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

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

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

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.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
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.

 

 



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?



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.



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.

Around the Network
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. 



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

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

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?

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.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

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?

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.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

bdbdbd said:
Hedra42 said:

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.

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.