Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[TheMailMan78]

It's Yin and Yang. Mwuahahaha

I knew a cute little asian girl whos last name was Ying. I think I might have been thinking of her and my yang. lol Anyway back on topic.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Fair enough. Carry on.

 

[CDdude55]

Ethics and morality are spiritually based.

I disagree with that, morality and ethics are develop out of spirituality, spirituality is a very empty word to me, considering people have different views on what spirituality is.

I see morality and ethics as being based on environment, the difference between a serial killer and a saint is environment.

 

[streetfighter 2]

Ethics and morality are spiritually based.

Speak for yourself.

Originally Written by Edward Teller
What is true? What is right? What is beautiful? Science considers what is true, starting out with almost unimaginable ideas (The earth is moving! The future is unpredictable!). The job is to understand these ideas and fit them into a broad and logical picture of the universe. Politics considers what is right. This requires broad understanding and eventual consensus of points of view that often appear incompatible. Art is the development of what is beautiful—whether through words, a musical note, or architecture.

Truth, morality, beauty. It has been humanity's persistent hope that these three ideals should be consistent with each other. Yet successful activities in science, politics, and art diverge greatly, and I believe the three activities can be pursued initially without regard to each other, or without reconciling the possible conflicts that may arise. Today there is perceived to be a strong contradiction between the results of science and the requirements of morality; for instance, the application of science has led to the development of nuclear weapons, while international morality seems to demand that such results never be applied—and that research leading to them should be stopped. I hold a position radically different from the general point of view, believing that contradiction and uncertainty should be embraced.

Originally Written by Albert Einstein
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

Good debate but its become a circle jerk. Next up we will debate spirituality vs philosophy vs ethics vs morality. Round and round we will go.

Maybe you will but I won't. For instance it can be resolved pretty easily that ethics and morality are a subset of philosophy, therefore it is now:

spirituality vs philosophy​

I'm assuming that spirituality is being used as "the sphere of religious, spiritual, or ecclesiastical matters, or such matters in themselves". Therefore we can further reduce this to:

religion vs philosophy​

Since both philosophy and science seek to discover what is true then we can conclude that your original statement is tantamount to:

religion vs truth​

Now stop bastardizing the discussion and GBTW.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I disagree with that, morality and ethics are develop out of spirituality, spirituality is a very empty word to me, considering people have different views on what spirituality is.

I see morality and ethics as being based on environment, the difference between a serial killer and a saint is environment.

The difference between a serial killer and a saint is who he kills.

 

[digibucc]

The same can be said for your "ridiculous extension of an argument" on religion. I was just showing two can play the same game. It sounded stupid didn't it? Well when you generalize religion like you have been the past few pages THATS what you sound like.

nice try, you went quite a bit farther. i think you should read all my posts if that's the idea
you get, because i made omissions where necessary. i even talked about what religions and
where in each i was referring.

plus:

The difference between a serial killer and a saint is who he kills.

wait what?. religion is dangerous, in that it gets a different word and special treatment regarding
everything. if it were a rash of teachers touching little boys and girls, it would have amounted
to more than just jokes on the late shows.

 

[razaron]

Evil is the losing side.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I'm gonna bow out now guys. Good debate but its become a circle jerk. Next up we will debate spirituality vs philosophy vs ethics vs morality. Round and round we will go. Ill just duck out now. I'm going to have some Soylent Green and pray for your souls. Good debate gentlemen!

See you in Minecraft!

 

[erocker]

if it were a rash of teachers touching little boys and girls, it would have amounted
to more than just jokes on the late shows.

Nothing to do with religion. Lots to do with sick and perverted individuals. There's plenty of pedophiles that aren't preists.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Nothing to do with religion. Lots to do with sick and perverted individuals. There's plenty of pedophiles that aren't preists.

True, priesthood is just a safe haven for those that want to get away with it.

 

[erocker]

True, priesthood is just a safe haven for those that want to get away with it.

