Scientists have blood on their hands.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:00 am

madoba wrote:

Dawkins and Harris are wrong. It's not Religion but man who is the problem.

if this is true, why has human civilization lasted for 15,000 years? Surely the problem would have been fatal in that time.

clearly, we're doing SOMETHING right: we're still here.

When freedom of thought rules, great progress, both scientific and moral, is made... look at the Classical Civilizations... and then look at what brought about the Dark Ages when all of that knowledge was lost.

here's a hint: it wasn't science that caused the Dark Ages.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

Man is the problem.

Dawkins and Harris are wrong. It's not Religion but man who is the problem.

No one is responding to arguments in this thread. They are just reiterating their points over and over and over.

Dawkins and Harris do not say that religion is "the" problem, only that it is "a" problem. To reduce the issue to "man is the problem" is to explain nothing. With that argument, we could go on to say that science, religion, literature, art, etc., etc., are all benign--where they are doing ill, it is because man is ill. So the question could be rephrased as, "what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

But, some things beyond simple human nature drive men to do ill. Science is not one of those things. Religion, on the other hand, is.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 713

JFAgnostic wrote:

But, some things beyond simple human nature drive men to do ill. Science is not one of those things. Religion, on the other hand, is.

Religion with a blind irrational dogmatic bigoted bent is something which fosters the ills of people to do their worst against others not of the same ideology. If world religion was based more on modern methods of corrective knowledge with the willingness to adapt as we continually question the effectiveness of now ethical/thought principles, to sort out what we find works better, with no adherence to supernatural superstitions, then I would recognize religion as solely a source for betterment. All the charity stuff, not for the sake of appeasing sky superstition, but rather for the sake of resolving human perils is something good. Setting up moral structures for the benefit of society is not an easy thing, but making them based on superstitious supernatural concepts doesn't help in terms of practicality.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:05 am

madoba wrote:

It's not Religion but man who is the problem.

To attempt to separate religion from man is an error. Religion and god belief are concepts that are inseparable from the human intellect. They are one and the same thing. So while you're right in saying, "man is the problem", human religious activities have been shown over and over again to a problematic social behavior, one that has been, and is still being used to justify violent intra-social aggression.

The problem with the technology that science has given us isn’t technology itself. The problem lies with humanities immature social structures (religion is a type of social structure), which are quite often exacerbated by divisive, superstitious behavioral traits.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Quote:

what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

LOL! People! And which tool will those powerful people use which will be the most effective in controlling the masses? Science!

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 12, 2005 Posts: 502

madoba wrote:

Quote:

what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

LOL! People, and which tool will those powerful people use which will be the most effective in controlling the masses? Science!

Science can't be used to control the masses. It's the oposit! Scientific thinking encourages free-thought and objectivism!

It is only dogmatic, ignorant thinking, religious or otherwise which can be used to sway people.

Science in and of itself will not be responsible.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

Quote:

what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

LOL! People! And which tool will those powerful people use which will be the most effective in controlling the masses? Science!

Religion isn't a tool, it is a part of who people are. Science is something else altogether. Dogmatic people will cause more trouble--have caused more trouble--than non-religious people. Science is a red herring here.

And madoba, you missed the point.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:40 am

madoba wrote:

Quote:

what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

LOL! People! And which tool will those powerful people use which will be the most effective in controlling the masses? Science!

science is based upon questioning, testing and change.. not control, stagnation or dogma.

I fail to see how science, a system of thought, can be used to "control the masses".

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Everyone here acknowledges the dark side of science but yet thinks an ancient christian crusade is more dangerous today. Wake up! Neitzche already declared God dead over 100 years ago.

Quote:

Scientific thinking encourages free-thought and objectivism!

That's true but the nature of man remains unchanged.

See Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan. Of the natural condition of man.

Quote:

So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

LOL! People! And which creation of mankind will those in power most likely use to fufull the three principal causes of quarrel? SCIENCE!

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:52 am

Moloth wrote:

madoba wrote:

Dawkins and Harris are wrong. It's not Religion but man who is the problem.

if this is true, why has human civilization lasted for 15,000 years? Surely the problem would have been fatal in that time.

clearly, we're doing SOMETHING right: we're still here.

