Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > because you don't like it being called a religion, and thrown from
> > its steeple.
>
> You're so cute when you're trying to justify yourself.

??

Man, you're so far off the mark.

What would there be for me to justify?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You're using it wrong. Science isn't technology. Science isn't terminology.
> Science isn't "what the nazis said it was."

Science is a way of looking at the world.
It was taken by the Nazis - assuming their "race" to be the fittest - as a call
to action they should go out and ensure survival of this fittest race.

Just like christianity is a way of looking at the world.
It was taken by the crusaders as a call to action that they should go out and
free Jerusalem from the "heathen hordes".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're using it wrong. Science isn't technology. Science isn't terminology.
>> Science isn't "what the nazis said it was."
> 
> Science is a way of looking at the world.

Yes.

> It was taken by the Nazis - assuming their "race" to be the fittest - as a call
> to action they should go out and ensure survival of this fittest race.

That isn't science.  It's using some buzzwords from science to motivate 
people to a political end.  I mean, really.  "Darwin says that when an 
environment changes, individuals who the change affects negatively will 
leave fewer descendants. Therefore, we should invade Poland."  That just 
isn't science. Darwinism doesn't say "you should try to ensure the survival 
of the fittest." Indeed, the Nazis, by invading Poland, ensured that they 
changed the environment to one in which they could no longer survive, 
defeating their very purpose.

You can use *anything* as a justification. "Mother Teresa wanted to end 
suffering, therefore we should shoot sick babies." That doesn't mean 
Christianity encourages infanticide.  (You have to look elsewhere in 
Christianity to find that justification.)

> Just like christianity is a way of looking at the world.
> It was taken by the crusaders as a call to action that they should go out and
> free Jerusalem from the "heathen hordes".

And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this 
is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the 
difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
> > of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,
>
> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading Russia
> was?

As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was along the
same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the motto of
that.

> Darwin talked about natural selection and changes between generations.
> How does that equate to killing millions of people based on their religion?

Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
different in this respect?

That's actually hypocrisy.

> Again, just because the nazis claimed it was science doesn't mean it was any
> more science than throwing witches in the lake to see if they sink was
> scientific.

.... neither do I find any reference in the Bible of Jesus mention anything of
throwing witches in lakes, and still the middle ages are frequently taken as an
argument against christianity.

If actions committed with reference to christian teachings are considered valid
evidence against christianity, then actions committed with reference to
scientific teaching must be considered valid evidence against science - or am I
missing some important point here?

I'm quite sure that Hitler got Darwin's teachings perfectly wrong, but I'm sure
the crusaders and witch hunters din't get Jesus' teachings perfectly right
either.


> But religion (in general) doesn't provide moral guidance either.

Even leaving aside that this is far from true for virtually all religions I know
of, it would in no way contradict my point.

It seems to me that you think I'm trying to defend religion against science, but
I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that science possesses
all traits of a religion as well.


> It just
> states "this is good, that is bad" without saying how to achieve that
> goodness, how to avoid the badness, or why anything would be good or bad. It
> gives a fiat as to how you should behave without explanation or evidence.
>
> Science isn't good or bad. It's a way of figuring out how the world works.
> You have to decide whether it's good or bad.  Unfortunately, religion isn't
> the way to do this, since it's irrational and therefore ungrounded in
> reality. Once you ground it in reality, it is *ta daaah* science.

Why is irrationality bad and rationality good? What makes you think knowing that
doing X will get you from A to B is superior to just knowing that doing X (or
maybe actually Y) is the right thing to do? If nobody can tell you whether
being at B is really a good thing, knowing how to get there doesn't seem to add
much substantial benefit. Maybe being busy finding out how to get to B may
instead actually distract you from the question whether you really want to go
to B?

I think the disciples of science employ a circular argument regarding the
alleged superiority of rationality.


I'll stick with it: From what I see, science possesses every feature of a
religion. Not in the theories it develops, but in its very foundations. I do
repeat my plead here to not get me wrong: It may be the best religion to be had
so far. But I cannot be perfectly sure about that.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this
> is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the
> difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.

