By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

bdbdbd on 10 January 2018
SvennoJ said:

Would you rather go back to the time of the small pox, bubonic plague, spanish flu etc to keep the population in check?

And get rid of the internet, cars, central air, guaranteed food/water supply and go back to living as hunters/gatherers. Not that that's sustainable with 7 billion people. It's science that proposes solutions for more sustainable living, it's belief or rather disbelief in science that stops people listening... Money >>>> Science and religion. The greed for money is the biggest threat to humanity.

Not greed for money, but those who envy people with money (but can't or won't do something to get some).



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
o_O.Q on 10 January 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:
carlove said:

And it's science's fault we have to stop it from happening in the first place. Vicious circle.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You don't understand what science is if you say stuff like that.

Science is KNOWLEDGE, anyone who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the danger of global warming will want to create solutions that do not cause said warming, that's what science is all about. Those who keep polluting cause they are making a lot of money out of it do not care or understand science, they are politically, economically or religiously motivated but NEVER scientifically motivated.

Science is the solution, ignorance, greed, religion, money are the problem.

science also manifested the problem to begin with though

i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science 

 

"This thread makes me realize that a lot of people don't understand what science really is, they think it has some kind of agenda like politics or religion has, when in fact it's quite the opposite. In fact the very title of this thread demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is."

you aren't acknowledging here that science has to have practitioners to function right? i never denied that it is the practitioners that are the problem and not science itself... but the point ultimately is that you cannot have science without practitioners being involved

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 10 January 2018

o_O.Q on 10 January 2018
SpokenTruth said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Science in it's pure self IS innocent, but that's the case for religion as well.

Science, yes but not religion.  Rather, specific religions....certainly not all.  Some of the biggest religions have scripture and dogma that advise and condone violence toward certain people or given situations.  That removes innocence. 

While people are ultimately the true danger with science or religion, science does not direct people to cause harm to others as some religions do.

" science does not direct people to cause harm to others as some religions do."

actually it does in many ways, eugenics being the first example i can think of, since it(science) points out differences between people, that people naturally feel the need to act on



o_O.Q on 10 January 2018
captain carot said:
o_O.Q said:

"threats with mass destruction"

the effects we've had on the biodiversity of this planet i would say have been massively destructive... millions of species sacrificed for technological advancement

then there's also as i've mentioned before the potential that we'll destroy the planet through flooding it via global warming

there's also the nuclear disasters of the past and the possibility of nuclear war in the future

what do you think of these examples that have nothing to do with religion but arguable have more far reaching consequences including the possible destruction of the planet?

In fact nothing of that has to do with science itself but with the people using inventions quite selfishly. And we can't destroy 'the planet' with global warning, just ourselves. At the same time science might be the key for saving earth in case of a 'global killer' meteor or something like that.

 

One main problem actually is the 'make the earth subjugated' bullshit and other stuff like that.

i agree and that was worded incorrectly my bad



Hedra42 on 10 January 2018
o_O.Q said:
Hedra42 said:

In answer to your first question, yes, and yes. Quite apart from experiments that have been conducted since the late 19th century proving their existence, electrons have been imaged and filmed using quantum microscopes since 2008. https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html

In answer to your second point, science is a quest for knowledge. There is risk associated with every step into the unknown. While we might do our best to anticipate and avoid risks in the advancement of science, some problems develop over such a long period,  that their causes are not obvious to start with.

Example: Greenhouse gases have been increasing since the early 19th century - the start of the industrial revolution. This has been measured through ice cores https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ but not until this century. It has taken decades of complex analysis of these and other phenomenon to prove humanity's impact on the environment. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/

Here is a medical example - Lung cancer went from being a rarity to a global epidemic  in the late 19th century. But it wasn't until the 1940's, (after extensive medical research) that the cause was confirmed as being directly linked to smoking. This may be a no-brainer now, but there was a complete ignorance about the relationship between cancer and tobacco back then. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345227

Your final comment is a pointless one to make, considering that risks are integral to advancing science and technology. If we didn't take risks and learn lessons from their consequences, we would all still be sitting in caves wearing animal furs (taken from animals we'd probably already hunted to near extinction) and making flint spears.

The industrial revolution brought about changes for the better - for example, cheaper and more accessible goods, labour saving inventions, electronic communication, better medicine etc. but affecting climate globally was a byproduct that would not become apparent for many decades.

If recent science hadn't shown us that climate change and environmental destruction was the result of the technologies of the 19th and 20th centuries, we might never have developed new technologies for harnessing clean and renewable energies and fuels, recycling our waste or developing electric and hybrid powered vehicles. We might never have developed methods to help balance and renew the planet's resources.

Just as proof of a link between tobacco and lung cancer eventually changed our views on smoking, proof of a link between human activities and the environment is now triggering a change in the way we value our environment, forcing us to learn how to look after it.