When freedom of thought rules, great progress, both scientific and moral, is made... look at the Classical Civilizations... and then look at what brought about the Dark Ages when all of that knowledge was lost.

here's a hint: it wasn't science that caused the Dark Ages.

Yes, these arguments are going around in circles, especially my comments I think. Just one more thing though if I may.

How can you "Moloth"... mention the "Dark Ages" and compare that with the "Science" of today? In the Dark Ages, Science was still in it's infancy wasn't it? It's today that we see Science produce WMD's... (an example) for instance.... Science has progressed whereas religion has not.

Back in the Dark Ages, Science was hardly a threat to anyone. It was more religion those days that was a control system of the human population and so on. Yet again, I have to stress that it's not religion itself either, it's what MAN chooses to do with it.

(please understand I am an atheist and not at all for religion, but am very interested in this subject, because in the past I have often wondered about, whether or not science has been so good for mankind, re- the wars, the anthrax thing, the remote control of airplanes, satellites that allow one to zoom in on your eye colour and so on, all science discoveries... but am all for science just the same). This was not possible in the "Dark Ages".

I think we have to remember the "progress" that science has made in developing such horrific tools, and yes, as well as all the "good stuff".....

The other comment that religion is a mind set, (meme?) and is ingrained so to speak, is a problem whereas in science this is not the case. I don't quite agree. Religion is still a choice, you can either believe or not, and the only other problem with that is that kids are brainwashed from an early age, but still have a choice when later in their "reasoning age" they have a choice to believe or not. Religion is also a belief system out of fear and not knowledge.

So, back to square one. I'm still going round in circles... LOL It is an interesting subject, whereas it started off sounding like another Troll....

I also wanted to mention I recently downloaded all 10 video's on http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ which were most interesting. For those of you who have not watched them, I urge you to. You will see some interesting comments by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. All speakers are scientists, and questioning time is also most interesting. I spent ten days listening to them all. I was in another world. I got no work done during this time... hehe

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Quote:

Religion isn't a tool, it is a part of who people are.

How do you get 19 hijackers to fly a plane into a building.
Religion is one.
So you see religion can be used as a tool to manipulate people into flying into buildings.

How did those during the middle ages keep their power.
Religion is one.
Here again religion was a tool to instigate the crusades to benefit a few in power.

Science will be used the same way.
The dark side will be used for evil purposes by evil men. These men will not require religion.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

Everyone here ... thinks an ancient christian crusade is more dangerous today. Wake up! Neitzche already declared God dead over 100 years ago.

It's not the ancient crusade that is dangerous today, it's the current and future crusades. Nietzsche may have declared God dead (though he's a bit more complicated than that), but GW Bush and Osama bin Laden and Rev. Phelps and Newt Gingrich etc. etc. didn't get the message. Religion is still a threat, and if technology is used by these zealots for ill, it will be religion and dogma that is the problem, not science.

madoba wrote:

See Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan. Of the natural condition of man.

Who cared what Hobbes said?? We know mankind has a dark nature...you needn't cite others that also know. But, oddly enough, all the bad that is done is not done in the name of science. It's done because of dogma. You simply aren't understanding the distinction that's being made here.

madoba wrote:

what will do the most harm in the future of humankind: religion, science, or people? That, of course, is a stupid question.

People, yes. And they will use the findings of science to do harm, and the harm they do will be directed by a dogma to do harm. Like I said, it makes as much sense to blame fossil fuels for global warming as to blame science for what dogmatic people do with technology.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Sorry for obsessing about this topic but no more comments from me.
I agree I'm going around and around.

This is my final comment, 'the dark side of science will be used for evil purposes by evil men who will not require religion.'

Beware the dark side and may the force be with you.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

Science will be used the same way.
The dark side will be used for evil purposes by evil men. These men will not require religion.

Give me a hypothetical of how science will be used in this way please.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:20 am

JFAgnostic wrote:

madoba wrote:

Science will be used the same way.
The dark side will be used for evil purposes by evil men. These men will not require religion.

Give me a hypothetical of how science will be used in this way please.

He's equivocating science with the tools it has been used to produce. Whether we end up violently destroying ourselves with fists, rocks or nuclear bombs, the problem lies not in the tools but the structure of human society itself. He doesn’t understand that religion is an integral part of this problematic social structure.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore