Is Jesus Lord?

[Jon Miller]

Faith in scientific progress is demonstratibly stupid.

JM

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You are using your disagreement with certain aspects of certain religions as an attack on religion as a whole.

Jon Miller

I think that you're basically doing the same, cherry picking the more favorable parts of religions and ignoring the large amount of bad that comes with them.
Sure, religions teach morals. However, many of the morals that many religions teach are malignant and harmful. The morals that are more universal and benevolent seem to me to be rationally based anyway, and can be derived from a secular philosophy.

[Jon Miller]

Scientific progress happens.. and when there is no longer apparatus to experiment on unknown things, or mathematics to model unknown things.. or unkown things to model or investigate.. then it will stop.

There is no reason to have faith in it, faith in it doesn't accomplish anything, there is no point.

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Faith in scientific progress is demonstratibly stupid.

JM

We have different conceptions of the term faith, I think.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I think that you're basically doing the same, cherry picking the more favorable parts of religions and ignoring the large amount of bad that comes with them.
Sure, religions teach morals. However, many of the morals that many religions teach are malignant and harmful. The morals that are more universal and benevolent seem to me to be rationally based anyway, and can be derived from a secular philosophy.

Once more, I am not discussing philosophy.

I am pointing out the foolishness of a beleif in science.

The Nazi's advanced science a lot.. didn't make them more moral.

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am pointing out the foolishness of a beleif in science.

The Nazi's advanced science a lot.. didn't make them more moral.

Jon Miller

Didn't make them less moral, either. As you said, they used it as a tool. Again, we're not using the term belief in the same way.

[Jon Miller]

Science is completely independent of use. Science has been used to invent a lot of things which have made life more pleasent for some people. Science has been used to invent a lot of things that have made life less pleasent for some people.

This will continue to be the case, as science is independent of results as they matter to humans.

To have beleif, that science the results of science will in the future somehow aid humans.. is to be blind to the past. Science is just gathering information about the universe.. nothing more, nothing less.

To attach moral worth to science, is to say that nuclear weapons, pollutants, torture techniques, etc.. are all good things.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

be‧lief  /bɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
[Origin: 1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (n. use of v.); r. ME bileave, equiv. to bi- be- + leave; cf. OE gelēafa (c. D geloof, G Glaube; akin to Goth galaubeins)]

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Didn't make them less moral, either. As you said, they used it as a tool. Again, we're not using the term belief in the same way.

Then we are getting once more to my earlier point.

There is no reason to have faith in science. To have beleif in science. It doesn't gain you anything, it doesn't claim to gain you anything. What is there to have faith in? What is there to have beleif in?

Is it that science can explain everything in the natural universe? Fine, I agree, that takes faith. That takes beleif.

Why you would want to have this beleif, this faith.. when it gains you nothing, doesn't make sense to me.

It's not like it could add to your life, or do anything positive for you.

JM

[Jon Miller]

And it also isn't like it has any relationship to having beleif in a religion.

Sure, it might if the only reason you have beleif in religion is to explain why stars exist, or something. But most developed religions have gotten past that point long ago.

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Let me put it this way, and please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your point:

Your use the term "Scientism," and the way in which you have been using the terms belief and faith, lead me to conclude that you think people like me put some fetishtic "belief" in science in the void of our lives where religious belief is supposed to be. Science is our dogma, much like Christianity is to a Christian.

If that's so, then therein lies our disagreement. For me, the void's not there. I don't feel unfufilled. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. In fact, I'm a pretty happy guy. I don't need religion, and I can't really understand it. It's just not there for me, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything by its abscence.

I view science like you do: as a tool. I have used a hammer to hammer in nails in the past. It has proved useful. I have faith that, if I need to hammer in nails, my hammer will help me do the job.

Likewise, empiricism has helped humanity to solve problems, to answer questions, and to advance man's tecnological level in the past. It has proved to be a useful tool/framework. I have faith that the tool of empiricism will continue to be useful for humanity in a continuing process of solving problems, answering questions, and advancing technology.

That's the best way that I can think of to explain my "belief" in science.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It's not like it could add to your life, or do anything positive for you.

JM

I don't think that people can "want" to have religious faith or belief. They either have it or they don't.

[Jon Miller]

It's the beleif that a tool can solve your problems which I fine lacking.

The tool is just there, it can be used to solve problems or to make more problems. It is independent of it's use.

That is what I feel that you are lacking understanding with. The tool isn't moral, it isn't something to beleive in.

Advancing technology can make things a hell hole, or make things great. But it doesn't promise to do either. That is up to humans, and is based upon our weaknesses, logic, philosophy, faith, and ideals.

Science won't change that. Having a new tool will not make life better, or anything of that sort.

You know that hundreds of years ago, it was possible for a society to exist where people didn't have to work much, everyone had the neccesities of life, etc..? Just as it is possible today.

Technology has shown itself to be a deadend, as far as those who believe in it are concerned. To continue to beleive in it today is just the same as any other failed philosophy. Religion has not been shown to fail. It has failed in cases, to be sure, but it is much broader.. and less specified then the beleif in science.

The reason why I hate scientism.. is because it makes science into this mystical thing, which it isn't. It takes science away from the ordered, logical exporation of our natural world, and makes it into some mystical search for Truth. This isn't scientific, this isn't what has been successful for the last couple hundred years.. this is harmful to science. It is an ugly path that will lead to decay, and at it's obvious failure, a distancing by all from it's practive and ideals.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I think that science has much more to fear from those to beleive in it, then from all the creationists, IDists, and natural medicine groups combined.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Btw, you still at William and Mary? Or am I confusing you with some other W person.

JM