Nothing in the religion itself condones pedophilia. I'm sure there are some religions that do. Religion, science, whatever.. People are too quick to blame a group over an individual. Accountability gets thrown out the window. I'm no fan of organized religion anyway.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Nothing in the religion itself condones pedophilia. I'm sure there are some religions that do. Religion, science, whatever.. People are too quick to blame a group over an individual. Accountability gets thrown out the window.

I hold them accountable for doing nothing besides transferring known pedophiles to another parish.

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Science and Spirituality are brothers, which dont like each other very much, neithertheless have the same mother
Religion is just the human attempt, to make the unimaginable, understandable for our limited abilities

 

[erocker]

Science and Spirituality are brothers, which dont like each other very much, neithertheless have the same mother

Alanis Morissette?

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Alanis Morissette?

Bendix Sondermann

 

[Mr McC]

Ethics and morality are spiritually based.:

I disagree with that, morality and ethics are develop out of spirituality, spirituality is a very empty word to me, considering people have different views on what spirituality is.

I see morality and ethics as being based on environment, the difference between a serial killer and a saint is environment.

I also disagree, here's how I see it:

As apes, in the original set-up, prior to the advent of civilization, the mightiest ruled, took what he wanted, when he wanted, mated with whomsoever he wished and generally made life fairly miserable for the rest of the pack. The group became a tribe when the smaller apes learned to cooperate in order to fend off and ultimately defeat their larger adversary, thereby imposing the dictatorship of the meek, the basis of society.

If I am a larger ape, there is no logical reason why I shouldn't rape my neighbour's wife if I find her attractive, unless of course we introduce the concept of punishment. Punishment and reminders of the ability of the meek to impose it have of course evolved with us and where once a stick may have been brandished, we now point to "scriptures", laws and ethical codes, but in all instances the suppression of the larger ape, a necessary component of gregarious life, is the objective.

Of course, there is no reason to assume that the violence evident within the society of the chimpanzee reflects the behavior of our own primitive ancestors: the bonobo lives in peaceful, egalitarian and matriarchal groups, where mass fornication is more prevalent than violence, and they are no less a relative than their larger cousin.

I still say that some people need the bible to keep their inner baboon at bay.

 

[streetfighter 2]

I still say that some people need the bible to keep their inner baboon at bay.

So the only reason you don't rape and steal from weaker individuals is the threat of punishment?
(I know you'd say no to this, it's rhetorical. )

Would I be wrong to conclude then that the only reason to do good is to receive a reward?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. You can justify morals without religion or fear of punishment.

Originally Written by Albert Einstein
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

 

[Velvet Wafer]

The problem is, that most humans still regard humanity as all beeing the same... i would say... most of humanity are still apes, and need artificially created,limited systems,no matter if punishment, or humanmade, religious belief, to get a slight grasp, of what moral and ethics are...
and even then,they maybe never will understand it to a fracture.

But, there are already people, even if it are few, that have developed to a point, where the source of their moral and ethics, is spirituality.And they are everywhere, no matter what Race,Color,Country or Gender. Evolution has never stopped, that is a Fact, that many people like to ignore.

I would even go so far, to say, that Science and Spirituality is one and the same... its just that it will take dozens of thousands, maybe even millions of years, for us small minded, small hearted beeings, to understand the true nature, of scientific Spirituality/spiritual Science.

 

[Mr McC]

So the only reason you don't rape and steal from weaker individuals is the threat of punishment? .

You misunderstand. I am not speaking personally, I would argue that this is also the reason why you or anybody else does not rape their neighbour's wife, or steal his car, notwithstanding gender, sexual preference and taste in vehicles.

Would I be wrong to conclude then that the only reason to do good is to receive a reward?

Abiding by norms and winning the group's approval can easily be viewed as being based on the avoidance of punishment. To me, this is an evident, if uncomfortable truth.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. You can justify morals without religion or fear of punishment.

Clearly.

 

[streetfighter 2]

Abiding by norms and winning the group's approval can easily be viewed as being based on the avoidance of punishment. To me, it is an evident, if uncomfortable truth.

Abiding by norms is not my definition of "doing good". Someone can be an iconoclast and still be doing good. (Galileo comes to mind . . .) I do not see how that involves avoiding punishment. It is trivial to show that even if the only reward for a good deed is self-satisfaction, it can still benefit society (while not avoiding punishment or gaining social acceptance).

