The Black Vault

CodeBlackv2 wrote:

at1with0 wrote:Science has helped us commit acts of evil more efficiently, like genocide (if that's really evil, per se).

All the mechanisms of war were brought to us by science, not by religion. Religion brought us rules of engagement and fair treatment of prisoners and some weapons were once outlawed by religion, like the crossbow. It goes without saying that science is more evil than religion, despite what the religion bashers would have you believe.

That seems like saying Sophie's Choice proves that having free will is more evil than not having free will.

What does it matter if what humans learn allows them to misuse the knowledge? We all know already that human beings can use anything from a rock to a bomb to kill each other. So what? Should we stop learning? Get rid of science? Get rid of all our inventions? Even if that were possible, it wouldn't take away the human capacity for evil, but it would take away our civilization, flawed as it is.

At the end of the day it all comes down to whether one prefers knowledge over comfort.

Science brings us knowledge, and often that knowledge makes people feel uncomfortable, especially when it encroaches on what some have been taught by religions, which make them feel good. That's where the animosity towards science really comes from - people's deeply held comforting beliefs are shown to not be as clear cut as they thought, and it becomes harder and harder to maintain "faith", and that makes people see science as an enemy.

Evolutionary theory for instance comes from science, and clearly encroaches on some religious beliefs, especially Biblical literalism, since it completely goes against the standard Adam and Eve story, and therefore is not compatible with ideas of original sin and the like. So basically something has to give way, either the literalist religious beliefs, or science must be attacked, and there is conflict.

For me though, truth above all is important, and it's irrelevant if it makes people uncomfortable or angry.

I just don't get how people can prioritize faith based beliefs over science. I don't have a problem so much with a belief that is not proved or disproved by science, and therefore does not conflict with it, but when something like evolution is denied because it conflicts with their particular interpretation of the Bible, that's when the believers lose me. I don't get that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Am I supposed to believe we'd be better off in a world where science doesn't exist but religions do? That religions wouldn't fight? That people would all be nice to each other?

What is the point of saying science is worse than religion? What's the real intent behind that?

That religion would solve all our problems if science were out of the picture? Does anyone here actually believe that?

Very religious people might think so, because without science there is no challenge to their beliefs, and the way "knowledge" is then settled is through religious war. Very primitive but some people dig that.

It goes back to knowledge versus comfort again. However, you are then trading mental comfort for physical comfort, because science has certainly made us physically more comfortable in so many ways, and we'd have to go back to a time when we were commonly dying from illnesses at 20-30 years of age.

humphreys wrote:For me though, truth above all is important,

Your whole post was great, but I wanted to single this out. Why is truth important above all else? Why wouldn't it be better to live in a world where everybody believes whatever they want, even when it contradicts objective reality?

See, this is why I feel there is an inherent moral component to science. It values truth above all else. That's a moral stance, IMO.

DIss0n80r wrote:

greeney2 wrote:No Doubt all things from science, have both good and bad uses, and make it more convienient to do evil things. Question is why are so many, as we evolve, so willing to do this evil, with these things. Could it be the further decline in family values, traditional family, decline in religious beliefs and envolvment, lack of parenting, a society of not taking responsibilty for ones actions.

Maybe those should not be so convienient to use or get.

Maybe we should live in caves, worship the sun, and throw rocks at our enemies.

Probably where we may be heading if this world doesn't get its act togather, and that may depend if anyone survives our actions at all. It may not even be a situation of the evil uses of science, or war, we just all watched how the earthquake in Japan affected us. It is not always evil acts, its not allowing for the "what if". Global warming, polutions, depleating natural resourses, are not always act of evil, but arguments for going forward with no regard to results might be.

What I was referring to is there is a coorelation between family value decline and gang problems in our inner cities is pretty obvious. There is a coorelation between broken homes, dead beat Fathers, and kids ending up in gangs, where they use science inventions called guns for crimes. Still doesn't explain why so many are willing to kill someone over something as stupid as gang colors or tagging. They have mastered uneducated ignorace, while everyone of them has mastered video games and cell phone apps. No doubt a lack of parenting, and probably many other things non-existant that normal families do all play a part.

Why one kid uses his computer to make it through Harvard, and another to hack or pass viruses, is their the same coorelation? It seems to me as the old fashioned family values further erodes (not just religion), the negative uses grows. In either case, a gang kid with the gun or computer kid cyberbulling to death, what ingredient tells thier minds to go forward with these acts. Why is this mindset of not caring, no responsibilty for actions, total lack of concern, no remorse. Not only is it easy and convienient, its fun, its instant gratification to pull that or tp press that send button.

Seems to be no remorse, or sense of right and wrong from our leaders and Corparate world at the top, and the same lack of remorse trickles down to everyone else in society, defeated into thinking they are now entitled. Nobody else cares, why should I attitude. We entertain ourselves with TV and Movies, that glorify these things, and have a video game empire, that seems to teach violence of OK.

DIss0n80r wrote:

humphreys wrote:For me though, truth above all is important,

Your whole post was great, but I wanted to single this out. Why is truth important above all else?

I've thought about this a lot, and I guess it's a question for someone good at philosophy, because I really don't have an answer above it being a subjective preference of mine. I can't think of any objective reason why it's not a good thing to be completely delusional and to walk around with your fingers in your ears ignoring the real world, as long as it makes you happy and doesn't harm others.

For me, that's a cowardly thing to do, and I think if there was a God, he would consider those who embrace the whole truth to be more honorable than those who don't. But I'm not sure I'd consider being self-delusional to be immoral, at least I can't think why it would be as long as it didn't harm anyone.

DIss0n80r wrote:See, this is why I feel there is an inherent moral component to science. It values truth above all else. That's a moral stance, IMO.

Even if you could prove to me that seeking truth was more moral than not seeking truth, which maybe you can I'd be interested in how you or anyone else would go about doing that, it would still not make science moral, it would make scientists moral when they used science to pursue truth

humphreys wrote:Very religious people might think so, because without science there is no challenge to their beliefs, and the way "knowledge" is then settled is through religious war. Very primitive but some people dig that.

It goes back to knowledge versus comfort again. However, you are then trading mental comfort for physical comfort, because science has certainly made us physically more comfortable in so many ways, and we'd have to go back to a time when we were commonly dying from illnesses at 20-30 years of age.

I agree. It often puzzles me how people badmouth science, as if we even had a realistic alternative. Religion is NOT an alternative to science, nor are they always mutually exclusive. The polarization seems to come mostly from people who adamantly refuse to acknowledge what science reveals about our world because they dislike some of the implications.

And what's most telling/damning is, those people are more often than not uneducated and very religious.

Maybe pursuing truth above all is moral because it gives the human race the best chance of long term survival, and is therefore for the best of mankind in the long run even if it makes some of them intellectually uncomfortable in the present?

DIss0n80r wrote:I agree. It often puzzles me how people badmouth science, as if we even had a realistic alternative. Religion is NOT an alternative to science

Exactly. That's what people are implying when they say things like "science cannot tell us the meaning of existence, and why we're here", as if religion can. An explanation of the meaning of our existence is just a bald assertion without the scientific proof to back it up, making the religion part pretty unnecessary.

What they are basically saying is, "when science fails to give us an answer, religion is really good at making one up for us".