"Thou shalt not be irrational."

So that doesn't constitute telling what to do?

There: A religion, still. And a sort of monotheistic one, too.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this
>> is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the
>> difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.
> 
> "Thou shalt not be irrational."

Science doesn't tell you not to be irrational. Science is a technique for 
getting to the answers of how the world works. It's not proscriptive, but 
descriptive.

Science doesn't say "don't be irrational."  Science says "if you're 
irrational, you'll have less luck figuring out how the world works, and you 
won't be doing science."

I haven't seen any scientist tell you not to fall in love at first sight 
*because* it would be unscientific to do so.

> There: A religion, still. And a sort of monotheistic one, too.

Nice try, but no cigar.

-- 
   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

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
>>> of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,
>> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
>> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading Russia
>> was?
> 
> As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was along the
> same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the motto of
> that.

Neither had anything to do with Darwin or evolution. Nazis merely claimed 
they did. Nazis lied. What a surprise.

>> Darwin talked about natural selection and changes between generations.
>> How does that equate to killing millions of people based on their religion?
> 
> Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
> associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
> different in this respect?

I've noticed you've carefully avoided actually answering the question.

Because it wasn't the scientific leaders of the world saying it was 
scientific to invade Russia?  It was the politicians, using the buzzwords of 
science. And that's called an "et tu" fallacy, thanks.

When the scientists generally agree that natural variation and selection 
causes evolution, and then that causes some sort of result, that's science. 
When some pope says that jesus would want you to invade a foreign country, 
that's religion, even if it isn't *jesus's* religion. When some *scientist* 
says you should invade a foreign country, that isn't science unless you 
follow the scientific method in determining that you should.

I don't think anyone blames the crusades on Jesus. They just blame them on 
religion. Why are you blaming the Nazi's on Darwin if you're not blaming the 
crusades on Jesus?  And how do you *know* Jesus didn't want the crusades? He 
*did* mention it to the pope, after all.

> That's actually hypocrisy.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Science is about how the world works regardless of peoples' emotions. 
Religion is about peoples' emotions and how to work them.

>> Again, just because the nazis claimed it was science doesn't mean it was any
>> more science than throwing witches in the lake to see if they sink was
>> scientific.
> 
> .... neither do I find any reference in the Bible of Jesus mention anything of
> throwing witches in lakes,

Who's talking about Jesus? I'm talking about Salem, and how drowning people 
isn't a scientific method for detecting witches, no matter the propaganda. 
The religious leaders who were drowning the witches weren't practicing 
science in doing so any more than the nazis invading russia were practicing 
science in doing so.

> and still the middle ages are frequently taken as an
> argument against christianity.

I've lost track of what you're trying to say. Are you saying the middle ages 
were not bad? I think I'd disagree with that. Are you saying the church 
wasn't a major factor in the social and scientific environment during the 
middle ages? I think I'd disagree with that as well.

> If actions committed with reference to christian teachings are considered valid
> evidence against christianity, then actions committed with reference to
> scientific teaching must be considered valid evidence against science - or am I
> missing some important point here?

You're missing the important point of who is telling you about the 
teachings.  If Sam Jones next door tells me about what Jesus wants Catholics 
to do, I'm going to take it as less authoritative than if the Pope does.

Hitler didn't do any science. Pope Gregory did inquisitions. Hitler did, 
however, control the nazis. I think if you tried to argue that Hitler wasn't 
to blame for the invasion of russia, but only his army was, I'd have to 
wonder if you're playing silly buggers with me or something. But Hitler 
blaming the holocaust on Darwin is like Gregory blaming the inquisitions on 
Jesus.

Here's two more points you're missing:

1) That someone blames the Catholics for the inquisition doesn't mean 
science is a religion, even if it does some of the same things. (Which you 
haven't convinced me it does.)

2) Science is, by design, susceptible to peer review. You don't have 
"authoritative" scientists whose opinions are accepted in spite of contrary 
evidence. There is no scientist who will tell you what the right answer is 
that you cannot confirm or dispute for yourself. Why? Because science is 
grounded in reality, and religion is grounded in authority.



