Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What doesn't science do for you?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Re: What doesn't science do for you?

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    Science, by nature, isn't ethical or moral.
    My bad - I mis-stated what I had intended...I can see where you got this from, and I agree with you.

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    To imply it is, one would have to recognize an initial judgement made of what was good and bad.
    One can use scientific methodology to assist in making those decisions - which was my point. Far better, IMO, than religion can.

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    That would imply rational thought and that would be against the very basis of atheism. Good and bad are relative value judgements informed by culture which in turn is informed by that past, which itself is steeped in religion. Scientists/people apply the morals and ethics to what they learn and these morals and ethics are reflective of their worldview...a worldview that is a relative value judgement informed by culture. And so on and so forth.
    I understand what you're saying here - but to me, this argument basically says that ethics and morality are largely determined by factors that are neither scientific, nor religious in nature. Thoughts?

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    Science doesn't care if you murder someone. Science doesn't care if a young pregnant mother is killed in a car crash. People care, and people care because they have some sense of right and wrong.
    What says that religion is the only way to determine that?
    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    The only true atheist, then, would maybe be the sociopath.
    I can only judge by myself, of course, but I would say that you're not far off of the mark. Then again, the term "sociopath" (or rather, sociopathic tendencies, is quite vague (as most psychology is), and I don't think that one can immediately leap to the conclusion that sociopathic tendencies are "bad".

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    Even the atheist who says you should treat others as you'd like to be treated is, in some way, an expression of a worldview/religion.
    No offense, but the implication that morality has to stem from religion is (probably) flat-out wrong. From what I've studied, it comes from the nature of humanity having to rely on each other in social structures to survive...religion came later. (various asteroid strikes, volcanos, and other natural disasters before humans became, well, the humans that we have now, forced our more animal-like ancestors to work together for sheer survival. What wasn't tolerated, was eliminated, so people learned to both tolerate more, and to be more amiable to behaving in an acceptable manner)

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    The general reasoning behind that saying is so that people will treat each other right, so that we have peace, fairness etc etc. Science would tell you to evolve to be the strongest and to take out any threats to your resources and only band together to assist survival until survival isn't an option in numbers. It's only urge is survival. There's no grand plan, no sense of justice, no right and no wrong. My moral compass isn't better, it's just an inevitable part of the human experience.
    As I said, I was more referring to the Scientific Method, rather than science itself - and that was my mistake in my phrasing.

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    Heh. Well, since not ALL atheists are in prison I think it's a fair assumption that atheists, to some degree, generally follow the social codes of their culture (i.e murder, rape), without me going to OTT with semantic qualifiers.
    I'd be willing to bet that if you polled prison inmates, you'd find far more claiming religion than not...I haven't looked at any numbers, but I'd be curious as to how they stack up against general society. Of course, you still have to account for prisoners that broke "stupid" laws...you know, the guy that got busted smoking some pot, or the guy that jaywalked just a few too many times...you know what I mean

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    *Shrug* You could just kill them. Most people won't, though, because it's wrong and morally incorrect. But why is it morally incorrect?
    Only because we don't want to grant people the same right to kill us for the same reasons

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    If science didn't want you to kill people then why is it possible?
    As you said, Science is neither one nor t'other - Science doesn't "care". But as I should have said initially, the scientific process can be applied to most situations, and it does it better (IMO, at any rate) than religion.

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    My point about following laws is that we each chose to navigate our existence in this world in the best way possible while maintaining some degree of happiness.
    Agreed.

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    Science gives us the options to do this while a cultural worldview directs our moral responsibility. Our current culture is, by majority, Christian. Any atheist currently existing in America, responsibly, is adhereing to a religious worldview regardless.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. While many of our laws are considered to have been brought forth due to the Puritans and Christians founding our nation, they were taken more from Hammurabi's laws than anything else - and THOSE "laws" are just common sense for anyone living in a social climate (don't steal, don't fuck with people, etc). IMO, if this really *were* a "Christian" nation, there would be far more infringements on our freedoms, and far more expectations of us to support the Christian church. As it is now, we just hear a lot of gum-flapping and occasionally we have to shake our heads when some school thinks that their better off dumping their science classes because they can't grasp Evolution. But I digress

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    Their decisions are generally informed by this religious culture. I, personally, cannot destroy my moral compass and live solely by science, disregarding all cultural laws, so I chose a religion that informs my choices within a different worldview. And I think that moral compass is, for the most part, inherent in us. It generally goes against the rational science.
    Ok...now we're getting to some meat

    Why do you feel that your moral compass would change as a result of not having religion? I mean, I know we have all heard the anti-Atheist movements, talking about how the streets will run red with blood and all of that...but I think that in this day and age, it's pretty patently clear that morality and ethics have very little to do with a given belief system. That's why we end up with immoral preachers, and moral Atheists - I don't believe that morality has to come from "somewhere else"...I think that if people just took a fraction of a second to say, "How would I feel if someone did this to me in this situation?" the world would be a far better place. Problem is, it seems that the vast majority of "true believers" really only believe that as long as they SAY they believe it, it makes it true (which is not very far from how religion is promoted already).

