More on “Science Without Religion is Lame�

[Erexsaur]

[center]More on “Science Without Religion is Lame�[/center]

viewtopic.php?t=32882&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Is science without religion lame? Think of a driver of a super performance automobile that has so little appreciation and respect toward the builder that placed all his heart into making the fine car that he (the driver) is liable to abuse it. Science without religion is lame in that sense. On the other hand, searching the depth of nature through science for greater understanding likewise tends to bring greater admiration and respect toward the Creator.

Science carried out without a religious base is also dangerous and possibly deadly. Think of a person using a steak knife as he enjoys his stake dinner and later uses the same knife to kill someone. A poster on the other leg also pointed out that the field of science may likewise be useful or deadly.

We may thus arrive at two possible conclusions. One may be that the person used the knife without religious conviction that would have mandated accountability that would have prevented the murder. The other possible conclusion would be that he used the knife with religious conviction that mandated killing the person that refused to follow his religion.

Because of the latter case, should we ban the use of the steak knife with religion for the fear of the person that may kill with the steak knife because of his religion? If yes, we would also ban the use of the knife with religion that mandates accountability toward neighbor.

How should we handle this dilemma when it comes to science? The fact that the term, “religion� is very broad tends to make its use ambiguous. Maybe we should be more specific by saying that the field of science should be used with moral accountability. Wouldn’t we all then agree? Properly used Religion demands the accountability. The Nuremburg trials made this fact clear.

But why is there a tendency for some to debate whether or not the field of science should be carried out on a foundation of religious conviction? Why does such a great fear of religious abuse tend to be communicated by some? Is it because of the possibility of someone trying to use the ambiguity dilemma to his advantage to cover up a hidden effort to throw out accountability? Freedom from accountability means freedom to abusively use the field of science as a cover-up for diabolical purposes.
Controversy is an often used way to destroy public confidence in sound policy. This is part of an adverse effort called “deconstruction.� Note for example how marriage and motherhood are so often so severely attacked to the point that abuse has become common.
What does the reader think?

Earl

[benchwarmer]

Hello Benchwarmer,

Of course, we don’t want to do anything dangerous or deadly. I’m discussing religion and morality because morality is based on properly exercised religion.

Hi Erexsaur,

What exactly is 'properly exercised' religion? Would that not be following all the 'laws' of any given religion? It's my opinion that doing so for the Bible based religions does NOT lead to a good set of morals. Unless of course one chooses to only cherry pick the 'nice' rules from this book. Upon doing that, one is no longer 'properly exercising' the religion.

Ask George Washington.

Unable, he is dead.

I do not mean just any religion, but that which gave us the Decalogue (Ten Commandments).

Ok, so now we are getting to the real claim. Would it not be better stated as something like "Science without my version of the Bible is dangerous and/or deadly"? Still ridiculous in my opinion, but at least now we know what we are talking about.

You suggest that I offer my life to the god, Huitzilopochtli? Nah. ‘Sorry. Does the religion of this god offer much of a rival to the abundant wisdom of the Bible that I find more than sufficient for you and me?

You are the one that essentially claimed doing science based on religion would render the science 'safe' i.e. do do the opposite is dangerous/deadly. Only now are you moving the goal posts and pointing at a book used by a smaller subset of religions.

You do not suggest science or any field or endeavor be carried out without a morality base, do you?

Of course not. All science should be carried out in a moral way. The problem is that morals have nothing whatsoever to do with any religion. A person's religion my guide their morals, but morals are a subjective thing based on our societal way of living as humans. Morals allow us to live together in 'peace and harmony' to the best of our ability. Without some 'code of conduct' we would constantly be killing/stealing/etc and living together with other humans would be unbearable and almost impossible. We've learned that being 'nice' to one another allows us to live in community. Religious 'rules' simply developed from our knowledge of how to best live together. In other words, people claiming religion gives us our morals seem to have it backwards.

What about those of non-Biblical religions? Such may safely make scientific contributions as long as he stays within confines of moral law as he does his work.