> I'm quite sure that Hitler got Darwin's teachings perfectly wrong, but I'm sure
> the crusaders and witch hunters din't get Jesus' teachings perfectly right
> either.

Oddly enough, that's why science wins. When Hitler gets Darwin wrong, we can 
look at it and say "Gee, that's not science."  When Pope Gregory gets Jesus' 
teachings wrong, we can't say "Gee, that's not catholicism."  See the 
difference?

How can you know if the witch hunters got Jesus' teaching right? He *did* 
say to murder witches. How can you tell whether they're right, or you're 
right, 1600 years after he's dead, and all you have left is contradictory 
quotations?

>> But religion (in general) doesn't provide moral guidance either.
> 
> Even leaving aside that this is far from true for virtually all religions I know
> of, it would in no way contradict my point.

Religions don't provide moral guidance. They merely tell you what to do.

> It seems to me that you think I'm trying to defend religion against science, but
> I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that science possesses
> all traits of a religion as well.

Except for the faith part, the telling you how to behave part, and the 
authority figures, and the supernatural events.

I'll grant that *some* religions are closer to science than others.

>> It just
>> states "this is good, that is bad" without saying how to achieve that
>> goodness, how to avoid the badness, or why anything would be good or bad. It
>> gives a fiat as to how you should behave without explanation or evidence.
>>
>> Science isn't good or bad. It's a way of figuring out how the world works.
>> You have to decide whether it's good or bad.  Unfortunately, religion isn't
>> the way to do this, since it's irrational and therefore ungrounded in
>> reality. Once you ground it in reality, it is *ta daaah* science.
> 
> Why is irrationality bad and rationality good?

Who said it is? Not science or scientists. Irrationality is only bad *for 
doing science*.

 > What makes you think knowing that
> doing X will get you from A to B is superior to just knowing that doing X (or
> maybe actually Y) is the right thing to do?

How do you know that doing X is the right thing to do in situation A unless 
you know it'll get you to situation B instead of situation C?

Look, OK, let's say your religion tells you that getting to B is good, and 
you're at A. And getting to C is a bad thing. OK?

Now, does your religion tell you how to get to B from A? If not, what good 
is telling you that you want to be at B? How do you avoid going to C if you 
don't know how to get to B? Why would you trust someone who doesn't know how 
to get to B from A and isn't at B to tell you how to get there yourself? If 
bringing happiness to many people is "good" according to your religion, how 
do you know that (say) executing gay people is or isn't making them happier? 
If going to heaven is tremendously good, doesn't that offset a bit of 
torture now to get people to convert?

Does it tell you *why* being at B is good? If not, what good is your 
religion? You're just accepting what someone else tells you is good for no 
reason. How do you apply that same reasoning to many different situations?

"Turn the other cheek." Why? What good does it do? Or is it intrinsically 
"good" because you told me so? Just like the faithful like asking "why" 
until the scientist says "we don't know", it's easy to ask "why" about 
goodness until the faithful says "we don't know."

> If nobody can tell you whether
> being at B is really a good thing, knowing how to get there doesn't seem to add
> much substantial benefit.

Yes? And? Or by "nobody" do you mean "no scientists"? Or "no faithful"?

 > Maybe being busy finding out how to get to B may
> instead actually distract you from the question whether you really want to go
> to B?

Why would you be researching how to get to B if you didn't want to go to B?

> I think the disciples of science employ a circular argument regarding the
> alleged superiority of rationality.

It's only superior for figuring out how the world works. If you're 
uninterested in controlling your own fate, improving the lot of yourself or 
others, and uninterested in knowing *how* to do the good your religion tells 
you to do, then you don't need to be rational at all.

Rationality is certainly superior for learning about how the world works. It 
tells you little about what is good or bad morally speaking. It's possible 
your religion tells you that pain and suffering is good (because it's a test 
of faith, perhaps), that slavery is beneficial, that people of dark skin are 
subhuman, women are evil, everything good in your life comes from without, 
every failure in your life is your personal fault and something to be 
ashamed of, and so on.

