Food for Thought

[UnrepentantLiberal]

“If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work!” - Richard Dawkins

[rrneck]

1. If all the achievements of science were wiped out

tomorrow we would have avoided overpopulation, industrialized murder, the societal depredations if capitalism, fascism, and communism, human induced climate change and network television.

The greatest threats to the human species today are the result of scientific advancement.

[darkstar3]

27. And the greatest chance we have to overcome those threats, and many more not attributable

in some twisted way to scientific advancement, is more scientific advancement.

[cbayer]

29. Is it? Or do we need more humanity, social justice, compassion and empathy?

Did you happen to catch Bill Moyers last night? I highly recommend his first new show.

[darkstar3]

36. I don't think your items and mine are mutually exclusive.

I think humanity, compassion, and empathy are a large reason why we make progress in medical technology, for example.

[cbayer]

42. I don't think they are mutually exclusive either.

[rrneck]

31. I don't think more of what got us into this mess

is going to get us out of this mess.

[darkstar3]

34. That's because you misattribute the responsibility for "this mess".

[rrneck]

46. Who is responsible? nt

[Humanist_Activist]

40. And we will still have had mass murder, smallpox outbreaks, most children dying before the age of 3.

Wars, and societal depredations of chattel slavery, serfdom, and caste systems in the world instead. Considering how less violent we are now compared to then, I would say that we have a lot to thank science for.

[rrneck]

45. We have all those benefits

for the same reason we have most of our science driven technology: resource wealth.

Take away the wealth and it will be human barbeques and muscle power before quick.

Science doesn't make us humane, it just makes us efficient.

[Humanist_Activist]

51. Its what you do with those resources that count...

Our capability is limited by our resources, that's plain, but I really don't understand the cynicism inherent in your argument, we are actually getting better, we haven't solved all the problems of the world, and we probably never will, but I really don't think that we are going to devolve to cannibalism in pre-industrial society.

Science does what it always does, inform and provide a method to examine the world, this has and can in the future result in us becoming more humane. Our technological prowess, particularly in communications, has made the world smaller, turning us into a "global village". In addition, rational inquiry and an understanding of ourselves(through science), has lead to concepts such as human rights. Modern ethics has co-developed alongside scientific discovery, and has influenced the world in how we should behave towards each other, and even towards other species.

Are we there yet? No, and the biggest problem is anti-science and anti-freethought influences in governments and societies around the world. Is it any surprise that the worst places to live are also some of the most oppressive? Using religion or political ideology as a hammer, to nail down anyone who questions things to much. And the ironic thing is that in many of these societies, they have no problem using other people's work and discoveries for their own benefit.

A person who uses GPS but thinks the world is flat would be a classic example, another would be someone who complains about the problems science supposedly causes on the internet.

[rrneck]

59. I find your optimism appealing

but I'm afraid I don't share it.

I don't think we'll return so some pre industrial Mad Max dystopia, but science runs on oil and there's no ready replacement in sight. Religion on the other hand only needs the most abundant resource on the planet - human emotion. That will never run out.

I think it will be the way it always was. Those with the most resources will enjoy the most genteel lifestyle. Right now that means a 100,000 square foot house when it used to mean silverware.

It seems we largely use science and technology to define the attainment of civilized behaivor. That doesn't mean we can't be civilized without it. We will just have to use something else as a canvas for our humanity. Is there really that much difference between sitting in front of a computer screen and sitting in prayer?

I wonder if we are on the cusp of another axial age when human values will be globally redefined. That's an exciting notion. The road to that place though will be an ugly one I'm afraid.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. Correction, current technology(most of it) runs on fossil fuels...

science runs on curiosity and experimentation.

You are under a misapprehension about what science is, which doesn't surprise me. Science is nothing more than a methodology to eliminate bias in observation and experimentation. All it requires are brains and hands(or a couple of working fingers for Stephen Hawking. You want to know what science is? Its a cup of water, an umbrella(or other type of covering), and a thermometer. Drawing on previous knowledge, and I can measure, precisely, how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun on any given day, at any latitude. I can even see if any variation takes place(prediction is, not much, at least not based on latitude).

Your problem isn't with science, its with the application of science through technology. Its through this same methodology that we can work on solutions to the energy crisis. Alternatives already exist, and further improvements can be made. You seem to be under the impression that we should stop such advancements, the question is, if we did, would the problems go away, or grow worse? I would say they would grow worse, and your predictions of it being ugly will come to fruition, but it would be a self fulfilling prophecy.

[rrneck]

62. It's still the same problem.

Technology follows science as surely as night follows day. And we use technology to facilitate more science. You can't build precision insturments without engineering and the industrial processes that support it. And all that stuff has to be paid for. Just think about how much science and technology used in our daily lives began as a weapon of one sort or another. We have stolen most of the resources that have facilitated our technological and scientifec prowess.

