Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science is simply human's understanding of the world we live in which is not in the bible. Look around you at all the stuff science has allowed us to do and have.The mistake is comparing it to religion.Man's understanding of the environment is critical to our understanding which God wanted us to understand.There are places we should no go like cloning there are enough human's we don't need to go there its fine the way it is.Its when science turns into these types of things that it gets dangerous like clones for organ harvest.When it turns selfish.
Science is simply human's understanding of the world we live in which is not in the bible. Look around you at all the stuff science has allowed us to do and have.The mistake is comparing it to religion.Man's understanding of the environment is critical to our understanding which God wanted us to understand.There are places we should no go like cloning there are enough human's we don't need to go there its fine the way it is.Its when science turns into these types of things that it gets dangerous like clones for organ harvest.When it turns selfish.
It is less selfishness than hubris. But this isn't a bug in the scientific method, it is a bug in human nature. Insufficient epistemological humility, even with a substantiatable epistemology, is problematic.
Apropos of this I read an article yesterday (and had wondered when someone would take this up) that there's a school of thought that since humans are an "embodied consciousness", to be truly self aware a being must have a body and its sensory inputs and emotional responses. As such, a general purpose AI would have to be embodied in body sufficiently equipped with environmental sensations. Now that humanoid robots are getting into the ballpark of human-like dexterity and balance, some research is heading in this direction, including using simulated bodies to speed up the learning process before housing the trained sentience in a real body.
I'm sure that some Christians would pearl-clutch at this as some sort of inherent abomination. I disagree, however, I would argue in fact that these researchers are proceeding with sufficient epistemological humility because they recognize the potential for robots to harm their environments, people, animals, and themselves during the learning process.
There are also people working in parallel on ethical systems to govern such robots. Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are way too simplistic.
But that is science, not technology (applied science). The application of science tends to be left up to capitalists, and then the "selfishness" whereof you speak is in fact in play. But that is a problem with unbridled capitalism and economic inequalities we allow to develop, not with science. I don't think humanity can handle the technologies it has because of human nature (conflicting impulses and competing concerns we can't properly navigate). So it isn't science or technology per se that I fear, but human nature. And I wish I believed, as you likely do, that a god exists with whom we can have a proper relation that will compensate for human nature. Alas, in my view, religion only amplifies human nature ultimately.
It is less selfishness than hubris. But this isn't a bug in the scientific method, it is a bug in human nature. Insufficient epistemological humility, even with a substantiatable epistemology, is problematic.
Apropos of this I read an article yesterday (and had wondered when someone would take this up) that there's a school of thought that since humans are an "embodied consciousness", to be truly self aware a being must have a body and its sensory inputs and emotional responses. As such, a general purpose AI would have to be embodied in body sufficiently equipped with environmental sensations. Now that humanoid robots are getting into the ballpark of human-like dexterity and balance, some research is heading in this direction, including using simulated bodies to speed up the learning process before housing the trained sentience in a real body.
I'm sure that some Christians would pearl-clutch at this as some sort of inherent abomination. I disagree, however, I would argue in fact that these researchers are proceeding with sufficient epistemological humility because they recognize the potential for robots to harm their environments, people, animals, and themselves during the learning process.
There are also people working in parallel on ethical systems to govern such robots. Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are way too simplistic.
But that is science, not technology (applied science). The application of science tends to be left up to capitalists, and then the "selfishness" whereof you speak is in fact in play. But that is a problem with unbridled capitalism and economic inequalities we allow to develop, not with science. I don't think humanity can handle the technologies it has because of human nature (conflicting impulses and competing concerns we can't properly navigate). So it isn't science or technology per se that I fear, but human nature. And I wish I believed, as you likely do, that a god exists with whom we can have a proper relation that will compensate for human nature. Alas, in my view, religion only amplifies human nature ultimately.
As usual, I agree with your analyses and prognosis, except that I KNOW God exists and that is not what we are supposed to do. All the warnings about tribulations, etc. stem from what I see as your correct assessment of human nature and selfishness. What we call "death" puts and nd to all this nonsense, so doing whatever we can to mitigate things and "enduring" it as best we can is our only option, IMO. God is not concerned with what happens here. God is concerned with what WE BECOME because of what happens here, IMO.
It's really an apples vs. oranges matter with science and religion. The first could include an in-depth analysis of the chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and the latter a discussion of near-death / temporary death experiences collected for discussion of what might exist "beyond".