Science can't tell you how to be good. It can only tell you how to be happy 
(or at least happier than you'd likely be without science). If healthy and 
happy is bad, then it's not going to help. If healthy and happy is good, 
then science certainly is superior to religion.

> I'll stick with it: From what I see, science possesses every feature of a
> religion. 

It lacks faith, morality (by your own words), deities, prophets, authority 
figures (to be distinguished from experts, mind), prayer, and elitism. 
Science says *nothing* about "good" or "bad", but only measures what is or 
is not. People who commit evil in the name of science are doing so in the 
name of science, or while performing science. But it's not science to say 
something is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense, and evil scientists don't 
make science itself evil.

Caveat: Evolution says things can be "good" for a species, like adaptability 
and a tendency not to eat all your own babies, for example. Not "morally" 
good, tho.

Caveat: Some scientific experiments can be evil, such as some of the 
*actual* science the nazis did (like measuring how hard you can hit someone 
on the head before they get brain damage, etc). That doesn't mean science is 
evil, but that scientists are doing something evil. Just like a bishop 
raping an alter boy (probably) isn't doing it for religious purposes, but 
merely is an evil religious person.

I don't think irrationality is morally bad. I don't think religion is 
morally bad. I think many of the faithful are also evil to a greater or 
lesser extent, generally greater the more they try to enforce their faith on 
others via violence.

> Not in the theories it develops, but in its very foundations.

THIS:

What do you think are the foundations of science? I suppose "knowledge is 
better than ignorance" might be one element taken on faith, in some sense, 
except that seems to be empirically true if you assume happiness is "better" 
than suffering. "Repeatability is better for gaining knowledge than 
anecdote" is another, but again it seems to be empirically true, as it leads 
to technology whereas anecdotes don't. "Non-falsifiable hypotheses are not 
useful" also seems to be born out by empirical evidence. "There's an actual 
universe out there" is something I guess you'd have to take on faith, altho 
Decartes thinks he solved that problem too and even came to the conclusion 
that the YHVH is out there looking out for him starting from the hypothesis 
of "I know nothing for sure."

So, what are you actually thinking is science's "very foundations"? 
Certainly not "technological progress is always good", since science isn't 
technology and I have heard of many scientists who (for example) regret 
having developed the atom bomb. Indeed, a great number of scientists right 
now think that global warming is a bad thing.

I think this is the source of our disagreement here. I'm looking at science 
as "the scientific method of observation and experimentation, falsifiable 
hypotheses, and peer review, and the body of knowledge gained therefrom."

-- 
   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

clipka wrote:
> Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
> associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
> different in this respect?

Actually, I guess you might be asserting that you believe the pope, the 
cardinals, and the inquisitors weren't really religious after all, or that 
they were torturing people not because of any sort of religious belief. I 
think I'd ask you to actually provide some evidence that the pope *isn't* 
catholic, tho, to coin a phrase.

-- 
   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:
> 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.
> 
Ok, minor point, but not always true. Hindu isn't mono-theistic, yet it 
still manages to generate nuts that think the solution to catching up 
with the US is "Vedic Science" and "Alchemy", and that the western 
versions of science are all "wrong", because they don't embrace total BS.

-- 
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

clipka wrote:
> 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".
> 

Budhism would have been OK, except someone found a way to turn it into a 
monotheism and ignore the bits about "don't trust anything, not even 
these teachings."

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

Uh.. Yeah. Was tempted to look into those, and "some" of the concepts in 
them are not all that bad. The problem is, its religion for people that 
want to be half right, but deny hard realities, because it doesn't make 
them "feel" good to accept them. Case in point, there was one guy I knew 
who had the shit scared out of him in a ritual designed to make him 
"confront" his own inner demons. The method gives rise to sort of 
hallucinations, and any fool can tell you that, if the person isn't 
prepared to accept they have a problem, making them confront it is 
likely to have the opposite effect. In this case, he rejected his 
mothers religion, and started talking to the local Demon believing 
Christian group, who convinced him he had barely escaped Satan's 
clutches. In principle, the idea isn't unlike phobia therapy methods, 
which expose a person to the thing they fear, or other methods used to 
help them *get to* the point where they deal with the real issues. 
Problem is, its cloaked in magic rattles, wax candles, and what ever 
else, and if done wrong, the result is worse than the disease. But, try 
to tell any of them that, and...