"n answer to your first question, yes, and yes. Quite apart from experiments that have been conducted since the late 19th century proving their existence, electrons have been imaged and filmed using quantum microscopes since 2008. https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html"

ok that was a bad example but the point i was making is that in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence

but i do acknowledge your argument that we have solved various problems through thorough research and i wasn't ever denying that, i'm just saying that at times we take risks that have far reaching consequences for us and the environment

Where is your evidence supporting your point that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" ?

Scientists may propose theories to explain a phenomenon that they are investigating, but don't confuse that with faith. Theories are not proposed to be believed in. They are proposed so that they can be tested again and again until they are either proved, disproved or modified based on ongoing experiments and observations.  An example of this process can be found in the piece 'A Brief Outline of the Development of the Theory of Relativity'  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Brief_Outline_of_the_Development_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity by Albert Einstein.

And yes, regarding your final point, I have already explained the intrinsic risks that are taken with taking steps into the unknown, and have even provided links to examples. What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?

I haven't seen, at any point in this thread, at least up until this post, you backing up any of your claims with evidence. Please, if you are going to respond to this post, back it up with a credible source.

 

 



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 10 January 2018
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

" science does not direct people to cause harm to others as some religions do."

actually it does in many ways, eugenics being the first example i can think of, since it(science) points out differences between people, that people naturally feel the need to act on

Eugenics isn't a science, it's a social philosophy based on scientific data.  The science itself never said anything about what to do with the data.

" 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?



Tsubasa on 10 January 2018

Can only talk about christianity, but god being real would be the worlds biggest threat of all time.
Guess it's more or less harmless as long as they are wrong.

Science might lead to destruction, but it is still essential to prevent our extinction. We have to research a lot, and we have to do it now, before we lose too many ressources.



bdbdbd on 10 January 2018
Hedra42 said:
o_O.Q said:

"n answer to your first question, yes, and yes. Quite apart from experiments that have been conducted since the late 19th century proving their existence, electrons have been imaged and filmed using quantum microscopes since 2008. https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html"

ok that was a bad example but the point i was making is that in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence

but i do acknowledge your argument that we have solved various problems through thorough research and i wasn't ever denying that, i'm just saying that at times we take risks that have far reaching consequences for us and the environment

Where is your evidence supporting your point that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" ?

Scientists may propose theories to explain a phenomenon that they are investigating, but don't confuse that with faith. Theories are not proposed to be believed in. They are proposed so that they can be tested again and again until they are either proved, disproved or modified based on ongoing experiments and observations.  An example of this process can be found in the piece 'A Brief Outline of the Development of the Theory of Relativity'  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Brief_Outline_of_the_Development_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity by Albert Einstein.

And yes, regarding your final point, I have already explained the intrinsic risks that are taken with taking steps into the unknown, and have even provided links to examples. What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?

I haven't seen, at any point in this thread, at least up until this post, you backing up any of your claims with evidence. Please, if you are going to respond to this post, back it up with a credible source.

 

 

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.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Kerotan on 10 January 2018
SpokenTruth said:
Kerotan said:
The funny thing is science will probably be what kills off our race in the end. Would have lasted longer as cavemen believing in God's lol

We would all be dead from plagues and bacterial infections long ago.

Would we? We seemed to do all right for millions of years without science. If anything we are making these diseases more dangerous the more advanced we get. 



o_O.Q on 10 January 2018
Hedra42 said:
o_O.Q said:

"n answer to your first question, yes, and yes. Quite apart from experiments that have been conducted since the late 19th century proving their existence, electrons have been imaged and filmed using quantum microscopes since 2008. https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html"

ok that was a bad example but the point i was making is that in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence

but i do acknowledge your argument that we have solved various problems through thorough research and i wasn't ever denying that, i'm just saying that at times we take risks that have far reaching consequences for us and the environment

Where is your evidence supporting your point that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" ?

Scientists may propose theories to explain a phenomenon that they are investigating, but don't confuse that with faith. Theories are not proposed to be believed in. They are proposed so that they can be tested again and again until they are either proved, disproved or modified based on ongoing experiments and observations.  An example of this process can be found in the piece 'A Brief Outline of the Development of the Theory of Relativity'  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Brief_Outline_of_the_Development_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity by Albert Einstein.

And yes, regarding your final point, I have already explained the intrinsic risks that are taken with taking steps into the unknown, and have even provided links to examples. What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?

I haven't seen, at any point in this thread, at least up until this post, you backing up any of your claims with evidence. Please, if you are going to respond to this post, back it up with a credible source.

 

 

"Where is your evidence supporting your point that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" ?"

for example

https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B630731c4-d1a3-4d77-94b9-8a2850da4f0e%7D/bloodletting-an-early-treatment-used-by-barbers-surgeons

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html

http://art-bin.com/art/hanson_en.html

 

"Scientists may propose theories to explain a phenomenon that they are investigating, but don't confuse that with faith. Theories are not proposed to be believed in."

many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things

 

" What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?"

maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos

 

"I haven't seen, at any point in this thread, at least up until this post, you backing up any of your claims with evidence. "

which claims?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 10 January 2018