Well, Eugenics seems to be a notable exception to that rule…
:rolleyes: I didn’t say that science is always right; otherwise it would be as dead and stagnant as religion. And eugenics went wrong for political, religious, and psychological reasons, not because it won’t work, properly done. It has worked, and does; every time someone decides to not have children with someone who has a recessive gene they share, for example. People may not use the word, but they do it.
The basic idea isn’t unscientific; just the way it was implemented, and who did the implementing. And science is amoral, anyway; just because the fruits of science are used badly doesn’t make it wrong.
Religion, on the other hand, is simply wrong. Illogical, lacking in evidence, and contrary to the facts when there are any.
You’re saying that you think that people who only trust statements with scientific basis or support, and who fail to automatically accept unsupported, fanciful, imaginary, delusional, and false things, are most “gullible”. You clearly have no idea what the word means.
I’m still wrapping my head around the notion that we could of had an alternate timeline where this diety with a red shirt (with an group of fiery angels/demons) came from the future and torched believers for believing in other flawed religions 2000 years ago, only to become an angry god himself that started redshirt religion. He will return any day now to bring true justice upon the internets, most notably the SDMB…but beware of false prophets. 
Pish posh. Everyone knows that I can defend successfully as a thousand nations of the persian empire descend upon me with only 300 Spartans. Duh.
There is only one true question: Why?
Kids start asking “why?” early. It’s a frustrating question , not just because some of those kids will ask it a dozen times in a row, but because we have no good answer. 'Why’s are the links in a seemingly infinite chain between the nature and origin of the universe and the Sum of Human Knowledge.
Science tries to answer it by accumulating bits and pieces of evidence and sewing all the pieces together using math, educated guesses and sometimes, wild imagination. In this fashion, we try to produce the most accurate predictive models. These can be used to develop better scientific tools, which help advance science more and so on.
The endgame of science is to know absolutely everything there is to know about the universe, the reasoning being that if Newtonian physics could explain why cannonballs flew in an arc and why the moon doesn’t fall on the Earth* , then perfect understanding of how everything works could explain why the universe is as it is.
There are two problems with that reasoning:
1- The universe is uncomprehensibly vast, vast beyond human imagination. The task might simply be impossible. Neither us nor the stars are immortal, not to mention any of the numerous other daunting challenges (the speed of light limit , for starters).
2- We simply might not be able to understand it because we are fundamentally incapable of it, the same way we’re uncapable of doing magic or telepathy. This one at least leaves the possibility we could evolve and change enough to do it. But such beings would not be human anymore, therefore, not really ‘us’ .
As a “scientist” in training, I happen to think that it is probably the most productive way of harnessing one’s curiosity and certainly the best we can do to scratch the itch, but we’re really no closer to answering the “why?” question as we were millenia ago.
So, to answer your question: Nope, wouldn’t work.
Sorry about the rambling there, I do think people would feel a lot more humble if they were aware of the number of mysteries scientists face every day. The old saying “The more I know, the more I realize I don’t know dick!” has never been truer.
*answer: it’s falling, it’s just taking its sweet time 
Yes, Not one shred of physical proof anywhere.
I have no doubt the strawman you call religion is “simply wrong…illogical” (by definition, of course). I can also understand your desire to disown the controversial fruits of a valid scientific theory that “went wrong for political, religious, and psychological reasons.”
But your flummoxing over the point is illuminating. Folks on your side of the debate have been painting religious thinking with a broad brush, caricaturing it as the source of every ill: Some nutcase decides God told him to create a cult and poison his followers? Blame all religion. Funny that the same standard doesn’t apply when crackpot ideas are sprung from the well of science; no, these “went wrong for political, religious, and psychological reasons.”
Let me say I happen to agree that the core science of Eugenics is sound, but clearly its application–once supported by a broad coalition of what we would naturally call “scientists”–was abhorrent. Does that discredit science? No, no more than the usually-cited zealots discredits the vast body of religious thought.