But neither is more important than the other, and neither needs to intrude on the other. Maybe use both and compare both perhaps, but never have them try to battle against each other. That's a meaningless and pointless exercise.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 04-16-2024 at 11:59 AM..
It's really an apples vs. oranges matter with science and religion. The first could include an in-depth analysis of the chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and the latter a discussion of near-death / temporary death experiences collected for discussion of what might exist "beyond".
But neither is more important than the other, and neither needs to intrude on the other. Maybe use both and compare both perhaps, but never have them try to battle against each other. That's a meaningless and pointless exercise.
Except..... those chemical reactions in the atmosphere (and more immediately, within our bodies) may ultimately have a great deal to do with our making sense of those near death experiences we don't currently understand. So it seems a rather artificial, arbitrary, shortsighted dividing line to tell science to "stay in your lane" or "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" (paraphrasing). The world and our understanding of it would be quite different, and not in a good way, had we drawn that line all along. For example:
* We now understand a great deal about how babies are made, and can even help those who have difficulty conceiving naturally. Explanation sans science: the gods planted a seed.
* We now understand a great deal about DNA and how traits, both good and bad, are passed along to that baby. Explanation sans science: the gods made that infant look like her parents or (for lethal traits) "god needed another angel in heaven."
* We can now screen for many childhood illnesses and can protect against them with vaccines or intervene early. Explanation sans science: more angels in heaven.
* We now understand atmospheric dynamics, including how lightning rapidly superheats the air, causing it to expand and produce thunder. Explanation sans science: Thor's hammer
* We now know the earth is roughly spherical. Explanation sans science: Don't sail straight west or you'll fall off the edge, where demons are waiting.
* We now understand a great deal about interplanetary motion and orbits, and can predict solar and lunar eclipses to the minute, decades before they occur. Explanation sans science: we need to bang drums or offer sacrifices to scare away the celestial dragons/demons that eat the sun and moon.
* We now understand how sunlight is refracted by water droplets after a rainstorm to create rainbows. Explanation sans science: Rainbows are either a goddess carrying messages or yet another dragon, depending on where you lived.
And on and on and on. This is NOT to say that science is perfect, or can't be misused, or that there are not some issues where science may never provide an answer or improve our understanding. It is to say that pre-emptively declaring a phenomenon like NDEs to be solely the province of religion (on what grounds?) and therefore off-limits to science is no better than our ancestors banging drums. NDEs appear to be "of this world," at least to the extent that we are observing things happening around us we don't fully understand.
As Harry Diogenes often reminds us (paraphrasing once again)... the track record for 2000 years has strongly favored natural explanations over those where religion attempted to fill the gaps in our evolving knowledge with supernatural explanations (see list above).
Last edited by GoodNightGracie; 04-16-2024 at 01:42 PM..
... As Harry Diogenes often reminds us (paraphrasing once again)... the track record for 2000 years has strongly favored natural explanations over those where religion attempted to fill the gaps in our evolving knowledge with supernatural explanations (see list above).
People fill in the gaps from their imaginations, it seems such a shame to blame religion for that.
People fill in the gaps from their imaginations, it seems such a shame to blame religion for that.
That is a fair point. Obviously people are ultimately the source of the imagined explanations (and not some inanimate organization). At the same time, it is fair to say that religion has provided the framework, structure or motivation for people to apply their imaginations. There is a reason so many of the early explanations I listed involved or invoked gods.
Using the example at hand (i.e., the one identified by Thoreau424, to which I was responding), near death experiences are a phenomenon in search of an explanation. I would be perfectly happy if people would say something like this...
Quote:
"Hmm, that's odd. But it seems to be happening over and over, and it isn't reasonable to think everyone is just 'making stuff up." Let's keep observing and studying and learning, and eventually we might figure this out. Until then, we just don't know."*
Unfortunately, there are at least some people (and it's great if you're not one of them) who feel compelled to read more into things or assign more meaning than is warranted. Faced with NDEs, where the above quote in bold would be a justified reaction, we have too many who have "filled in the gaps" and leaped ahead, way past anything the evidence supports. Put another way, there is a whole lot of ground to cover in the spaces between NDE ----> Therefore Afterlife ----> Therefore God.
*P.S., That would be a good reaction to pretty much EVERYthing we don't yet understand!
Can you name just one supernatural claim that religion has been proven to be correct about?
Something we can immediately verify to be true?
How can you prove the intangible ? You can't
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
