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

[H.sapiens]

[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

The greatest lack of accountability that the world has ever seen begins with, "God told me ..." It is only when one stands on one's own two feet and is accountable to his fellows that he is truly accountable. The belief in a god creates an almighty cop-out.

[H.sapiens]

[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

The greatest lack of accountability that the world has ever seen begins with, "God told me ..." It is only when one stands on one's own two feet and is accountable to his fellows that he is truly accountable. The belief in a god creates an almighty cop-out.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Erexsaur]

I'm a little confused what we are debating here. 3 paragraphs in and I was ready to rip the premise to shreds (claiming science without religion is dangerous - wow). Then in paragraph 5 or so you backtrack some and essentially change it to "science without morality".

So, what are we actually discussing here? Religion or morality? Or are you going to contend that morality requires religion? That should be fun, but hardly a Science & Religion topic.

Anyways, just to show the initial claim "Science carried out without a religious base is also dangerous and possibly deadly" is pure bunk, I suggest we carry out some science based on the religion of the Aztecs. Erexsaur, would you mind stepping forward to offer your life to the god Huitzilopochtli so we can get on with our data collection? We wouldn't want to do anything dangerous or deadly.

[KenRU]

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

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

Science carried out without a religious base is also dangerous and possibly deadly.

I find this sentence pure nonsense. Its implication is that those who do not have religion, have no morals and are therefore dangerous.

Good luck asserting and proving that this sentence is true.

The fact that the term, “religion� is very broad tends to make its use ambiguous.

And yet I agree with this sentence. Which begs the question, which religion are you talking about and which morals offer a sound platform?

Maybe we should be more specific by saying that the field of science should be used with moral accountability.

Agreed, as long as we agree that religion does not offer any help in this matter.

Morals are determined by man.

Wouldn’t we all then agree?

I don't think we do, but I hope I am wrong.

Properly used Religion demands the accountability.

Agreed, but how does one argue with "god said its ok?"

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?

Because of your point above - religion is so very non-specific.

And, the morals espoused therein are greatly debated.

Making it a useless proposition.


-all the best

[McCulloch]

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 [sic] dinner and later uses the same knife to kill someone.

Science carried out with a religious base is also dangerous and possibly deadly. Think of a person using a steak knife as he enjoys his steak dinner and later uses the same knife to kill someone.

Extremist religious people have more reasons to kill than non-religious.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 1 by Erexsaur]

I'm a little confused what we are debating here. 3 paragraphs in and I was ready to rip the premise to shreds (claiming science without religion is dangerous - wow). Then in paragraph 5 or so you backtrack some and essentially change it to "science without morality".

So, what are we actually discussing here? Religion or morality? Or are you going to contend that morality requires religion? That should be fun, but hardly a Science & Religion topic.

Anyways, just to show the initial claim "Science carried out without a religious base is also dangerous and possibly deadly" is pure bunk, I suggest we carry out some science based on the religion of the Aztecs. Erexsaur, would you mind stepping forward to offer your life to the god Huitzilopochtli so we can get on with our data collection? We wouldn't want to do anything dangerous or deadly.

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

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

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. 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.)

ELD

[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

The greatest lack of accountability that the world has ever seen begins with, "God told me ..." It is only when one stands on one's own two feet and is accountable to his fellows that he is truly accountable. The belief in a god creates an almighty cop-out.

Hello Hsapiens,

It's unfortunate that prophecy is too often misused. I heard this, "God told me" times and times again. But don't we have the discernment to weed out what's false?

What standard is an accountable person’s standing on his two feet based on? Is the belief in God (“a god�) really a cop-out? Is it a cop-out for children to look up to their parents? Think about the magnificent body you have. Is there anyone to attribute it to? Anyone?

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?

Earl

[Erexsaur]

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 [sic] dinner and later uses the same knife to kill someone.

Science carried out with a religious base is also dangerous and possibly deadly. Think of a person using a steak knife as he enjoys his steak dinner and later uses the same knife to kill someone.

Extremist religious people have more reasons to kill than non-religious.

Sin is sin whether done by religious or non-religious. Should we keep our eyes so much on the extremist religious that we cannot see our own wrongs?

Earl

[H.sapiens]

[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

The greatest lack of accountability that the world has ever seen begins with, "God told me ..." It is only when one stands on one's own two feet and is accountable to his fellows that he is truly accountable. The belief in a god creates an almighty cop-out.

Hello Hsapiens,

It's unfortunate that prophecy is too often misused. I heard this, "God told me" times and times again. But don't we have the discernment to weed out what's false?

What standard is an accountable person’s standing on his two feet based on?

Frank Xindler puts it well:

One of the first questions Atheists are asked by true believers and doubters alike is, “If you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing to prevent you from committing crimes, is there? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?�

It is hard to believe that even intelligent and educated people could hold such an opinion, but they do! It seems never to have occurred to them that the Greeks and Romans, whose gods and goddesses were something less than paragons of virtue, nevertheless led lives not obviously worse than those of the Baptists of Alabama! Moreover, pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius – although their systems are not suitable for us today – managed to produce ethical treatises of great sophistication, a sophistication rarely if ever equaled by Christian moralists.

The answer to the questions posed above is, of course, “Absolutely not!� The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included. Moreover, despite protestations to the contrary, we may assert as a general rule that when religionists practice ethical behavior, it isn’t really due to their fear of hell-fire and damnation, nor is it due to their hopes of heaven. Ethical behavior – regardless of who the practitioner may be – results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief.

Is the belief in God (“a god�) really a cop-out?

Did I not just say so?

Is it a cop-out for children to look up to their parents?

It is a cop-out when it is done to avoid execution (Matthew 15:4) rather than because it may make evolutionary sense.

Think about the magnificent body you have. Is there anyone to attribute it to? Anyone?

Ah, the smell of logical fallacy in the morning ... it smells like victory!

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 have far less use for gods then.