    Originally posted by Wednesday View Post
    It doesn't matter if it's heathen or not, really. I could give a thousand examples as to why I believe Heimdallr (in some metaphysical, metaphorical way) will blow his horn at Ragnarok and be told there's no proof. But yet, most atheists won't go shoot an infant in the head (ignoring laws for the time) even though there's no proof that science says one shouldn't. It just is. And I like to color that "just is" with a worldview that I find especially pleasing. Because science isn't enough.
    Ok...let's try to approach this from the other side: Heathenry came from somewhere...someone came up with the idea (whether man or god, for the purposes here it doesn't really matter ). I'm guessing that you haven't met the people that decided "This is Heathenry". So the rules and beliefs that you're following stem largely from people that you don't know (and can't possibly trust as a result of simply not knowing them). It logically follows that some event or something occurred at a particular time that convinced you of it's efficacy. I know that when I became Pagan, it was in part due to a phenomenally accurate cold-reading...it convinced me that there might be some truth to it. Of course, over time I started acknowledging when my religion *didn't* work, as well as when it did...and I found that it was wrong more than it was right.

    Interesting read over at http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com ...I'll dig up the quote - my memory sucks

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm <-- It's a little long, feel free to skim...you'll get the gist of it

    Comment


      #32
      Re: What doesn't science do for you?

      Originally posted by calfhill View Post
      So many long answers, so short in my opinion. Science and religion are the same. Some things just haven't been proven, yet.
      Can you elaborate? There are plenty of artifacts of religion (by artifacts I mean the trappings of the belief system itself, not a physical artifact that Indy would steal from someone before destroying an ancient archaeological find ) that have been either disproven or have been relegated to the "not fucking likely" pile.

      While I don't disagree with you in that there are plenty of things out there that we have not scientifically learned yet, I do have to say that I view religion and science to be vastly different from each other, in virtually every significant way. I'll elaborate, although like I said, I didn't want to make this a science vs religion argument...I'm simply curious.

      Science: Provides testable ideas that can change as soon as someone discovers a better approach
      Religion: Rarely (if ever) changes, even if what is stated is laughably impossible (Noah's Ark, for example).

      Science: Allows anyone with the inclination and determination to learn, retest, and challenge currently held "facts/beliefs"
      Religion: Answers challenges with such wonderful lines as, "It's part of God's Plan" or "If it's meant to be, it's meant to be" or simply killing anyone that argues with them.

      Etc etc etc...I had intended this to be longer, but just got a phone call so gotta motor

      Comment


        #33
        Re: What doesn't science do for you?

        Originally posted by Roknrol View Post
        I understand, Danie - I just wanted to nip things in the bud before the thread became an anti-Atheist rant (in general)...especially since that wasn't the intent of my initial post

        Perfect! And this, IMNSHO, is probably true for a good number of spiritual believers. I know that solitude and lonliness played a big part in Christianity and Paganism both for me. Being alone is tough...it's REALLY tough. It's hard to not feel locked into your own head when other people have the key.

        Science...you're right...can't do a whole lot to change that. We all know that personal change has to happen personally If you're interested, I DO (believe it or not) have access to some scientific studies/articles that may help you, but probably not in the way that you'd like them to - but they could go some way to explaining the biology/chemistry behind your approach, and could offer some directions to go in to "fix" them. Unfortunately, the only way you can really avoid being alone is to be with someone else (that's the part that *I* always hated about not being alone )
        Yeah I've read quite a few of them and I've also read quite a few articles about the health risks of being lonely. I'm trying to get out there more and I got a part time job and I take a French class so I'm getting out of the house more other than just the times I socialize, and some self-employed friends and I meet for coffee once or twice a week to keep each other sane, but I do still live alone (and as much as it doesn't make sense, I don't want roommates because they don't really fulfill the gap in the right way), and I do most of my working and studying from home. Sometimes, I'm good, and sometimes I'm bummed about it. Religion just helps me get through those times a bit better

        Comment


          #34
          Re: What doesn't science do for you?

