The Problem with Science as a Substitute

[ACR]

am i the only one that believes in the force?
(jedi in training)

I once personally witnessed the awesome power of Yoda... but then again I was pretty narc'd at the time

 

[Warthaug]

am i the only one that believes in the force?

Which one?

Force of Gravity
Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Electromagnetic Force

I believe if the first three, but have my doubts about the latter

Bryan

 

[nereas]

Neither do I, but that came back and bit me in the butt one time.

Was down in New Orleans when this, evidently homless, guy came up and tried to bum some money, said he was "hungry".

Told him I wouldn't give him any cash, but that I'd take him to that McDonald's right over there and get him something to eat . . . should have given him $2.

That guy ate 2 Big Macs, 3 orders of fries and a milk shake.

Oh well . . . at least he wasn't hungry for a while.

the K

I think that you did the right thing. Obviously he was very hungry. It is always better to give food than cash.

Cash is extremely powerful, and subject to abuse. It can buy alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and crack coccaine. None of those items gives nourishment. These only feed addictions.

 

[nereas]

Strange then, that I spend weeks every year sitting in on, and facing ethics boards. Staffed entirely by scientists. Science is full of ethics, unless your in psychology, but then again psychology isn't really a science anyways...

Bryan

Scientists, and science boards, and other associations certainly have ethics, yes.

But science itself has none.

Therefore it is the scientists who are either philosophical or religious, or both, who are the driving forces of these ethics issues. Because science itself is ethics free. Atoms and molecules and sub-atomic particles interact, but there are no ethics involved in this because these particles make no choices. They are simply matter and energy.

Bryan, you like to play games with words. That must amuse you. But certainly you must also be way too bright to believe what you are saying here.

 

[AXL72]

again...i think nereas definately has a sweet stash of narcotics. They appear to be working very well.

 

[sandmanz32]

am i the only one that believes in the force?
(jedi in training)

\

Fear not young padiwon, for my ally is the force. what a powerful ally it is. It penetrates us, and binds us, but beware the darkside. I hear they wear bp/w's and have cookies lol.

 

[nereas]

again...i think nereas definately has a sweet stash of narcotics. They appear to be working very well.

No way beavis. Never go near the stuff. You can have it all.

You must not be aware that devout Christians do not take drugs. [I would guess the same is true of devout anybody, whether Muslim, Hasidic Jews, and Buddhists as well.]

Drugs and narcotics do not go well with tech deco diving either.

FYI, in case you ever want to grow up to become a techdiver.

 

[Warthaug]

Scientists, and science boards, and other associations certainly have ethics, yes.

But science itself has none.

Ahh, a misunderstanding on my part.

But then again, only sentient beings can have ethics; so why you would expect a process to have ethics is beyond me. You may as well be complaining that walking has no ethics, or that gravity has no ethics...

Therefore it is the scientists who are either philosophical or religious, or both, who are the driving forces of these ethics issues.

Not really, although I'm sure many of the scientists who were involved (that was largely before my time) did have religious backgrounds or beliefs.

The main reason why scientific ethics began was necessity. For example, in my filed of biology it was found that stress (i.e. pain) really screws up experiments. That's why scientists first began using analgesics/anaesthetics. Even today it is the primary standard - what degree of intervention is required to avoid stress-related issues, while minimizing the impact of the intervention itself. The touchy-feelie stuff came after, and even today, remains a minor consideration.

That said, the requirements to ensure scientific integridy usually exceed what people would expect out of compassion several-fold. I cannot count on how many times we've had to exlplain to the "community representatives" on our ethics boards exactly why we go to the lengths we do.

Religions played little role in all of it - in fact, religious arguments were used in the 50's and 60's to rationalize not using analgesics and whatnot. Basically the whole god made earth for man, gave us dominion over all life, etc line of though. I'm unaware of any philosophical pinnings...

Because science itself is ethics free. Atoms and molecules and sub-atomic particles interact, but there are no ethics involved in this because these particles make no choices. They are simply matter and energy.

Firstly, atoms and molicules are not science - they are components of our universe. Science is the human process wherein we try to understand our universe, it is not the universe itself. If science had never been formulated, all of those atoms and molcules would have been going on doing their thing anyways; we just wouldn't have known about them.

