clipka wrote:
> Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at giving
> guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral aspects.
> At best it can lead me to try to achieve what *I* think is best, even if those
> thoughts happen to be total rubbish.
> 

Hmm. I seem to remember someone commenting some where something like.. 
"descriptive, not proscriptive". So, sure. Its really really bad at 
giving guidance for, what I presume, you mean to be "social" actions 
(Mind, this isn't always the case. For example, the *proper* social 
action among some groups is to teach abstinence, yet, the **effective** 
social action is to hit the idiot advocating this over the head and bury 
the body. lol) In any case, the problem here isn't that science can't 
say anything about such actions, but rather that it can't, without a 
clear understanding of the social contexts, and the thought processes of 
those involved, which if you had them, would let you make predictions, 
both of *if* a given solution would be accepted at all, or if it would 
work at all. And, sometimes, it can say that even without those details, 
because, quite frankly, much of societies delusions are based on how we 
would like to be, not on how we "are", so its fairly predictable as to 
the outcome when "are" comes into direct conflict with "want", and one 
of the two has to give in.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at 
>> giving
>> guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral 
>> aspects.
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> In any case, religion isn't any better at providing moral guidance.
> 

I would argue that, in most respects, it is worse. Why? Because the key 
feature of science is, "You could be wrong.", while the key feature of 
religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it 
is automatically wrong." Its why science, in 200 years, gave us space 
shuttles, while religions in 2,000 gave us... well, not much of 
anything, since most of the stuff one can attribute to purely 
"religious" thinking, like prayer, homeopathy, natural cures, etc. are 
just variations on the same tried and failed ideas. All you get is 
"repackaging", never anything *new*. There is no qualitative difference 
between, "laying on of hands" and "therapeutic touch". The only 
difference between "old" religious concepts and new ones is the trend to 
gobble on science words, in an attempt to legitimize what didn't work 
2,000 years ago, any more than it works now. The actual methods, ideas, 
prescriptions, and even excuses haven't changed, even if *what* they are 
applied to has shifted slightly.

In reality, religions are defined by the current morals, or they fail, 
or fight to violently to try to survive anyway, while the world changes 
around them. But, in the later two cases, their "moral claims" are 
meaningless, since the whole reason they failed, or are failing, is 
because no one follows them any more. The rest, change *religion* to fit 
*morality*, not the other way around. But, inevitably, the failure to 
recognize this leads what ever new variation arises to find itself in 
the "fight or die" camp, eventually, when the rest of the world either 
becomes more stable, or more irrational, than what ever "absolute moral 
code" the religion claims to be following as a description of how to 
properly live.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a6f1f7e$1@news.povray.org...
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> My favorite quote:
>>> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
>> I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote
>> better, myself.
>>
>> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles.
>> When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the
>> same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me.
>> Maybe that's just me, tho.
> 
> Ironically, religions provide the antithesis of some of the arguments of the
> anti-conspiracy theorists, in that while it's near impossible to make
> everyone believe the story, with a little bit of luck, it's relatively easy
> to fool the majority for centuries at a time, and it needn't even take that
> much logistics and effort. Of course failure rate of religions is high
> enough and results are not fully predictable, so it's not the ideal model to
> plant a conspiracy surely and speedily.
> 
Well, the issue there is, religions deal with the intangible and 
undefinable, by conspiring to provide, tangible and definable 
characteristics to them, and they do this based on a fear of the 
unknown. If people where scared to death of space aliens from the dark 
matter parts of the universe coming here to eat them, they would fall 
for the conspiracy just as effectively, as long as it told them how to 
*avoid* getting eaten with everyone else, and they would do almost 
anything to get that result. The problem most other conspiracy theories 
have is that they attempt to invent the silly and insane, to describe 
events in the "real world", for which it is possible to define, 
describe, or give evidence of the reality of the situation, and where 
only their own cherry picked bits of wacky point to what they think it does.


-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> while the key feature of 
> religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it 
> is automatically wrong." 

Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If people where scared to death of space aliens from the dark 
> matter parts of the universe coming here to eat them, 

That would be Scientology.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> I would argue that, in most respects, it is worse. Why? Because the key
> feature of science is, "You could be wrong.", while the key feature of
> religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it
> is automatically wrong."

I disagree.

You may be right with some religions, and indeed most particularly with those we
typically think of when we hear "religion": christianity, islam, and judaism.
Most likely all monotheistic religions, for that matter.

From what I know, however, Buddhism for instance is quite a *lot* about *not*
knowing answers, and I guess they're even a lot better than science at dealing
with the concept of absence of an answer; they even have a dedicated word to
represent a non-answer (somethig like "NULL" in C ;)): "Mu".

I'd also guess that so-called "natural religions" are much less focused on being
right or wrong.


Also, I'm not talking about who was more effective at putting a man on the moon.
I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
like. And I'm asking the question whether the thing we're aiming for with
science is really *good*.

Not that I'd have an answer to this question. But I think it is legitimate to
ask, given the existing evidence.

Maybe an "explanatory" model of the world that focuses on moral lessons instead
of predictions might be of more benefit to mankind. Such a model would have no
need for being perfectly rational. If such a model attributed spirits to each
and everything to teach us respect for the world around us and each other, then
that would be perfectly legitimate.

Again, I'm not trying to give an answer here - rather ask a question, with my
point being that it's a question that science cannot answer either, although it
touches the very foundation of science's claim of superiority above religion.

In other words, science is founded on blind faith that technological advancement
is inherently good. So far, this has yet to be proven, and there is reason to
assume that it is *impossible* to prove. Therefore, science is just another
religion - q.e.d.