          Originally posted by Roknrol View Post
          One can use scientific methodology to assist in making those decisions - which was my point. Far better, IMO, than religion can.
          Using a scientific method to rationalize ethical choices still doesn't explain why we have ethics and morals, which:

          I understand what you're saying here - but to me, this argument basically says that ethics and morality are largely determined by factors that are neither scientific, nor religious in nature. Thoughts?
          The philosophies on where ethics come from and why are too varied. Plato asserts that- like mathematics, ethics are fixed entities and thus exist on a spiritual realm. Others say that ethics exist purely from selfish needs. Science is one to reach a decision on how to live ones life but it doesn't answer the question of why there is a right or wrong way.

          What says that religion is the only way to determine that?
          I can only judge by myself, of course, but I would say that you're not far off of the mark. Then again, the term "sociopath" (or rather, sociopathic tendencies, is quite vague (as most psychology is), and I don't think that one can immediately leap to the conclusion that sociopathic tendencies are "bad".
          Exactly. There isn't a good or bad. I don't think that ethics are fixed but are more relative. The Aesir fight the Jutons because they are Others, but the Jutons don't see themselves as Others, they see themselves as good. And for their purposes they are.

          What you're trying to do with science is answer questions--at least as I see it, sorry if this is an incorrect assumption. The reason I don't need science (which is your question) is because I'm not looking for answers. Not entirely, anyhow. Why doesn't Odin heal amputees? Because it's not his job. Why do people die? Because all of the events and choices in their life led up to that time. Where will I go when I die? It doesn't really matter. My family will remember and honor me and my life will continue on it's path of influence into eternity. I don't need to know why the earth orbits the sun for some mystical reason and deeper understanding of the universe, because it's just the sun and even in heathenry? It's sole purpose? Was to mark time and seasons. I won't turn away from the answers science gives me about the sun or nature or physics but in the end it's just explains or highlights ways we can use those to a more productive advantage.

          No offense, but the implication that morality has to stem from religion is (probably) flat-out wrong. From what I've studied, it comes from the nature of humanity having to rely on each other in social structures to survive...religion came later. (various asteroid strikes, volcanos, and other natural disasters before humans became, well, the humans that we have now, forced our more animal-like ancestors to work together for sheer survival. What wasn't tolerated, was eliminated, so people learned to both tolerate more, and to be more amiable to behaving in an acceptable manner)
          To clarify;currently, most of modern morality exist within a socio-political-religious worldview.

          I'd be willing to bet that if you polled prison inmates, you'd find far more claiming religion than not...I haven't looked at any numbers, but I'd be curious as to how they stack up against general society.
          And then poll how many found religion after being incarcerated.


          As you said, Science is neither one nor t'other - Science doesn't "care". But as I should have said initially, the scientific process can be applied to most situations, and it does it better (IMO, at any rate) than religion.
          Science has it's place and I'm not denying that. I like for science to explain most things, I like to use rational thought, I like to be pragmatic. But it isn't enough. It doesn't tell me what to do with the answers to my satisfaction.

          Why do you feel that your moral compass would change as a result of not having religion?
          Because I find it to be relative. You build your ethics from your experiences and those experiences are perceived from a worldview. I could chose not to be heathen and think that honoring my ancestors wasn't a traditional obligation and I could stop doing that. But I enjoy the process and connection, just as I enjoy knowing-from what science has told me-that I'm related to every blue-eyed person on the planet. Science has now informed me on my ancestry and those connections even more, and heathenry gives me a way in which to honor that.

          I mean, I know we have all heard the anti-Atheist movements, talking about how the streets will run red with blood and all of that...but I think that in this day and age, it's pretty patently clear that morality and ethics have very little to do with a given belief system.
          I don't think that, I just think that atheism is it's own belief system.

          Heathenry came from somewhere...someone came up with the idea (whether man or god, for the purposes here it doesn't really matter ). I'm guessing that you haven't met the people that decided "This is Heathenry". So the rules and beliefs that you're following stem largely from people that you don't know (and can't possibly trust as a result of simply not knowing them).
          Well, I may not know them but they are my blood. They're lives and deaths, their joys and fears, brought me here. Each and every one. And they knew-maybe not of me-but that their lives mattered and shaped someone. And that is one of the core beliefs. Why did they sacrifice to the gods for better crops and victory in battle? For the good of the family. Science/scientific method lacks, imo, that heart and beauty.