It isn't just about science either, but the common denominator between science, technology, emotion, and religion: people. We developed marvelous mythologies and used them to burn each other alive. We developed marvelous technologies and did the same thing.

The practice of science, like the practice of faith, is a discipline that requires us to set aside ego in the exploration of the unknown. It's what we do and we are no more able to avoid one than the other.

A new energy source of some sort will surely be found. The question is will it be an economically viable source able to fuel the lifestyle we currently enjoy before we start burning each other alive for the luxury of satellite enabled Tweets and reality tevevision.

People were able to treat each other fairly and compassionately before the development of clean linen and asphalt shingles and I expect us to have to learn to do so again because the wealth that supports the science is going to disappear.

I have no idea what will be left. Maybe we'll have iPads on saddle horns. But the practice of science won't make us any more humane than the practice of religion in the face of our ability to exploit the wealth of resources around us. We just weren't designed to manage abundance, and both science and religion facilitate its exploitation.

[cbayer]

2. There is a reason he is a cosmologist and not a philospher.

What utter baloney.

[rrneck]

3. He was a good prophet though. nt

[cbayer]

4. I thought he was still alive.

[rrneck]

5. Nope. Died 12.20.96. An interesting fellah. nt

[SwissTony]

7. You're thinking Sagan.

[rrneck]

8. Ha! So i am! More coffee for me. nt

[rrneck]

11. He is. Carl Sagan and my brain are not. :) nt

[SwissTony]

6. Dawkins is a cosmologist??? nt.

[cbayer]

9. Like rrneck, I was also confused. Thought this was a Stephen Hawking quote. More coffee!!

[MarkCharles]

12. Um, he is FAR FROM a cosmolgist:

"Born in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1941, Professor Richard Dawkins is one of the world’s leading scientific intellectuals, specialising in evolutionary biology. After undertaking his doctorate under the instruction of Nobel-prize winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen at Berkeley University of California, in 1967 he was appointed Assistant Professor of Zoology at Berkeley Dawkins returned to Oxford University, where he gained his degree, before becoming a fellow at New College, Oxford in 1970. "

http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-evolution/dawkins-biography

[cbayer]

13. Yes, I know. I had him confused (see above)

[MarkCharles]

14. And how would a philosopher regard the history of religion's contribution

to the advancement of humankind?

I can see some values religion MAY HAVE played in previous centuries to the organization and control of societies. When people were largely illiterate, and when people were untrained in the sciences and the philosophies, religion may have had a positive role, from time to time, when one religious group was not waging war with another one.

Nowadays, we see religious extremists favoring wars, degrading the best forms of self-government ever developed, (democratic rule), and yet insisting upon special favors and exemptions from the rule of law when it comes to any number of topics, from the accountability of men in the Catholic clergy to the need for horse carts of Amish to comply with reasonable practices of transportation safety.

So I think we live in an age when religion is reasonably being challenged to prove itself a worthwhile pursuit and to prove itself a reasonable course for the indoctrination of young minds. From 9/11/2001 to the endless Christian and Muslim rants against gay folks, we must question the value religious institutions offer a modern democratic world of advanced nations, and we must ask those religious folks to keep their religious beliefs out of the workings of our democratic governments.

[cbayer]

15. Guess that would depend on the philosopher.

As far as I can tell, you fail to see any positive value in any religious organizations, so I take it your questions are rhetorical.

Fortunately, religion doesn't need to prove anything to you, but if you want to see what some really good religious organizations and individuals are doing just google progressive religious groups.

I fully agree that there are serious inherent dangers in allowing religion to hold sway over the government. If anyone ever doubted that, they need only look at the role of the religious right in the election and re-election of W. It's one of the most compelling reasons to defeat the current roster of republican candidates for president.

We have a common enemy here and it's not progressive religious groups.

[MarkCharles]

17. You condemned Dawkins for NOT being a "philosopher".. interesting...

"Tracing the exact origins of modern science is possible through the many important texts which have survived from the classical world. However, the word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

[cbayer]

18. As I mentioned, I had confused him with someone else (see above.... again)

[MarkCharles]

19. So what, precisely does "philosophy" offer that "science"...

does not embrace?

Scientists are today's "natural philosophers".

Now on to the major question which religious believers from any scope or gradient cannot seem to agree upon:
Namely, how does one distinguish which religious belief is of value, and how do religious folks act in ways so as to diminish the influence of irrational beliefs.

Catholicism, probably the largest single Christian denomination, has finally agreed to the concept of a heliocentric solar system, but continues to claim gay people shouldn't marry, and that women shouldn't partake of modern methods of birth control.

Unitarianism, (arguably the most "liberal" interpreters of the Holy Bible), although they are fine with gay marriage, still insist that the practice of celebration of Christmas as the birth of Christ is a legitimate activity in December.

