jason, i agree with every bulletted statement made above. in response to your question i will say this: i would say that people who trust in science without understanding how it works first hand are idiots. it is utterly stupid to trust in something you don't understand or something you haven't proved (beyond doubt) to yourself.

it seems that you are basing your assumptions an ancient romans who believed that gods were angry when lightening striked and offered human sacrifices in order to prevent such events from occuring. can you give a real example of how science has adversely affected people's views of "the universe, culture, nature and even morality" in the last 50 years?

genetic evolution, simply means that the genetic mutations most able to adapt to adverse environments and circumstances are the most likely to survive.

in modern society, the process of darwinism in humans has been changed in a fundamental way. humans that are born unhealthy, and who would clearly die otherwise, are now saved by our advances in medical technology. the physically and mentally weak are now more likely to survive and reproduce than ever before. am i saying that this is a bad thing? no. it's just the way it is. i have no problem with it. does that make me the newest member of the local chapter of the KKK? ummm, hold on let me think...

your statement, " To trust in science means that social darwinism is the best thing for humanity in terms of culling the human herd and making this race the best it can be." is FALSE. social darwinism is defined as: "a theory in sociology: sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence." this theory is clearly false and should no longer be considered a part of science. the fact that a person has more money than another person does not make them a better person in any way whatsoever. since having more money does not make a person superior, it cannot make a person biologically superior. for the sake of argument, even if this first portion of the theory was true (and I DO NOT think it is), in a free nation there is no real "intergroup conflict." there is therefore no way for...

to be continued, must.... eat... somethi

 

I'm not saying incorrect science has to create problems or something. I am countering your own reasoning. You explained that science explains stuff correctly and therefore is trustworthy. But its not always correct and people live and believe as though it is.

How can something wrong be trustworthy?

You want examples?

Eggs are bad for you. Oh wait, Eggs are good. Ooops eggs are bad. No wait, their OK now.

Fat is evil. Ooops, OK you do need it in your diet.

Migrain medicines that kill people or folks who die from supposedly safe and correct usage of over the counter drugs.

Saccharin.

The radioactive stuff that made antique watches glow in the dark. No joke, watchmakers died from licking brushes to paint the stuff on.

The unbridled industrial revolution (vs. the environment)

Breast implants.

... etc. etc. and these are things off the top of my head that are negative. There are scores of hundreds of innocuous things which science self-corrects all the time. These are things which people partook of because science said it was good.

jason

 

Not my words but I thought it relevant to the subject:

As Far As I'm Concerned:
THE DUCKS OF RATIONALISM
Dan Culberson,
Boulder Heretics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's what I think.

There is a popular, rationalistic proof of ideas when empirical scientific testing is either impossible or inconvenient that goes like this: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Now, we know from studies of logic and philosophy that it is impossibleo prove a negative hypothesis, which is why rationalists are frustrated whenever a God-believer religionist issues the challenge to prove there is no God, as if the inability to prove that God doesn't exist is the same as proof that God does exist.

However, we can no more prove that God doesn't exist than we can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and yet we know that Santa doesn't exist, because popular cultures created the Santa Claus myth in modern folklore; corrupted his name from Saint Nicholas, the patron of children and sailors; was adopted by the English in the New York colony from the Dutch; and use him as an excuse and rationalization for a children's holiday to correspond with the supposed birth of Jesus.

Now, here is where a troublemaking cynic could say about all those bell-ringing, street-corner and department-store Santas, "Hmmm, if he looks like a Santa, walks like a Santa and says 'Ho, ho, ho!' like a Santa, he must be a Santa Claus."

Well, yes, except for one little problem: We know that the so-called "real" Santa is a fake, because we can still remember when we created him, and none of those street-corner or department-store Santas can demonstrate that he lives at the North Pole, oversees the year-long manufacturing of toys by a legion of elves and delivers those toys to every good boy and girl on earth in one single night, much less get down one chimney and back up by himself without getting stuck.

So, a more rational use of the popular proof is "If he looks like a fake Santa, walks like a fake Santa and says 'Ho, ho, ho!' like a fake Santa, he's a fake Santa."

On the other hand, a precocious child who is still deluded in the belief of the "real" Santa Claus could claim that all the fake Santas are just here representing the real Santa Claus, because, of course, Real Santa is busy, can't be on every corner and in every department store at once and is fortunate to have all those representatives for him to collect money for charities and listen to the requests from all the little children with their sincere, but deluded beliefs.

Now, what does all this have to do with rationalism and religion?

If God in the common perception does exist, have you ever wondered why there seems to be an inordinate amount of child molestation, sexual offenses and other out-and-out misconduct among the clergy, the very people who were upposedly "chosen" by God to represent him on earth and to guide God's "flocks" of sheep? It doesn't seem logical, does it, that the so-called God of peace and love would have so many social criminals claiming to represent him, not to mention the thousands of followers who
wage war and terrorism against fellow human beings in his name?

A logical, rational explanation for all the sexual misconduct among
people who claim to be deeply religious is that because they were raised to believe that sex is "wrong" and to be avoided, curiosity coupled with convenient opportunity is going to lead to experimentation with willing or unwilling partners. We are intrigued by what we are told by our elders is wrong and bad for us, oftentimes obsessively so.

As for terrorists and religious warmongers, a logical, rational
explanation is that they are unsure of the "truths" of their religious beliefs, and they have either convinced themselves or been persuaded by their religious leaders that striking a blow in the name of their religion and their God is somehow good for the religion, what their God wants and therefore good for themselves.

These acts are nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecies that do no one any good except for the religious leaders manipulating the
terrorists and religious fanatics.

So, to complete the syllogism of what can be called "The Ducks of
Rationalism," if they look like deluded representatives of a fake God, walk like deluded representatives of a fake God and talk like deluded representatives of a fake God, then they are not to be trusted, believed or followed.

I think; therefore I am a rationalist.

(Dan Culberson is the editor of THE AIO NEWSLETTER.)

 

I'm not saying I trust any person who claims to be a scientist. I'm talking about science as a way to explain how the world around us works. Can breast implants be included as science? How do breast implants explain how anything around us work? Just because some guy who happened to have a PhD decided he was going to shove plastic bags full of silicon into womens chests doesn't mean it has anything to do with SCIENCE. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that all of a sudden everything you say is considered science and thus must be true.

The results of one scienctific experiment do not produce undeniable facts. They produce results. Which then must be examined and then interpreted before they mean anything whatsoever. And before "science" can come to any conclusions, the experiments must be repeated until it can absolutely not be shown that the resulting theories cannot be disproven. By any one. Then, as time passes and hordes of very intelligent people still cannot disprove the theory, the more likely the theory is to be true.

I don't really know exactly what I'm supposed to be arguing for right now, but as far as how a rational human being could choose to put faith in god over faith in science totally boggles my mind. Science at least tries to search for the truth while religion is totally and utterly a CREATION OF THE HUMAN MIND. A fairy tale. Fiction. Falsehood.

Can we please try to get straight whatever it is that we're arguing about because its starting to get a bit confusing.

 

Tim, i think it's just time to stop...

:shrugs:

-Gagan

 

haha, you're just sick of seeing this thread!!! i will not stop!!! and turn on your IM thingy (that's a technical term).

 

Well... actually I'm kinda tired of it You do actually keep evading my question:

For all that you keep saying science is often right, it is just as often wrong. When people based their perceptions on incorrect information, how good of a source for a basis of a worldview is it? Not very good. Simple logic, man.

You like science. You cannot however show overwhelming reason for it to be hallowed, as it so often is, as the harbinger and savior of humanity's future.

jason

p.s. Feel free to comment on the other examples