* ENLIGHTENED *.....by.....* SCIENCE *

[citizenzen]

Are you absolutely sure you don't understand what I wrote?

Unfortunately I'm one of those Americans who never learned a foreign language.

 

[Dogbrain]

It would not matter what field to such as you.

In other words, you are not a scientist, you have no understanding of science, and now you are dishonestly trying to deflect.

Stop being a liar and just admit the truth.

If I go to a lecture and learn something, or do something new and it teaches me something I feel, by my definition, more "enlightened" than I did before.
Nothing cultish about that.

That's completely cultish. You are acting EXACTLY LIKE the "religious" people you take a crap upon. You "feel" enlightened. Okay, so where is the SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENT of this "enlightened" status? What are the units, where is this published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

Go, ahead, cultist, show me the SCIENCE, in the terms of SCIENCE, in the journals of SCIENCE.

If you do not, that only proves that you are every bit identical to the "religious" that you so despise.

 

[shawn]

In other words, you are not a scientist, you have no understanding of science, and now you are dishonestly trying to deflect.

Stop being a liar and just admit the truth.



That's completely cultish. You are acting EXACTLY LIKE the "religious" people you take a crap upon. You "feel" enlightened. Okay, so where is the SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENT of this "enlightened" status? What are the units, where is this published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

Go, ahead, cultist, show me the SCIENCE, in the terms of SCIENCE, in the journals of SCIENCE.

If you do not, that only proves that you are every bit identical to the "religious" that you so despise.

You are just looking to pick a fight.
This is not very objective of you.
Go ahead and rant and rave, it is very revealing of your nature and inner/spiritual maturity.
Must subscribe to a really "good" religion...eh?!

 

[juantoo3]

I can think of example of Gulags which worked "quite well" or plantations and slave camps, sheesh, even Auschwitz "worked" very well.

Shawn, are you aware that the Gulags and the extermination camps such as Auschwitz, were rationalized in the minds of the people by "scientific" means, specifically Darwinian socialism? In other words, these were products of science, not religion.

 

[juantoo3]

Science is a tool which can be used for our enlightenment and our collective betterment,and it can be quite effective in that purpose, if we apply it correctly.

Agreed. Now, who shall be appointed to dictate how to apply it correctly? I think scientists as a whole are subject to the same frailties and misgivings as any of the rest of us. Since science by definition is amoral, that leaves scientists out of the loop as to determining right and wrong, correct and incorrect.

 

[citizenzen]

In other words, these were products of science, not religion.

Science and religion have both been misused.

But while science has advanced well beyond the understanding we had 2,000 years ago, religion is virtually indistinguishable.

2,000 years later people are still waiting for the second coming.

Of course, if Jesus arrived tomorrow, it would render 2,000 years of scientific advances meaningless.

But I wouldn't count on it.

 

[juantoo3]

Time for the 2nd installment:

We remember and so we know.
The early beliefs in the supernatural were established by various "miracle" workers who were recruited and trained, and injected as agents to found and popularize mass movements and countercultures based on myth, and to undermine and discredit any tendencies towards the emergence of the rational systems of thought that could lead to advanced technology, mastery over the environment and a real challenge then to the position of the overlords.

The superstitions and religions of Earth's early cultures were carefully contrived and implanted.
The beliefs of the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Mayans, ancient Egyptians, the early Chinese, The native Americans, etc, all were based on notions of the supernatural, magic, legend and folklore.
Primarily, to sap them of any potential for developing logical methods of thought.
The civilizations that grew upon these foundations built cities, developed arts and agriculture, and constructed ships and simple machines, but they never evolved the sciences that could have unlocked significant power to any great degree.
It was always thwarted.

The sun rises because the rooster crows, eh?

I think you have it backwards. Where do you put the raw beginning of science at, and what form did it take?

I think if you re-examine your statement, you say "science" was "thwarted," and yet give examples of science to make the claim. Science and religion are like two dancers, or two sides to the coin. Reknowned Paleo-biologist and atheist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged the "two non-overlapping magisteria" of science and religion...the conflict in his mind (and I agree) being the attempt by either to assert authority it does not possess over the other.

It is a two way street, and the cries I have heard the loudest for the longest time are from those determined to exert authority they do not possess over religion.

To be clear, religion is guilty too...the Scope's monkey trial is bandied about like a tired old favorite teddy bear. But that ignores the point. You cannot exert an authority that doesn't exist over a realm you choose not to understand.

Which came first, religion or science? I think they have the same roots, and stem from the same place in prehistoric human development. One, over time and after many metamorphoses, became what we think of today as science. The other, over time and after many metamorphoses, became what we think of today as religion. Both stemmed from observance of the natural world...and while science today focuses on the directly observable and recreate-able, religion today focuses on the unobservable but no less meaningful as well as serving as the repository for social mores.

I suggest a read of some of Stephen J. Gould; and Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

 

[juantoo3]

For one, even a casual observation of wild creatures will show that animals have no religion and yet show compassion,mercy, charity and kindness, even uncharacteristically so, at times.

Perhaps...but neither do they have any science...certainly not as we are familiar with both of these terms.

While I am inclined to agree with the display by animals of rudimentary morality; one must always be cautious of the tendency to anthropomorphism, of attributing human characteristics to animal behavior.