What 'moral law'? I already gave you an example of the Aztec 'moral law'. They practiced human sacrifice to appease their god. It seems religion is more dangerous and deadly in general than no religion.

Can we beat our slaves as long as they don't die within a couple of days while doing some science? Perhaps we get the slaves to collect our volcano data for us and beat them if they balk?

Fortunately, we (in the USA) live in a land whose laws are based primarily on the Decalogue (But sadly we are slowly drifting away from it.) and Other nations thankfully follow suit basically. (Do not kill, steal, etc.)

I would contend that most nations laws have nothing to do with the Decalogue, but are a result of attempting to live in a society that is functional. If it was legal to kill and steal, we wouldn't want to live together for very long. That's got nothing to do with some people putting these 'laws' in their religious texts.

[JP Cusick]

Although one may easily count himself having no need for God when everything goes well, what about times when we are in adverse, nearly fatal situations beyond our control?

I agree that Atheism and science can have morals, but only religion includes a moral backbone to stand on the principles of morality when the going gets tough.

A non-religious person may have highly moral routines of every day life, but when morality truly matters is in the heat of battle and in conflicts and in adversity and when challenged.

A non-religious person will not be honest when it is to their advantage to lie, they will cheat when the need arises, they will throw out their morality simply for temptation and especially in strife.

Would an Atheist ever accept getting crucified or burned at a stake or fed to lions based on their moral convictions - well hell no.

A person in a high level science job are asked to break or bend their morals or else they might loose that job - and only religious conviction can truly stand the pressure or indeed to take the horrible blows of the immoral.

A loving husband who has always been faithful and true - until miss beautiful one-night-stand comes along - when it takes moral conviction to resist and to say no.

When science was asked to create bombs and new weapons to kill and destroy then science never once refused or ever said no.

[Bust Nak]

A non-religious person will not be honest when it is to their advantage to lie, they will cheat when the need arises, they will throw out their morality simply for temptation and especially in strife.

So would the religious.

Would an Atheist ever accept getting crucified or burned at a stake or fed to lions based on their moral convictions - well hell no.

You say that yet atheists are dying for voicing their atheism.

A person in a high level science job are asked to break or bend their morals or else they might loose that job - and only religious conviction can truly stand the pressure or indeed to take the horrible blows of the immoral.

A loving husband who has always been faithful and true - until miss beautiful one-night-stand comes along - when it takes moral conviction to resist and to say no.

Moral conviction do not belong the religion.

When science was asked to create bombs and new weapons to kill and destroy then science never once refused or ever said no.

Science is not a person. Scientists have refused.

[KenRU]

Although one may easily count himself having no need for God when everything goes well, what about times when we are in adverse, nearly fatal situations beyond our control?

I agree that Atheism and science can have morals, but only religion includes a moral backbone to stand on the principles of morality when the going gets tough.

Says who? Are you the moral authority on atheism?

A non-religious person may have highly moral routines of every day life, but when morality truly matters is in the heat of battle and in conflicts and in adversity and when challenged.

A non-religious person will not be honest when it is to their advantage to lie,

When did you become omniscient?

they will cheat when the need arises,

What a sad world you must live in.

they will throw out their morality simply for temptation and especially in strife.

Funny, I see the religious and the non-religious do this. Perhaps one of us has blinders on?

Would an Atheist ever accept getting crucified or burned at a stake or fed to lions based on their moral convictions - well hell no.

Please look into countries that have blasphemy laws, and revise your opinion here.

A person in a high level science job are asked to break or bend their morals or else they might loose that job - and only religious conviction can truly stand the pressure or indeed to take the horrible blows of the immoral.

Religion, as history shows, does not own the patent on morality.

In fact, statistics say the opposite actually: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... d-religion

A loving husband who has always been faithful and true - until miss beautiful one-night-stand comes along - when it takes moral conviction to resist and to say no.

Then why are divorce rates higher in religious communities than in more secular ones?