          Interesting read over at http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com ...I'll dig up the quote - my memory sucks

          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm <-- It's a little long, feel free to skim...you'll get the gist of it
          It was an interesting read, but completely irrelevant to me and my religion. God and the gods aren't comparable in their themes. It's just...different..


          [It's late and I have no idea if this last reply has made much sense and I think the ethics portion is drifting too far away from your originally re-worded question. ]

          Comment


            #35
            Re: What doesn't science do for you?

            Maybe I'm a little off target here (I usually am in the debate section ) but one of the biggest problems I have with science is that I lack the requisite vocabulary to put my point across as I would like. Sometimes I admit that I also lack the vocabulary to ask the right questions, or even to understand the answers. IMHO science and religion have drifted so far apart that it is very difficult to put together a glossary of common terms - or at least, a glossary that will encompass enough to make the sort of discussions I would very much like to have possible.

            Now I would say that, with my interest in humanities generally I have a pretty good vocabularly. I can read most (non scientific) texts without reaching for a dictionary. But when I speak to someone who I know lacks that type of grasp of the English language, I do my best to put what I'm trying to say into simpler terms so that we can have a conversation. A lack of vocab doesn't necessarily equate (in my view) with a lack of intelligence. Likewise I've met a lot of people who bandy around long words in the hope of impressing others without much clue what they really mean.

            But whenever I get into a discussion with someone over science, I quickly feel lost. And very rarely do they simplify for me as I would for them if the boot were on the other foot. So one of the biggest problems I have with science is that it doesn't allow me to engage with it as I would like. I do study it. My botany, for example, is pretty good. I'm not afraid to look things up if I have to. And I'm sure I'm not the only person on the planet who feels this way.
            www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


            Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

            Comment


              #36
              Re: What doesn't science do for you?

              Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
              My religion gives me a way to think about things and find out about them before science gets around to collecting info on it. Almost everything I've learned through my particular religion has been demonstrated correct by science, it's just that my religion got there first, but without the benefit of hard/objective data to back it up. Science has been providing that.
              Still the same answer, Rok.

              My religion allows me to go where I want to go, before science has cleared the way.

              The major theoretical difference between science and Alchemy is that science isn't really equipped to deal with subjective experience, except by quantifying it (generally by using some sort of questionnaire where responses are scored and a "diagnosis" arrived at) - making it objective. The Alchemist, however, devotes a lot of time to subjective research in mental function.

              If you want to understand how your mind works, the mechanics are important, and science can discover and describe that. However, the mechanics of the mind are not the same as the way in which one experiences the mind at work. To understand that, there is only one way - to go into it, and look around; and, until somebody builds a mind transfer device, this is always going to be subjective. This is what I get from Alchemy.
              Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

              Comment


                #37
                Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                I didn't think anyone was looking for an agenda - just trying to nail down their individual take on the subject. Science is simply there - we all learn the same things in math class. We find it. Religion finds us (at least it found me.) I mean, I was taught some specific religious things as a child but later found them not to apply to me, whereas 2+2=4 still applies to me.
                sigpic
                Can you hear me, Major Tom? I think I love you.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                  I can't personally say what one gives and the other doesn't. My path is heavily scientific in nature with belief thrown in for a connection to the science. If that makes sense... had a 13 hr gauntlet at ucla hospital with 30 hr of no sleep and no food, slept two hrs and back awake... don't know how coherent I am lol

                  Basically I think what I really get out of a religious view with the scientific measures I use already is a connection with the energies I'm working with or thing I'm working towards. Transmuting incense by scientific process with intent energy charging during the process makes the incense really connect with me instead of picking it up from the store or just throwing incense together. Probably a bad example, tired brain.

                  I don't really have a punishment/reward thing, nor a true moral code in the path like most do (no real "sin" or "karma" concepts). I do follow social code cause I happen to like not being in jail, but that's not part of the argument lol.

                  ---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

                  Corbin was more more eloquent with it... lol WHAT HE SAID!
                  -=Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras=-

                  My art and writing http://khaotyk-artwerx.tk/
                  (whole site is marked adult, the adult and gore sections are in their own section so you can opt not to view them, adult and/or gore stories are marked with an *)

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                    Science doesn't promise me that I'll get rewarded for my good deeds in the afterlife, that bad people will be punished with eternal damnation nor recieve negative karma. It says nothing of that sort.