 

[juantoo3]

If you do not like what I have to say then find something else to comment on.
I am not twisting any arms here.

You did invite comment...did you expect every comment to agree with you?

 

[juantoo3]

It is difficult to say if China might have had the kind of scientific revolution that happened in Western Europe. I think a major problem was that the feudal society of Imperial China may have prevented the kind of innovation that happened in Western Europe. Perhaps the more individualistic nature of Western society allowed scientific progress to happen faster.

China invented gunpowder and rockets, magnetic compasses and quite a few innovative pieces of military hardware, long before such were available in the West. There is even some educated speculation that suggests a Chinese naval expedition and landing on the eastern shores of the Americas before Columbus. Point being China has long had science...rooted in Taoist alchemy.

 

[juantoo3]

Ford and GM built zero vehicles in their entire history, the people working there can take the credit.
Likewise, religion can claim no credit for any good done as all the good (or bad) was again done by people who at the most can say that they were "inspired" by their religious ideologies.

Using this same reasoning then, science has done nothing for anyone...it was all the people acting in the name of science that did the work, "inspired" by their scientific ideologies.

 

[juantoo3]

Ideas, but where did they come from?
This is one of the main themes of this thread.
How did these "ideas" get injected into our collective consciousness?

Isn't that one of those things that floats outside of the observable, that floats outside the realm of science? We can guess, but we don't know.

 

[juantoo3]

Science and religion have both been misused.

But while science has advanced well beyond the understanding we had 2,000 years ago, religion is virtually indistinguishable.

2,000 years later people are still waiting for the second coming.

Of course, if Jesus arrived tomorrow, it would render 2,000 years of scientific advances meaningless.

But I wouldn't count on it.

Just as I was about to agree, and then *wham!*

Is Buddhism the same now as it was 2000 years ago?

Is Judaism the same as it was 2000 years ago?

Is Islam the same as it was 2000 years ago?

I can tell you for fact Christianity is not the same as it was 2000 years ago...

 

[Paladin]

Agreed. Now, who shall be appointed to dictate how to apply it correctly? I think scientists as a whole are subject to the same frailties and misgivings as any of the rest of us. Since science by definition is amoral, that leaves scientists out of the loop as to determining right and wrong, correct and incorrect.

Yup. I've seen enough sci-fi movies over the years to know how this works.

"Zere are some sinks man vas not mean to know"

 

[citizenzen]

Just as I was about to agree, and then *wham!*

Is Buddhism the same now as it was 2000 years ago?

Is Judaism the same as it was 2000 years ago?

Is Islam the same as it was 2000 years ago?

I can tell you for fact Christianity is not the same as it was 2000 years ago...

Oh? Did they come out with new books?

Last time I checked, Christians still read the Bible, Muslims the Qu'ran and Jews the Torah.

Now I will agree that these religions have changed some over time and based on the culture in which they're practiced. But I think most adherents would be offended if you argued that their religion strayed from its origins. I think most would try to convince you that their interpretation honors the original more closely than others.

But please, tell me how they have changed.

 

[juantoo3]

Oh? Did they come out with new books?

Last time I checked, Christians still read the Bible, Muslims the Qu'ran and Jews the Torah.

Now I will agree that these religions have changed some over time and based on the culture in which they're practiced. But I think most adherents would be offended if you argued that their religion strayed from its origins. I think most would try to convince you that their interpretation honors the original more closely than others.

But please, tell me how they have changed.

Oh, CZ! You're so funny!

I'm pretty sure Buddhism came out with new books since then...seems there's a new book every week!

Islam didn't exist 2000 years ago, Beduoins were "pagan" then.

Judaism 2000 years ago was under the Temple system...surely you remember that? Now they are under the Synagogue system...

And we've already been at length about the changes in Christianity over the last 2000 years, particularly the upheavals of the first 400 years of that history. I can direct you to the thread if you would like.

 

[juantoo3]

Yup. I've seen enough sci-fi movies over the years to know how this works.

"Zere are some sinks man vas not mean to know"

Don't you just love them old movies?...Omega Man (or the modern remake I am Legend), Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green, the original Planet of the Apes...or how about Crack in the World? Ever see that one? Or my favorite...Jurassic Park. "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should." (I see a theme developing...Charlton Heston...and Michael Crichton)

Ah science, the savior of the universe! Come to save us from ourselves...*not.*

 

[citizenzen]

Oh, CZ! You're so funny!

Thanks for setting me up j23.

I thought we were talking about the subject in broader terms so I didn't nitpick your using 2,000 years as a general reference for long-term change.

Ha-ha.

You sure showed me.

Ha-ha.

 

[Paladin]

Don't you just love them old movies?...Omega Man (or the modern remake I am Legend), Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green, the original Planet of the Apes...or how about Crack in the World? Ever see that one? Or my favorite...Jurassic Park. "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should." (I see a theme developing...Charlton Heston...and Michael Crichton)

Ah science, the savior of the universe! Come to save us from ourselves...*not.*

Crack in the World? Man Janette Scott was so hot back then. What with fighting Triffids and all...

 

[juantoo3]

Crack in the World? Man Janette Scott was so hot back then. What with fighting Triffids and all...

Oh yeah! Triffids! But that was about aliens...not science gone awry! But she was hot indeed...no Raquel Welch, but just the same... hubbahubba