Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Science rules
59 Answers
Amongst some there is an opinion that science will replace/destroy/make religion irrelevant.
Would this be a good thing?
Would allowing scientists to determine or espouse what's right for us be the way forward?
Do you trust a scientist to be right about things that can impact on your life?
Personally, I say no, sometimes I agree with a scientist, sometimes not, sometimes Ill agree with the Archbishop, sometimes not, is the world not big enough to fit in all our viewpoints with all the lively disagreements it should encourage?
Would this be a good thing?
Would allowing scientists to determine or espouse what's right for us be the way forward?
Do you trust a scientist to be right about things that can impact on your life?
Personally, I say no, sometimes I agree with a scientist, sometimes not, sometimes Ill agree with the Archbishop, sometimes not, is the world not big enough to fit in all our viewpoints with all the lively disagreements it should encourage?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think science will eventually make religion redundant, and yes, I do think it would be a good thing. Personally I don't feel the need to be led, so I don't understand why you would want anyone to determine the right way forward for you.
As for trusting scientists to be right, unlike religion, science isn't a black and white belief system that offers no evidence, so the question irrelevant.
Some viewpoints certainly encourage disagreements. Disagreements don't get much livelier(?) than 9/11!
As for trusting scientists to be right, unlike religion, science isn't a black and white belief system that offers no evidence, so the question irrelevant.
Some viewpoints certainly encourage disagreements. Disagreements don't get much livelier(?) than 9/11!
Everton, there will always be someone who needs to believe in something and a belief is quite handy to have as it does not necessarily depend upon facts........quite often the lesser the facts, the greater the belief.
Scientists on the whole are honest (well mostly)....a topic is investigated, results are collated and conclusions are are made........sometimes correct, sometimes debatable and sometimes illogical.
That to me is life Everton............and I do not look any deeper, as the above two paragraphs satisfy my earthly needs.
Scientists on the whole are honest (well mostly)....a topic is investigated, results are collated and conclusions are are made........sometimes correct, sometimes debatable and sometimes illogical.
That to me is life Everton............and I do not look any deeper, as the above two paragraphs satisfy my earthly needs.
But history is littered by scientific mistakes and even if you ignore them look at the other things on the horizon.
G.M foods, are they a good thing?
G.M organs from animals, is that a good thing?
I say no, but we could end up getting it anyway.
Look at the Nutt sacking, his science says drugs are kind of safe etc, most everyone else says no they are not.
To talk about being led, we are all led, we are led by government, we are led (to a lesser extent) by the media.
The Pope and Richard Dawkins are they not both leaders of opinion?
G.M foods, are they a good thing?
G.M organs from animals, is that a good thing?
I say no, but we could end up getting it anyway.
Look at the Nutt sacking, his science says drugs are kind of safe etc, most everyone else says no they are not.
To talk about being led, we are all led, we are led by government, we are led (to a lesser extent) by the media.
The Pope and Richard Dawkins are they not both leaders of opinion?
And history is also littered with religious atrocities and utter madness, Everton. Apart from that, I don't get your point about GM foods, etc. Do you expect your God to give you better advice on those things? If you do, don't hold your breath. He doesn't seem to have been around for at least a couple of thousand years, so he's not that forthcoming these days.
Yes, the Pope and Richard Dawkins are leaders of opinion, but Dawkins has evidence to support his - the Pope doesn't.
Yes, the Pope and Richard Dawkins are leaders of opinion, but Dawkins has evidence to support his - the Pope doesn't.
I wouldn't expect God to preside over G.M food, I don't want it, we don't need it I don't view it as safe, the scientists though disagree, similarly G.M organs, there are better options that should be utilised. Perhaps the relevant scientists engaged in the latter would find their time better spent on finding drugs to prevent organ rejection?
The Pope and Dawkins are specialists in their own fields, I saw Dawkins (briefly) on tele the other day and he was talking about animal anatomy and how their design gave the impression that it is how an engineer would do it.
My first thought was that he's putting the cart before the horse, animals predate engineers by some margin, the most successful feats of engineering and design copy nature, do they not?
The Pope and Dawkins are specialists in their own fields, I saw Dawkins (briefly) on tele the other day and he was talking about animal anatomy and how their design gave the impression that it is how an engineer would do it.
My first thought was that he's putting the cart before the horse, animals predate engineers by some margin, the most successful feats of engineering and design copy nature, do they not?
naomi has given perfect answers, everton. No rational person is 'led' by any opinion; that opinion has to be analysed, assessed and judged according to fact and evidence. Science, though it makes mistakes on the way, is always subject to that rigour, which is why scientific mistakes are eventually corrected. Religious opinions cannot stand up to that scrutiny, so it makes no sense to equate the Pope with Dawkins.
Everton - I would far rather trust the opinions derived using the scientific method, by scientists ,using evidence based thinking on just about any topic you care to mention than someone who makes their decisions based upon faith ( the epitome of lack of reason) and codes of behaviour contained within books that might have been in vogue several thousand years ago.
What can any appointed organised religious type, be it Priest, Bishop, Archbishop or Pope- offer in debates over issue like GM food, Global warming, artificial organs, or birth control other than opinion - an opinion just as useless, or just as valid as any one of the 6-7 billion or so of us on the planet with the exception of those individuals who have trained and studied and become expert in the relevant field?