Who decides what is a legitimate mythology and who decides which myths to jettison? Do we have a standard other than science? Do we pick and choose to suit our own tastes as if in a Chinese buffet? t

Quite honestly, what is the deciding standard for truth and fact other than science, what used to be called "natural philosophy"?

[cbayer]

20. Philosophy and religion answer some questions that science can not or has not

for many people.

I don't think there is or should be a final arbiter of what is valuable in either of these realms.

If one comes to the table with the firm position that religious beliefs are irrational and constitute a mythology, and even go so far as to question the legitimacy of others celebrating Christmas, there is really very little room for discussion.

[MarkCharles]

21. Ah yes, how can one question Christmas?

The ultimate winner in an argument with an atheist! So convincing to all Christians!

[cbayer]

22. Why do you care what people do in the privacy of their own homes or organizations.

While I understand your concerns about religion's influence on politics and government, I fail to see why you are so intent on proselytizing.

So what if others see, experience and believe differently than you do. Why not join forces to fight common foes?

[MarkCharles]

23. "Why not join forces to fight common foes?" So who decides which are..

the "common foes"?

Those based upon religious beliefs of one group or another, or those that science tells us are important issues for our human-kind to be addressing?

Religious beliefs, no matter which, are not worthy of a fight, except when they preclude rational thought. And several posts on this thread in favor of enabling and reinforcing religious beliefs preclude rational thought.

Be it celebrating Christmas, or Global Climate Change, what, other than science and rational thought, decides which issues are worthy of an intellectual battle?

Philosophy? Which philosophy? The one that says that arguing with people who question the observance of Christmas is futile?

[cbayer]

24. Well here on DU, it's pretty clear who the common foes are.

The goal of this site is to elect Democrats and promote the Democratic platform. In order to do that we have to defeat republicans and the republican platform.

Since we are a big tent, we have a lot of diversity. That does not preclude us from having common foes.

No one is asking you to fight for religious beliefs. I would ask that you consider backing off from the constant characterization of others who see things differently than you do as irrational, deluded, etc., etc.
It's divisive and undermines the goal of the site.

Bottom line - why do you hang out in this group? What is it that you wish to accomplish here?

[MarkCharles]

30. I could ask the same question of religious believers. What...

do they wish to accomplish in a group about "religion" if religion is not that important to their conception of a free and open democracy?

My purpose here? To object to people who find serious rational scientists worthy of their disdain and ridicule, with posts like:
"What utter baloney."

Talk about arrogance!

My PURPOSE here is
to ask people who claim to be religious to ask themselves rational questions rather than to continually strike out against atheism and claim that they, the religious believers, are on a higher ground, and don't need to question their own beliefs, and can call something Richard Dawkins said "What utter baloney."

Did any atheist here ever call your personal beliefs "utter baloney"?

[cbayer]

32. Mr. Charles, you have called me uneducated, immature, delusional, illogical and many other things.

And you don't even know what I believe or don't believe.

I think "utter baloney" pales in comparison, particularly in regards to this specific quote, which is, imo, utter baloney. It has nothing to do with whether the person saying it is an atheist, agnostic or is religious. Again, imo, it is an illogical statement without merit. Mr. Dawkins is not a protected party here, but members are.

If you feel the need to address those that continually strike out against atheism, who claim to be on a higher ground because they are religious or do not question their own beliefs, go for it. You have mistaken me for one of those people, I am afraid.

[MarkCharles]

43. I have never called ANY PERSON on ANY forum those words...

I have called opinions and beliefs based upon fable, myths and primitive means of thinking words like that.

It was NEVER a personal accusation against YOU !

But I do see that you take such statements I make way too personally, and that you have a problem trying to separate out ways of thinking from your own personal beliefs and your own patterns and habits of thought.

I challenge YOU to find a place on any board here, at ANY time here, where I called you any or ALL of these words:

"uneducated, immature, delusional, illogical and many other things"

If you CANNOT find that, I expect a full apology for your accusation as soon as possible, preferably within a day or so of research and re-reading of all of my posts.

You seem to delight in feeling personally insulted by critics of religious thought. You seem to take it personally, and that is YOUR problem, not mine. Again, I NEVER called YOU..

"uneducated, immature, delusional, illogical and many other things"

Now please do your research and come back to us and prove me wrong.

[cbayer]

49. Oh, I forgot to add paranoid. We are done here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=4259

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=4000

There are more, including another one removed by jury vote aimed at me which included the word illogical.

I didn't even bother looking in the a/a group.

There is none so blind who will not see.

[MarkCharles]

50. Not one of those accused YOU, but typical religious thought processes

You seem to not know the difference.

[MarkCharles]

44. Now as to your rights to accuse Mr Dawkins of stating "baloney"...

I would hope you can back up your justification for such an accusation.

