January 2018