I have already seen enough odd statements, (an illogical premise, approaching word usage in the manner of Humpty Dumpty, etc.), that if you are now going to begin jumping to totally irrelevant hijacks I will probably simply close this thread.
This is a debate forum.
It need not be either “friendly” or “cutthroat.” Simply try to use facts and logic expressed in words relying on standard definitions and stop playing games.
[ /Moderating ]
True, but the concept of God by itself has both components. It has a physical component and an ethical component. Are you telling me that science is amoral and does not have an ethical component.
There is an ethical component to all human activity, but science, itself, does not include ethics. Discovering ways to split the atom or to clone a human is science and ethically neutral. Choosing to use that knowledge moves out of “science” and into power generation, warfare, or medicine, and should be regarded in the light of ethics.
“Ethically neutral,” does that mean it is apolitical and amoral?
It means amoral.
Apolitical has a separate meaning that would be another hijack to this thread.
Don’t confuse amoral with immoral. Science is a method for determining facts, whether or not they contradict your morality. Religion lacks that rigor, because its truth is governed by morality, so religious facts are mutable, and always conform to religious dogma.
If science is basically amoral and just as likely to make a missile guidance system for the Department of Defense or a guidance system for cars, why should a religious person take a scientist’s opinion into account in evaluating their religion?
This is a string of non sequiturs. “Science” doesn’t make stuff. Scientific research can shed light on the claims religions make about history, so that would be relevant (although that might not have an ethical dimension). And why does the work of one scientist affect the value of the opinions of all other scientists?
Science does not evaluate religion. The scientific method is used to ascertain facts. Science doesn’t care what is subjectively good or evil; science determines what is objectivley fact or fabrication.
Therein lies the question,if life did start tae form from random pairing of chemicals and meteoric particles,isn’t it possible that it may occur again only instead of humans being formed it’s an alien life form right here on earth?
Since the major religions already have biblical scholars double-checking facts, then apparently there is no reason to take a scientists’ opinion into account.
What are you talking about?
As I said, religious scholars conform the facts to fit their dogma. Religion rarely changes when it is confronted by contradiction; science is always changing, that is its strength.
It happened once, so it’s possible that it could happen twice. Probabilities might make it extremely unlikely to happen twice in the same place (we don’t really know), or it may be that the prevalance of hungry lifeforms here now makes it difficult for another abiogenesis process to complete without being disturbed/consumed.
Uh, no, even I thought once that scholars and historians at least had some evidence of Moses and the exodus, what I found out after checking what support it was there for the evidence of the movements of people and Moses, I was in for shock, the truth is that many scholars acknowledge that there is virtually no evidence.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12738037&postcount=46
A scholar interviewed by NOVA shows what I found during that check:
So many bones are thrown to the believers that one could make another ossuary cathedral, in essence any scholar that is serious does acknowledge that there is really no evidence of Moses and the exodus, only speculation on different incidents in that region that was eventually put together to make up a narrative.
Don’t know if you were old enough tae have seen a program many moons ago called The Accent of Man,if not then check out You Tube,i think it’s in 13 parts on there,quite good if a little dated though.
You shouldn’t believe scientists paid by cigarette companies when they talk about the lack of danger in smoking, and you shouldn’t believe historians paid for - or members of - a church when talking about evidence for the truth of that church.
I’m wondering if pchaos realizes that checking factual claims and making ethical judgments aren’t necessarily related.
Sorry, I hadn’t seen this:
Anything but another metaphor.
This actually matters, so it would be nice if you would go into it instead of just flitting off into another irrelevant side topic. You said intuition and revelation are just as valid as empirical knowledge. That’s not necessarily a religion vs. atheism issue, so you don’t need to hide behind this claim about non-religious people not getting it. But if you believe intuition is that trustworthy, you need to explain how we evaluate it.
Okay, let me modify an earlier hypothetical. Suppose a Marine captain wanted to take out a machine-gun nest at the top of a pretty steep hill and you were a lieutenant in that troop. Now, you thought this captain was a religious nutcase, and there was no way that any of the men would make it to the top of the hill alive.
So what do you do if the captain shouts, “Let’s take that hill for the sake of God and country.”
In the same way, a flashlight is amoral. I might use it to find my lost car keys…or I might bash someone on the head with it and take their keys. All tools are amoral.
Archaeology is a science.