Some researchers believe that morality existed before religion but religion was a catalyst for large scale cooperation (source). I find this far more probable then believing that the only reason people don't go around killing each other is the fear of punishment (by god or law).

There are exceptions of course. Some people really suck.

 

[Mr McC]

Abiding by norms is not my definition of "doing good". Someone can be an iconoclast and still be doing good. (Galileo comes to mind . . .) I do not see how that involves avoiding punishment. It is trivial to show that even if the only personal reward for a good deed is self-satisfaction, it can still benefit society.

Where society frowns upon something, that constitutes a form of punishment: you will not succeed within a gregarious group without the acceptance of you peers. Benign acts are a form of winning approval and avoiding ostricism.

Some researchers believe that morality existed before religion but religion was a catalyst for large scale cooperation (source). I find this far more probable then believing that the only reason people don't go around killing each other is the fear of punishment (by god or law).

At the end of the day, perhaps the underlying motives are irrelevant: I won't rape your wife because I have no wish to spend time in jail, whilst you won't rape my wife because you have a belief in some hgher good, deity or, like Einstein, some form of intrinsic moral code. However, bear in mind that you can offer no evidence of gods or innate morality, whilst punishment is very, very real.

I sincerely hope that you are right and that I am wrong on this count, but my experience suggests otherwise and I have a more sinister view of the motives that inspire our acts.

 

[streetfighter 2]

Where society frowns upon something, that constitutes a form of punishment: you will not succeed within a gregarious group without the acceptance of you peers. Benign acts are a form of winning approval and avoiding ostricism.

Society frowns on lots of people who do good. Once again, doing good does not equate to abiding by norms or social acceptance . . .

At the end of the day, perhaps the underlying motives are irrelevant

It's not irrelevant to lots of people, including myself.

However, bear in mind that you can offer no evidence of gods or innate morality, whilst punishment is very, very real.

I don't see what you're trying to prove here.

There's lots of theories about the potential for an evolutionary origin of morality (and perhaps religion). The field is still young, give it time. There's also lots of work in scientific justifications for morality, the effect morality has on society, etc.. Ethics and evolutionary biology are big fields.

 

[gumpty]

Most of this is tl;dr

One thing to Mailman, who probably wont read it cause he's out anyway, and I think I'll bow out too.

Ethics is a practical application of morality anyway, so we can just stick to the topic of morality. Morality is not 'spirituality based'. It's not a spiritual entity or product. It's essentially a man-made concept created to explain innate traits that are present in all human beings to a greater or lesser degree. Those innate traits serve a practical purpose in the real world in aiding our survival. They do not need a spiritual origin when they already have a natural one.

 

[Drone]

Religion is for soul (for those who believe in soul) and science is for brains. However both of them try to show us that we are more than bunch of atoms and both of them say that we ain't perfect.

Unfortunately human race is prone to abuse religion and science with their arrogance, ignorance, greed, hypocrisy and their lust for money and power.

If there's much more complex form of life with perfect DNA and limitless intelligence I wonder will we seem as sheep to them

 

[digibucc]

Nothing in the religion itself condones pedophilia. I'm sure there are some religions that do. Religion, science, whatever.. People are too quick to blame a group over an individual. Accountability gets thrown out the window. I'm no fan of organized religion anyway.

i was planning on dropping the discussion, as i said my piece - but I can't just NOT respond to
erocker, can i?

I recognize it's not based on religiousity, but as damnsmooth noted, my point was that only
religion has the power to not be held accountable for such awful things. only religion can
pawn it off on it's followers without taking any accountability for the situation.

guilty priests were not fired, were not jailed, they were simply moved - so they could rape
and ruin another child's life, and this happened for decades. and we know this, it is fact
without doubt - yet nothing was done about it. the guilty rapists and those who gave them
a fresh supply of victim's are both out doing their thing.

they don't pay taxes, they spew hateful thoughts and simply say "be tolerant of my beliefs"

religions are treated special. they are given lee-way in the world that no other group can
claim, and imo, they are the least deserving of that special treatment.