And just in case someone is about to claim that at least nobody has ever
committed cruelties in the name of science: Open your eyes.

Animals are tortured in the name of medicine, for instance.

And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
- driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.

Science led utterly astray, for sure. But just the same can be said in defense
of chrisitianity with respect to the crusades. And the same can be said in
defense of islam with respect to terrorism.


So much for the superiority of science.

Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it's bad. Maybe it's the best religion
mankind has ever invented. All I'm saying is that it bears all characteristics
of a religion itself.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
> exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
> waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
> like. 

Versus the alternative of famine, plague, and so on. You think there was no 
overcrowding in the dark ages? No using up all the available natural 
resources leading to widespread famine?  Granted, we had less radioactive 
waste, but that's not saying much.

> Maybe an "explanatory" model of the world that focuses on moral lessons instead
> of predictions might be of more benefit to mankind.

Science does this. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that radioactive 
waste and global warming is *bad*, would you?  Without the continued 
advancement of science, you'd have no idea whether that is good or bad, even 
if you knew about it.

> Such a model would have no
> need for being perfectly rational. If such a model attributed spirits to each
> and everything to teach us respect for the world around us and each other, then
> that would be perfectly legitimate.

How would you decide what's good and bad if it's fictional spirits teaching 
you that? How do you know euthanasia is good or bad, birth control is good 
or bad, without actually basing it in the facts of the results?

> Again, I'm not trying to give an answer here - rather ask a question, with my
> point being that it's a question that science cannot answer either,

Of course it can. You have to decide what your goal is, i.e., what you 
consider "good", and then science tells you how to achieve that. Religion 
doesn't answer either question.

> In other words, science is founded on blind faith that technological advancement
> is inherently good. 

Of course it isn't, or you wouldn't have given the list of "bad 
technological advancements" above.

In any case, science isn't technology. Science is a method of finding 
answers that you can apply to the real world. Without science, religion has 
no power to tell you how to behave well, even if it was right about what 
goals you have.

In other words, if your religion says "happiness is good", it's science that 
tells you how to obtain happiness.

> So far, this has yet to be proven, and there is reason to
> assume that it is *impossible* to prove. Therefore, science is just another
> religion - q.e.d.

Straw man.

> Animals are tortured in the name of medicine, for instance.

So, does your religion say it's better to experiment with new drugs on 
animals, experiment with new drugs on humans, or just let sick people die 
for a lack of new drugs?

> And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
> considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
> - driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
> Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.

That wasn't science.

> Science led utterly astray, for sure. 

While they did do some awful experiments on humans, it wasn't science that 
gassed tens of millions of people.

While they did do some awful experiments on humans, at least they didn't 
torture any animals!

> So much for the superiority of science.

Straw man.

> Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it's bad. Maybe it's the best religion
> mankind has ever invented. All I'm saying is that it bears all characteristics
> of a religion itself.

No, really, it doesn't. You just don't know what science actually is.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the 
>> fundamentals of",
>> whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise 
>> violence
>> against those who disagree with his beliefs"
> 
> And yet, those two things are the same for many fundamentalists.
> 
I think you have simply accepted the media usage of the term. :)There's 
no real connection
between believing in the fundamentals of something and being violent 
about it. Most, probably
all, scientist believe in the fundamentals of physics, but few of them 
are violent about it. I suppose
I have accepted the media usage too, although I believe the fundamentals 
of Christianity, I
would now hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist.  "Fundamentalist" 
and "fundamentalist" have been
destroyed as useful descriptive terms and become largely pejorative. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
> > exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
> > waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
> > like.
>
> Versus the alternative of famine, plague, and so on. You think there was no
> overcrowding in the dark ages? No using up all the available natural
> resources leading to widespread famine?  Granted, we had less radioactive
> waste, but that's not saying much.

.... and, in absolute numbers, there were less people suffering.

Which one does count - the number of people living a happy life? the number of
people leading a miserable one? or maybe it's irrelevant?

Science cannot tell us that.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms much abused by the
>> media.
>> It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the
>> fundamentals of",
>> whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise violence
>> against those who disagree with his beliefs"
> 
> That's what I'd call "radical" (though they're typically also fundamentalists).

"Radical" is another media buzz-word that has come to have little 
descriptive
meaning.

> 
>> For instance, the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism
>> is the acceptance of Jesus as divine.
> 
> A bit more than that, to all I know; Judaism does not even acknowledge Jesus as
> a prophet (which, for instance, Islam does).

I think you are right, but they could accept him as a prophet 
misunderstood or misrepresented
by the christians with little or no change in their beliefs.

> There's also strong dissent about the position whether the Mosaic rituals are
> still binding; Jews are obviously convinced that this was the case, and even
> many of the earliest Christians (who were Jews after all) seem to have
> continued, and partially even insisted on, this tradition, while Paulus seems
> to have taught otherwise among the Gentile christians (though he also seemed to
> have strongly opposed the position that it was particularly *bad* to follow
> those old rituals). And the thing is of course complicated further by various
> christian sub-groups having introduced their own rituals instead (which
> apparently were often adapted versions of older traditions).

I think this is all true.

> 
>> A lot that many christians believe about Satan,
>> heaven, angels, etc. is,
>> I think, accumulated tradition. Of course some no doubt regard the who
>> of christian belief as
>> accumulated tradition.
> 
> That's a very difficult topic, because a lot can be interpreted into the bible,
> so it's hard to tell which is true christian, and which is heathen tradition
> projected onto biblical terminology and the like.
Also true.

David :)

Post a reply to this message