                    But for me, that's alright, as I don't need that anyway. For me, its about learning how the universe is.
                    I was Hadad2008 when I joined Feb 2008.
                    I became Abdishtar this spring.
                    Then, after the Great Crash, I was reborn as Spartacandream!

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                      Originally posted by spartacandream View Post
                      Science doesn't promise me that I'll get rewarded for my good deeds in the afterlife, that bad people will be punished with eternal damnation nor recieve negative karma. It says nothing of that sort.
                      True, but if all people are looking for is someone to tell them "everything will be ok", there are therapists that can do just that

                      Originally posted by spartacandream View Post
                      But for me, that's alright, as I don't need that anyway. For me, its about learning how the universe is.
                      You know, I feel exactly the same way You don't have a religion listed, so I'm not sure what faith you follow...but that's exactly the reason why Science has replaced religion for me. While there's questionable information on both sides of the fence, Science makes it a lot easier to separate the beef from the bullshit.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                        Originally posted by spartacandream View Post
                        Science doesn't promise me that I'll get rewarded for my good deeds in the afterlife, that bad people will be punished with eternal damnation nor recieve negative karma. It says nothing of that sort.
                        True, but if all people are looking for is someone to tell them "everything will be ok", there are therapists that can do just that

                        Originally posted by spartacandream View Post
                        But for me, that's alright, as I don't need that anyway. For me, its about learning how the universe is.
                        You know, I feel exactly the same way You don't have a religion listed, so I'm not sure what faith you follow...but that's exactly the reason why Science has replaced religion for me. While there's questionable information on both sides of the fence, Science makes it a lot easier to separate the beef from the bullshit.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                          This may sound corny.....and the idea behind it is coming from a tv show I just finished watching....but.....

                          What you call 'bullshit', may not have physical proofs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. It can change us. Like, understanding Plato changes us -- just like understanding the workings of the human body can change us. It allows us to interpret the world in a way that makes allowance for the experiences that don't fall within the realm of science -- things like thoughts and feelings -- love....and I'm not talking about the clinical side of these things -- Im talking about the experiential side....

                          'Real' or not real -- it's really irrelevant -- these things change us....and that makes them 'real' in a sense that matters most, imho.

                          What that means? For me, that means that these things are just as potent a tool for understanding and changing your life as any science experiment.
                          Last edited by cesara; 20 Mar 2011, 20:24.
                          Allow me to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket. ~ Captain Jack Sparrow

                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                            Science fails to make me comprehend the magnitude of just what is happening in even one speck of the universe, let alone all the others.

                            It cannot explain successfully to me how the dance of nature is kept so perfectly in balance to maintain life as a whole on our selfish little speck. Sure, it explains what happens to ensure it (food chain, evolution, weather, etc) but not why those things exist.
                            No one tells the wind which way to blow.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                              Originally posted by Bjorn View Post
                              Science fails to make me comprehend the magnitude of just what is happening in even one speck of the universe, let alone all the others.

                              It cannot explain successfully to me how the dance of nature is kept so perfectly in balance to maintain life as a whole on our selfish little speck. Sure, it explains what happens to ensure it (food chain, evolution, weather, etc) but not why those things exist.
                              Does religion/spirituality answer these questions better than science? How so? Do you find that the spiritual information is more complete that the scientific information, easier to understand, or is "an answer" better than "no answer", regardless of how "correct" it is?

                              (Sorry if that sounds brash...it's so difficult to have discussions like this without implying offense )

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Re: What doesn't science do for you?

                                Originally posted by Roknrol View Post
                                Does religion/spirituality answer these questions better than science? How so? Do you find that the spiritual information is more complete that the scientific information, easier to understand, or is "an answer" better than "no answer", regardless of how "correct" it is?

                                (Sorry if that sounds brash...it's so difficult to have discussions like this without implying offense )
                                Disclaimer unnecessary. I know you're an atheist,

                                Religion and spirituality answer no questions at all. They can't. It is not their nature to provide concrete explanations for things because, well, that's what we have science for. If anything it makes me ask more questions about things and begs me to pay closer attention.

                                That being said, there is then no 'information' to be processed spiritually. Do I really know that I encountered a certain critter on a day because the Great Spirit is speaking to me as per my request? No. I'm not meditating on math equations or the origin of species, so 'information' doesn't even begin to explain what I think the spirit deals with. It would be like trying to read a particularly moving poem to your old crusty physics professor: ineffective, misunderstood, and unappreciated.
                                No one tells the wind which way to blow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X