Somehow, your stating "Again, imo, it is an illogical statement without merit. Mr. Dawkins is not a protected party here, but members are", HARDLY justifies such a statement, and hardly justifies nor rationalizes your opinion that his statement is "baloney".

Can you give us some reason WHY you consider what he said is "baloney"? I'd like to see you think this one through and put it into words. Not just your defensiveness about religion being of value, but something that deals with Dawkins' hypothesis, with actual valid (factual) and rational argument.

Thanks.

[Sal316]

33. Is that really your purpose?

To "To object to people who find serious rational scientists worthy of their disdain and ridicule" ?

Seems to me you've picked a fight in the wrong bar.

I believe I've asked before for examples of DUers who: believe in a literal 6 day creation, believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, believe that gays ought to be stoned, etc., etc....

I've been around here for, what, a decade or so now, and have yet to see those (the ultra-conservative fundamentalist) opinions held by any significant percentage of DUers or, really, at all.

Dawkins may be a brilliant zoologist and evolutionary biologist, but a theologian he most definitely is not. There's nothing wrong with that. Nobody can be an expert in every field. I wouldn't ever suppose to be smarter than him in his fields.

It really speaks volumes when some give his opinion the weight of an expert when he is not.

[MarkCharles]

35. Your defensiveness is noted, as is your disdain for anyone

who dares ask believers questions as to the standards and "philosophy" by which they continue to defend their religious beliefs while the believers continue to ridicule those with other, more philosophically and rationally based beliefs, with such words as "baloney".

The believers continue to hide behind the "personal" reasons as their ultimate defense of their beliefs, while so willing and able to assail those whose beliefs are "different", be they religious fundamentalists or atheists, all the while, believers posting here are never revealing their own criteria for acceptance or rejection of one belief over another, claiming, instead, it's all for "personal" reasons.

[darkstar3]

38. And being a theologian makes you an "expert" in what?

When your theology can be entirely different, down to the core substance, from the theology of other theologians, and there is no way to know who is "right", what "expertise" can you possibly hold?

[Sal316]

47. Uhhh...theology.

Thought that was rather obvious.

But then again,the scare quotes in your reply speak louder than the words.

[darkstar3]

48. They weren't "scare quotes". They were "laugh quotes".

How can one be an expert in theology when theology is a divergent, non-progressive field?

[AlbertCat]

55. Just like learning Klingon makes you and expert in... uhhh.... Klingon

Still useless.

[darkstar3]

25. And what answers are those?

[cbayer]

28. IMHO, they are highly personal and individualized.

For every person who has developed a philosophy or holds religious beliefs, you are likely to get a very different answer.

Unless, of course, that person is a fundamentalist who only incorporates what they are told and has been instructed not to question.

[darkstar3]

37. So how are they "answers"?

What is the difference between those "answers" you speak of, and opinions?

[cbayer]

39. I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

If you means "truths" as opposed to "answers", I have not made such a claim. But I may have a question for which I turn to a particular philosophy or belief that I hold for the answer. That answer will most likely be personal and I don't expect anyone else to embrace my answer.

Does that make it an opinion?

[darkstar3]

41. Yes.

If you hold it as entirely personal and you don't expect other people to embrace it, how could it be anything other than an opinion?

[AlbertCat]

56. they are highly personal and individualized.

But you see, Science discovers answers that are definitively NOT personal or individualized. They are answers that are arrived at by following the evidence wheree'er it leadeth. It goes out of its way to eliminate personal prejudices. That way the answers work for everyone. Because things are the way they are, not the way you want them to be.

Personal and individualized answers are useless but for a single person.

[cbayer]

57. Agree on all points. But they are not mutually exclusive.

[AlbertCat]

53. Philosophy and religion answer some questions ... for many people.

People who don't care whether the answer is correct or not.

[AlbertCat]

52. There is a reason he is a cosmologist and not a philospher.

1st, He's a biologist

2nd, this is not a philosophical statement.

Theology is like arguing whether Santa Clause comes down the chimney head first or feet first. It's a big circle jerk.

[LARED]

10. The concept of a scientist probably did not exist until

the early eighteen hundreds.

[MarkCharles]

16. You are quite right about the world "scientist"

"Tracing the exact origins of modern science is possible through the many important texts which have survived from the classical world. However, the word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

[darkstar3]

26. And?

While the concept of a "scientist" may not have existed, the practice of science and the growth of technology most certainly did. It is only through this process that we as a species learned to make and use tools, and then to make them better.

[AlbertCat]

54. The ancient Greeks were well on the way....

.... then religion came and put a stop to it all for a few centuries.

[The Straight Story]

60. So, we would be like China? (nt)

[rug]

63. His problem is he is casting science and scientists almost as a species separate from humanity.

These are all human achievements, along with many other human achievements.

He creates a seperateness and a dichotomy wheree none exists.