How am I “disowning” it ? I’m not even against it, nor are most people, unless they intend to force people to have children with other people they find unattractive for genetic based reasons. The word was discredited, but that doesn’t stop people from caring about inherited qualities.
Because all religions are insane. They are all the creations of “nutcases” and frauds. What people like you fail to understand is that to unbelievers, a suicide cult isn’t any less rational than, say, the Catholic Church; just less immediately self immolating.
And no, that isn’t some far out idea. Most people agree with me - as long as the religion being called crazy isn’t THEIR religion.
Because such irrationality is not the norm of science; it can’t be, or it stops being science. And because science doesn’t tell people how to behave in the first place. And because the worst parts usually aren’t scientific; eugenics as practiced was full of ideas that were just plain scientifically wrong.
First,science does not claim to be a source of moral righteousness; religion does. No amount of misuse of science can discredit it, for the simple reason that it doesn’t claim to produce better behavior in the first place, unlike religion. And the people who indulged in the abuses in this case largely were wrong in a factual, scientific sense, not just an ethical one; you’ve picked a bad target.
Second, science has immense amounts of evidence to demonstrate that is, largely, correct; religion has zero. Less than zero, considering all the claims it makes that go against known historical facts and physical laws.
Third, the “zealots” are not the only problem with religion, nor the only reason it’s wrong, evil and stupid. Eliminate every last one and it would still be destructive, and simply wrong. Nor are the people who do evil and stupid things in the name of religion some tiny minority; they are the norm. Nor are they twisting religion; they are the ones who follow it as it’s set down; it’s the moderates who are twisting it. If you accept the premises of religion, insane behavior is the logical outcome, because religion IS insane. Civilized behavior requires that one either lack religion, or ignore it’s dictates.
Let’s be very clear here. We’re not talking about Genetics, the study of inherited traits. We are talking about Eugenics, a scientific theory that at its core makes value judgements about what are the “right” and “wrong” qualities needed to produce a better society/race/etc.
There are several sciences which do similar things: Psychology, Sociology, and Economics are three examples. Now, we could just limit these fields to the clinical description of facts deduced from study, but Psychologists, Sociologists, and Economists don’t do that when they practice their trade. It is somewhat disingenous to claim science is so limited when few scientists in these fields do the same.
In other words, if you’re blaming religion for the acts of people who carry it too far, you should blame science in the same way. But that would, I agree, be ridiculous. The real problem is human nature; railing against religion just makes you look like the “lunatics” you so blithely dismiss.
I sincerely doubt “most people” think adherents to other religions are in a suicide cult, even if it is a different religion than theirs. Frankly, I doubt most people worry about the religion of others, or don’t try to accomodate it in some way.
Religious belief is simply used by some leaders as a method of labeling a political enemy. It’s no different than using the word “gay” or “communist” in a derogatory fashion; I deplore such usage, but don’t do it by attacking the concept of homosexuality or the writing of Karl Marx.
Substitute “religion” (or, more specifically, “religious thought”) for “science” in this paragraph, and you may see what I’m talking about.
It seems here you’re declaring this facet of science true by definition. I could make a similar argument regarding theology, a discipline strictly separate from ethics or morality; if theology is abused, I can claim that nothing in theology itself prescribed that abuse. Theology, then, has committed no moral crime.
You can also say that Theology is “wrong in a factual, scientific sense.” I don’t disagree, but I think ultimately the statement is meaningless. Using theology to solve questions of science is as pointless as using science to solve problems of morality, which, as you conceded above, is not it’s role.
This is a strawman; you’re not getting me to defend any notions related to Creationism, Intelligent Design, or the like because they’re patently ridiculous. They represent a twisted or over-interpreted view of religious artifacts (i.e. reading the Bible/Koran as anything other than the collected stories of men).
What are these “premises” of religion you’re talking about? How in the world do you define a “moderate” as someone who is “twisting” these premises, a use of terms I find to be contradictory.