From the same article: “Zuckerman cites a 1999 Barna study that finds that atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.�

When science was asked to create bombs and new weapons to kill and destroy then science never once refused or ever said no.

Religion brought us the Salem Witch Trials and the Dark Ages.

You’re point? It might be best if you remembered that we are all humans, and humans are fallible.

[JP Cusick]

A non-religious person will not be honest when it is to their advantage to lie, they will cheat when the need arises, they will throw out their morality simply for temptation and especially in strife.

So would the religious.

I agree that religious people fail, but their religion denounces them for their failure - whether it affects them or not.

For a non-believer or Atheist then honesty or a lie is just an option of choice or convenience, and no institutional condemnation.

A non-believer might follow their own conscience - but their conscience would have no outward guidance, as a religion would provide.

Would an Atheist ever accept getting crucified or burned at a stake or fed to lions based on their moral convictions - well hell no.

You say that yet atheists are dying for voicing their atheism.

Yes there are so many that we can not see them.

There are so many that they are invisible.

That is sarcasm - FYI.

A person in a high level science job are asked to break or bend their morals or else they might loose that job - and only religious conviction can truly stand the pressure or indeed to take the horrible blows of the immoral.

A loving husband who has always been faithful and true - until miss beautiful one-night-stand comes along - when it takes moral conviction to resist and to say no.

Moral conviction do not belong the religion.

Denial is not a real argument.

Moral conviction is very synonymous with a literal interpretation of a person having religion.

When science was asked to create bombs and new weapons to kill and destroy then science never once refused or ever said no.

Science is not a person. Scientists have refused.

That is true, and I applaud every scientist who refused to work for the evils of science.

That non-person of science has been involved in every evil this world has ever experienced.

[H.sapiens]

Although one may easily count himself having no need for God when everything goes well, what about times when we are in adverse, nearly fatal situations beyond our control?

I agree that Atheism and science can have morals, but only religion includes a moral backbone to stand on the principles of morality when the going gets tough.

A non-religious person may have highly moral routines of every day life, but when morality truly matters is in the heat of battle and in conflicts and in adversity and when challenged.

A non-religious person will not be honest when it is to their advantage to lie, they will cheat when the need arises, they will throw out their morality simply for temptation and especially in strife.

Would an Atheist ever accept getting crucified or burned at a stake or fed to lions based on their moral convictions - well hell no.

A person in a high level science job are asked to break or bend their morals or else they might loose that job - and only religious conviction can truly stand the pressure or indeed to take the horrible blows of the immoral.

A loving husband who has always been faithful and true - until miss beautiful one-night-stand comes along - when it takes moral conviction to resist and to say no.

When science was asked to create bombs and new weapons to kill and destroy then science never once refused or ever said no.

You make broad assertions with no data to back them up. If you actually look the studies that have been done you find that in most cases there is either no significant difference or that non-theists hold the "moral high ground."

[JP Cusick]

You make broad assertions with no data to back them up. If you actually look the studies that have been done you find that in most cases there is either no significant difference or that non-theists hold the "moral high ground."

Clearly you see some value in data and studies as if morality is based on majority rule or on public opinion, or on scientific rationale.

I do make broad sweeping assertions about morality because I see morality as definite, and it is easy for every person to comprehend and to embrace.

[H.sapiens]

You make broad assertions with no data to back them up. If you actually look the studies that have been done you find that in most cases there is either no significant difference or that non-theists hold the "moral high ground."

Clearly you see some value in data and studies as if morality is based on majority rule or on public opinion, or on scientific rationale.

That is a board sweeping assertion concerning my personal view that is utterly without support or data.

I do make broad sweeping assertions about morality because I see morality as definite, and it is easy for every person to comprehend and to embrace.

You make broad sweeping assertions about just about everything, and it is always based on naught but your person prejudices and presuppositions. Try finding data or even just a competent rationalization. Blindly claiming that something is so does not make it so, even for theists.