> 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*.
> 
Science didn't lead to any of those things. Science has been telling 
people since the 20s that, "We will run out of oil.", "We need better 
energy sources.", "We need better vehicles.", "We need better public 
transportation.", "We need better methods of preserving and growing 
food.", etc. The **problem** has always been that the people seeking 
profit only listen when it makes them money, and when it doesn't, they 
find someone with poor understanding of their own science, or a 
willingness to be bribed, or belonging to the same religious cult (who 
insist that god gave them dominion, and would never allow 'man' to 
destroy the world), to give them a different, and *wrong* opinion. If 
someone tells you the well is poisoned, because he tested it in a lab, 
and it will kill you in five years, but you opt to find some moron that 
doesn't know how to do the correct tests, and they find no "known to 
them" poisons, and tell you, "It won't have any effect", then you opt to 
listen to the later one, because you are opening a bottling plant, then 
its "humanity" that has failed you, not the science.

> 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.
> 
No it wouldn't, since the moment someone worked out that spirits where 
not real, one of two things would happen. You "morally upstanding" kook 
would have the guy proving it put to death, to protect their position, 
or people would start questioning if any of it was valid at all, no 
matter how "moral" the system was that you came up with. Only something 
based on an understanding of what it is to be human, an animal, and what 
you *want* to make better, will give you a real moral system. Anything 
based on nonsense and invisible creatures falls prey to people making 
shit up that isn't moral, denying it *based* on the fact that the thing 
in question isn't real, or just flat out failing to come up with a moral 
system that is "actually" moral, even in the sense of what humans are.

Example: How many societies through history, with or without multiple 
gods, or one god, or no god, managed to recognize that being gay was 
"normal"? Maybe 5%? Why is ours any different? Because we have a lot of 
evidence that suggest its BS to consider it "not normal". Yet, some 
still attack the idea based, not on science, but on tradition, gut 
feelings about how they themselves are, and most commonly, religion.


> 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.
> 
Sigh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There was a belief that races where 
"superior" to each other long before Darwin. Darwin's own theory 
"disproved" the idea of such superiority, placing humans, never mind any 
races, not at the pinnacle of change, but just some more or less equally 
changed point, along with pigeons, fleas, rats, and cockroaches. There 
was a guy named Lemark, who "did" advocate such an "evolution advances 
towards a single goal", but like Hitler's version, it was based on the 
religious ideal that man was "above" everything else, not equal to it. 
In reality, Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler at all, the ideas 
Hitler followed where more like Lemark's than Darwin's, and they existed 
for centuries prior to either of them writing about evolution. But, and 
this is a key issue, Hitler was also a believer in some wacko Sci-Fi 
called "The Coming Man", which advocated a hollow earth, and people more 
advanced than surface dwellers, and possessed of a psychic power so 
great that "children" with it could theoretically destroy worlds with 
it. He believed that Atlantis was a colony of these people, and that 
Aryans where descendants of them. Worse, there is even evidence to 
suggest that many children of "lesser races", who disappeared in 
Germany, during his power, died in rituals intended to "generate" this 
Vril energy.

The guy was a nutcase, who surrounded himself with other nut cases, and 
he would have, given his beliefs, had he had the change, probably would 
have elevated Lemark to a high position, and had Darwin shot for calling 
him no better than a slightly different kind of monkey.

Science had nothing to do with driving this morons ideas, other than 
that it because a convenient tool for them. Same with the morons in the 
US with Eugenics. It was religions and belief in superiority of races 
*first*, and science only second. You might as well blame a knife for 
choosing to stab someone, instead of slicing bread. No one was listening 
to the science, except when they thought it said what they wanted it to. 
Nor where any of them willing to wait, to make sure it *did* say what 
they lept to claim it did.

-- 
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