These posts pretty much confirm my initial suspicion: You’ve worked yourself into enough of a frenzy to believe the core facts of religion are something like “Kill yourself/others at the earliest opportunity”, then rant on against these “religious fools who want to kill themselves/others at the earliest opportunity.” We have enough real problems in this world without chasing imaginary demons…
Except that they aren’t even remotely the same thing, no matter how often the religious try to pretend they are. And the problem isn’t human nature warping the nature of religion, it’s religion warping humans.
Nice way to distort what I said. I said that most people regard other religions to be irrational, and they do. I hear people mock the “72 virgins for every martyr” bit all the time, even though that’s not any sillier than believing in corpses rising from the dead.
Religion creates those divisions, and to a large degree it is using the leaders, they are not using it. And religion impels assaults and hositility against outsiders, regardless of what any leaders do or say.
i see yet another desperate attempt by a apologist for religion to pretend that science and religion are remotely comparable.
The only use theology has IS as abuse, to excuse one’s misbehavior.
Science can do much better help morality ( even if it can’t prescribe it ) than theology can with anything benevolent. Theology is empty; a collection of speculation based on lies and delusions, and as useless as a thing can be, beyond it’s use as an ideological weapon. Whereas when it comes to science and morality, while science can’t tell you what is moral, it can help you decide by telling you the consequences of your actions.
The belief in the soul comes to mind. As many believers have pointed out, and acted upon, that makes the consequences of your actions in this world irrelevant. If you believe in the soul there’s no logical reason to refrain from killing people by the millions for even trivial reasons. And that’s only one insane belief out of thousands or millions.
In order to act like a civilized person, you must ignore such beliefs, despite them being core parts of your religion. In other words, you need to warp it. The people who fly planes into skyscrapers or enlsave millions and preach Jesus at them; they are people who are clearly and straightforwardly doing what their religion tells them to do.
This post offers as definitive an answer to the OP as we’re likely to see.
It’s pretty clear from these statements that this argument is pointless, and if not an elaborate whoosh, comes from a deep and abiding hatred that clouds rational judgement. If you really believe religion is the primary reason for the attacks of 9/11, you have a flawed grasp of the various social and political forces at work in the world today, one that leads me to question your ability to even understand the problems of religion.
To wit:
So “belief in the soul” leads to the “logical” conclusion “kill millions of people for trivial reasons”. I sincerely don’t know what to make of this breathtaking non-sequitur; rather, I believe it demonstrates a complete lack of competence to discuss religion and related questions.
I guess I shouldn’t have expected much from a thread entitled “Would time travel save us from religion?”, a question somewhat equivalent to “What color eggs would an elephant lay?” I wish at some point someone would discuss the questions of religion seriously, rather than turn every such discussion into an atheist/fundamentalist rant.
Until that day, free to move on to the next meaningless object of rage…
You’re not well acquainted with our friend Der Trihs, are you? :dubious:
Of course. Because if you truly take the soul seriously, then human life and human suffering has no meaning. I hear that very argument from religious people all the time.
No, it demonstrates that you are either dishonest or know nothing about religion, if you didn’t recognize that as a fairly common argument made by religious people.
Oh, please. You know quite well that that question makes perfect sense from the standpoint of someone who disapproves of religion. I see you’ve decided to use the old “if you don’t like religion you must be insane” bit.
Any serious, rational discussion of religion is going to center around the fact that it’s nonsense, and the irrational attempts of it’s defenders to pretend otherwise.
I am sure there are some here that can discuss religion in a logical rational manner. Unfortunately there are those who believe all religion is nonsense, that totally ignore the huge amount of charity work done in the world by religions, and focus on the dark ages as if they were happening now. Dispite this there have been some decent discussions.
You can actually accept that all religion is nonsense while noticing that they do some charity alongside their various other positive and negative programs and effects. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Der Trihs to dwell much on the charity work though.
As an aside, IIRC in the book above…
they could only see back in time and when they did, they couldn’t focus on the site of the Crucifixion, their WAG being that so many people were trying to do so that it fudged up the time viewing.