What can any appointed organised religious type, be it Priest, Bishop, Archbishop or Pope- offer in debates over issue like GM food, Global warming, artificial organs, or birth control other than opinion - an opinion just as useless, or just as valid as any one of the 6-7 billion or so of us on the planet with the exception of those individuals who have trained and studied and become expert in the relevant field?
LG, if you or I don't want G.M foods, then tough, cos we're gonna get em anyway.
Science is concerned only with the chemical aspects, and if it's wrong, they go whoops sorry about that and we all carry on as before.
Take that Huderon thing, there's a small chance it could destroy the world, or at least France (so it's not all bad news), that small percentage of risk (to my mind) invalidates the need to try it.
That said I don't expect everything to go boom, but the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Science is concerned only with the chemical aspects, and if it's wrong, they go whoops sorry about that and we all carry on as before.
Take that Huderon thing, there's a small chance it could destroy the world, or at least France (so it's not all bad news), that small percentage of risk (to my mind) invalidates the need to try it.
That said I don't expect everything to go boom, but the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Everton - With the reference to the Large Hadron Collider, I take it you are repeating the suggestion there is a a vanishingly small possibility that using the LHC will create a black hole that will, it is alleged, swallow up the planet?
And you are basing this assumption on what? A religious opinion, the man on the bus,something you have read by some headline seekling hack, or a scientifically researched one? Kind of shot your initial argument in the foot there if you are relying on the latter - and if it isn't scientifically researched or evidence based, then why should we give any credence at all to such an opinion?.
To apply the precautionary principle for what is, practically speaking, an impossibility, would be a huge cop- out and a staggeringly large act of scientific cowardice.
And you are basing this assumption on what? A religious opinion, the man on the bus,something you have read by some headline seekling hack, or a scientifically researched one? Kind of shot your initial argument in the foot there if you are relying on the latter - and if it isn't scientifically researched or evidence based, then why should we give any credence at all to such an opinion?.
To apply the precautionary principle for what is, practically speaking, an impossibility, would be a huge cop- out and a staggeringly large act of scientific cowardice.
Religion is not (never) the basis of my objection, yes I got my information from the media, I am not a scientist.
It appears to me that you also concede that it could go off with the biggest bang since creation, given that it's purpose is to try and prove a theory, it's outcomes for good or ill are all theorised.
I am happy for any scientists (anyone) to be brave and possess courage (marie Curie etc), but I object to scientists being brave with my and other peoples lives without my or their consent, like the atom bomb tests on Christmas Island.
A subject very close to my heart.
It appears to me that you also concede that it could go off with the biggest bang since creation, given that it's purpose is to try and prove a theory, it's outcomes for good or ill are all theorised.
I am happy for any scientists (anyone) to be brave and possess courage (marie Curie etc), but I object to scientists being brave with my and other peoples lives without my or their consent, like the atom bomb tests on Christmas Island.
A subject very close to my heart.
Although I am not against scientific research etc. Afterall God has given intellect to people to use that and benefit others so they are only doing what they should be doing. As far as my opinion and where it comes from. I must say that few scientist say dieting is good, few others say its not. Few says you should sleep atleast 8 hours few favour 5 hrs. So opinions are divided for every single aspect of life. Where I get my guidance, says that whatever it is in your life stay in the middle lane. Don't give up completely and don't over doo it either. Now that formula fits any thing. Eating, sleeping, exercise, sex, talking, watching, listening you name it.
Finally I may take scientific opinion as final if I do not have any other guidance which stops me from doing that. But some one has to tell me once for ever if coffee is good or bad for me, what about milk that once i gave up as they sai it was not good for heart and now recently it has become good fror heart, how about organic food.
So I would take sceintific opinion with my eyes closed when I would know that it is final and a fact. And I am sure then it would not be different from my religious belief.
Finally I may take scientific opinion as final if I do not have any other guidance which stops me from doing that. But some one has to tell me once for ever if coffee is good or bad for me, what about milk that once i gave up as they sai it was not good for heart and now recently it has become good fror heart, how about organic food.
So I would take sceintific opinion with my eyes closed when I would know that it is final and a fact. And I am sure then it would not be different from my religious belief.
Pope versus Dawkins what in a fight?
It's not a contest.
You said you don't feel the need to be led, some people take their lead from the Pope, some don't, some take their lead from Dawkins or Hitchens, it's a choice one makes, until by luck or judgement one gets to author speeches or literature that others agree with.
It's not a contest.
You said you don't feel the need to be led, some people take their lead from the Pope, some don't, some take their lead from Dawkins or Hitchens, it's a choice one makes, until by luck or judgement one gets to author speeches or literature that others agree with.
One blind man was walking down the street on one very dark night and he had a lamp in his hand. Someone asked him that why was he carrying the lamp as it would not benefit him at all as he was blind. He said that was true as for him day or night dark or bright is all same and he is so used to walking around without any problem. But the reason he was holding the lamp was that he did not want someone with eyes to walk into him in the dark.
So the people who think they are not lead are the one who really need leading.
So the people who think they are not lead are the one who really need leading.
-- answer removed --
