Sex & God & Rock & Roll
Actually scientists usually need politicians.
Erp. That's what I was going to say!
I don't see what politicians have got to do with this post. Unless scientists are completely devoid of self awareness and function as robots.My point is simple. The talking heads of scientism accuse religion of being responsible for all that is bad. But, throughout the ages, it has been scientists who have invented the means to do harm to others, especially in the last 200 years. If Dorkins et al want to accuse all religion for the acts of individuals then the religious should be allowed to accuse all scientists in the same way. Alternatively, Dorkins et al could stop talking like uneducated chavs and accuse just those who have caused harm and accept that individual scientists have also caused harm.Basically I'm saying that if scientism replaces religion we will be in a worse position (as 20th. Century politics proves). Worse, because scientists have the capability to cause more damage (also proved by recent history).
RE: "If Dorkins et al want to accuse all religion for the acts of individuals then the religious should be allowed to accuse all scientists in the same way. Alternatively, Dorkins et al could stop talking like uneducated chavs and accuse just those who have caused harm and accept that individual scientists have also caused harm."A-freakin'-men!!
Well, it'd be my guess that the politicians come in at the point where the scientist goes to the government (also known as "sugar daddy") looking for some grant money to do research on. They never have their own money. That, and governments buy, in huge quantities, the destructive implements that scientists invent. Like the Apache helicopter, for example. Or the A-10 Thunderbolt, which is a Gatling gun that comes with its own plane accessory. That kind of thing.But that's just my guess.
I agree with you, Tracie. But it is going beyond the point of this post. I don't say that scientists kill people. I say that they have a greater potential for destruction because of their knowledge. Therefore, replacing religion with science will have the potential of being a bigger danger to humanity than the huge danger it faces, and has always faced, from religion.I'm not saying that we should get rid of science in the same way that many scientists say we should get rid of religion. That would make me as bad as the popes who have persecuted scientists in the past. However, seemingly incapable of complex thought, Dorkins et al are attempting the opposite without realising the irony of the similarity between themselves and religious rulers who have claimed infallibility in the past.
I love this 'thought' just as it is. It speaks volumes in so few words.Thanks, MP
You definitely have a point there.(And I agree with the cajun.)
RE: "I say that they have a greater potential for destruction because of their knowledge. Therefore, replacing religion with science will have the potential of being a bigger danger to humanity than the huge danger it faces, and has always faced, from religion."Amen to that. I am so going to throw this up into the face of Mike, my atheist coworker, who believes religion is the biggest blight humanity has ever experienced.
Well, to give Mike his due he is probably right. My point is that scientism has the potential of being a much bigger blight. heck, true Christians have proved themselves completely ineffectual in controlling their despotic leaders. Why should good scientists be any better at controlling their power hungry leaders? When we have, in the past, suppressed religion because of political and/or philosophical ideals the results have been catastrophic.
Bear in mind that Mike talks to dead people, and that's why he doesn't believe in God. They have told him God doesn't exist.I guess this business of "religion = evil" reminds me too much of people who like to say things like "I'm spiritual, but not religious." That sets up a situation of elitism and hubris, like this: Relisious people = stupid, dumb, unintelligent, unenlightened, unspiritual, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are barely civilized enough to eat with a fork and to know what to do with toilet paper/bog roll when they manage to find their way to the restroom. Most of them just crap on the floor like an un-housebroken dog. Spiritual people = free-flowing, far more open-minded, enlightened, morally better, prettier, more intelligent, have smarter and nicer kids, earn more money, get higher grades in school, drive nicer cars and live in beautiful houses, fart rose scent, have true understanding of the entire universe since the beginning of time, never have a harsh word to say to anyone, never raise their voices to their perfect kids because, well, there's no need to because the kids are perfect...You get the idea. SERIOUSLY. I swear, this is the kind of snotty elitism I run into ALL THE TIME with people who claim to be "spiritual but not religious." A LOT of UUs are like this. A LOT of neo-pagans are like this. Personally, I think what they mean by "religion" when they say "I'm spiritual but not religious" is specifically Christianity, but they don't want to look like bigots ("like those poor bigoted anti-gay Christians over there") so they don't SAY "Christianity." They don't have the testicular fortitude/iron ovaries to just come out and say they're anti-Christian. They're covering it up. And at any rate, that kind of snobbery just doesn't seem to be very "spiritual" to me. Hello - tax collecters and Pharisees, anyone? Anyone?But apparently I'm the only one who sees this.
Science and engineering does provide more powerful tools both for good and for ill but it tends to be the politicians (among them the religious leaders) who say what to build and how to use them. This goes both ways. Science and engineering can come up with new medicines or beneficial tools assuming they are given the resources to develop them. There are engineers and doctors who could be helping in Haiti assuming the politicians led that way. Instead Haiti is having a cholera epidemic. Now yes we are responsible for our decisions, but, if most of the leaders including priests say yes you do whatever you can to advance the flag (whether of a religion or a nation), it takes a brave soul to say no. Some do, my uncle, an atheist and a physicist, was an early, active, and long term supporter of Pugwash.
Yes, Erp. And the Normans built great cathedrals wjilst they lay waste to the North.
That unresolved dualism can be a real bitch.....
"...fart rose scent..."Oh, Tracie! That's a hoot!
"Them" vs "Us", with a vengeance. Quite tiresome to those of who are, you know, ACTUAL scientists, doing actual science. Just as tiresome as you find it to be lumped in with Jerry Falwell types of "Christians". Because you're all alike, of course, and all similarly corrupt. Sigh.
If you had actually read the comments, IT, you will see this post is a response to being lumped in with with Jerry Falwell types of Christians. And anyway, Sam Harris started it and he's one of yours.
And so the war escalates as more and more on each side refuse to see the humanity of the other. Unfortunately the religious seem a bit more prone to that whether the other is gay, atheist, scientists or whatever though that might just be a reflection of the sheer number of religious people.
I agree, Erp. There's little to any point in engaging MP when he goes science bashing.
As I said, Sam Harris started it and he's one of yours, IT. If you think I'm going to roll over and show my stomach like your average lilly livered Christian every time some geek in a lab coat has a pop at my religion you are very much mistaken. And I will best them every time because they as philosophically crap as I am mathematically crap.
Probably right IT. Harris btw has a philosophy degree though Daniel Dennett is the big name philosopher among the crowd. I'm not sure what MP would make of a radio show by two philosophers on humanism.