Secondly, ethics, at many levels, is simply to codification of basic evolutionarily-derived social interactions. At the end of the day many things we consider to be ethical - faitfulness to ones mate and children, not engaging in anti-social behaviours (crime), and so forth, are nothing more then the evolutionarily-derived traits requited to have a social species. And, like most biological traits, our "morality" is ahrdly unqiue - simular "moralities" can be found in most social animals. The only difference is we can write ours down, or describe them as intilecutal concepts.

Bryan, you like to play games with words. That must amuse you. But certainly you must also be way too bright to believe what you are saying here.

I hardly play games with words - I tend to take them litterally. But at the end of the day many of your fundamental premices were wrong - science is derived from a philosophy and is the offspring of two specific philosophical movements. In many universities science remains a part of the philosophy departemnts, for reasons that are obvious to most. It is, at its core, a philosophy through which we understand the physical world.

Likewise, your idea that ethics can come only from religion or philosophy is dead wrong. Ethics (or morality if you prefer) is simply the behaviors encoded in our genes written out as intelectual concepts. Scentific study allowed us to understand where that all came from - and it predates the intelligence required to form either philosophies or religions.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

You must not be aware that devout Christians do not take drugs. [I would guess the same is true of devout anybody, whether Muslim, Hasidic Jews, and Buddhists as well.]

Really? Strange then that many Christians take sacramental wine during communion, which contains a potent CNS depressant. Or, for that matter, that many Christian communities have long histories of producing several products containing that same CNS depressant. Or, for that matter, that man Christians, Muslims, Jews and so forth engage in the frequent use of one of the the most addictive drugs known to man - tobacco.

BTW, when people list religions based on the old testament, why do they always ignore the druse?

Then there are the many religious movements in which psycoactive compounds are a component of their faith - rasta's as one newer example (and one who is derived largely from Christianity), many paleonative American faiths as an older example.

All of that said, I suspect you were referring more towards illegal drugs like cocain or heroin. Even there your premice falls flat - there are numerous stuies looking at religion and the use of illegal narctoics; and they all find pretty much the same thing regardless of where the studies are conducted. You may see small differences in age of first use between non-religious and religious individuals. By adulthood the effects of religion disappear. Overall, secular societies have the lowest rates of alcohol and drug abuse, with the highest rates of abuse found in the most devoutly religious westrn nations.

Drugs and narcotics do not go well with tech deco diving either.

Or with pretty much anything else that requires a brain.

Bryan

 

[BTravlin]

I wrote in an earlier post When each of us arrives at that point of our own transition when our bodies cease to function, you'll be shocked at how simple the goal of life really is and how insignificant discussions, beliefs, and affiliations truly are.



Sure, I'll share.

When you die you'll have a life review. This is a common experience among those whose heart has stopped and were later resuscitated. You'll understand that your existance is an incredible gift and that you made an astronomical number of decisions while you were on Earth. As you review each moment of your life from birth to death from a third party perspective, there will be only one question for you to contemplate. Putting that infinitely loving question into language is near impossible, but it will revolve around your contribution to the lives of those you touched and if you fully embraced and applied who you are without limitation.

Basically the only two life pursuits that encompass all one's efforts are Love and Knowledge. The goal is creation. So this infinitely loving question really focuses on what you created with your gift of existance. You'll feel what your actions created in others, in yourself, and the results of the ripples of those feelings as they expanded, touching life upon life. You'll view with perfect clarity what your personal creations accomplished. Whether a book, business, offspring, church or crime, you'll understand exactly what you created, its value and effect on others. You'll understand where you fell short and where you excelled. Contrary to many beliefs there will be no condemnation of you or your actions, only perfect understanding and clarity.

Science is the synonym for the pursuit of knowledge. Religion is the synonym for the pursuit of Love. Creation is the result of both.

And Philosophy? That is one's attempt to understand it all.

I appreciate you putting yourself out there, so to speak, with this. Religion seems to fill a void in people by answering why we are here or what our purpose is. Your revelation seems to be that our goal, or purpose, is the pursuit of love and knowledge resulting in creation. Can you expound further on this?