Science could care less if we wiped ourselves out with the very tools its methods have provided. It doesn’t entertain us. It is a description of pre existing reality without moral judgment. You can use it to feed a man or murder him. Science doesn’t care.
Ok? Is this in response to anything I’ve said?
Science is not a conscious being, so of course it doesn’t care.
So conscious beings are most certainly relying on a whole heck of a lot more than the scientific method.
Most certainly yes. And chickens eat when hungry.
Would it be evil for me to use the tools and products of science to install my dream theocracy? Would that trespass upon rights?
Are you substituting evil in for wrong here?
You can easily understand how that action would be right or wrong by understanding if you would be improving lives or harming others. To determine that you would have to use logic and reason to understand what would happen. I certainly wouldn’t look to a 2000 year old book of many different authors, translated and changed over time with no concept of the world today. I actually think that would be the easiest way to harm a lot of people.
And in a purely materialistic natural universe everything boils back down to that, I suppose.
Assuming doing one over the other is good or evil, right or wrong. That’s not science.
You would use science to understand what you are doing impacts the world around you.
You just stating that it’s not doesn’t make it so. I gotta run, if you actually address any of my points I’ll respond later. Have a good one.
I would suggest prison. Seems like a lot of people find him there.
Science says if I tear an innocent man’s aorta in half with a projectile from the weapon science helped develop, he will almost certainly die. Observing, recording, and reporting the act and its outcome doesn’t inform science or us that the act is evil (or good). The male lion will kill the cubs of the pride he takes over. Not long ago I saw two males target the testicles of a foreign male for mutilation. Hearing male lions, those awesome beasts, scream in pain is something else. We can observe things like that until the universe ends, and it says nothing about the actual existence of the goodness or wrongness (in the moral sense) of anything.
We should invite these guys to the thread. They are really really good at this whole God thing. Following God is tremendous business and should be part of anyone’s diverse wealth creating plan.
Why would a serious, deep look into such a thing be the easiest way to harm a lot of people?
A shallow glossing would be a different story, I can see the danger in that.
I think studying science would actually allow for the:
The explosives, projectiles, chemicals, and biologicals to be employed and even still developed…Lots of research left to do until we finally have that doomsday weapon. Maybe the AI will use it on us. We’ll make great pets.
For real? I can’t think of anything over time that has harmed more people than the way humans have interpreted religious texts.
“Oh they weren’t following it the way they are supposed to.” Well they thought they were and explain that to the dead.
The want for land and resources? Scientific, technological, and intellectual ‘progress’ required violence. Not to mention the material goods and comforts produced by such things.
Is this deliberate? I can’t possibly start to list all the horrible things done for beliefs if someone is going to say “no they wanted to spread science not religion!”
Just going to have to not see eye to eye on this.
Yeah, for real. I seriously doubt that you seriously can’t think of ANYTHING that has harmed more people than other people
You did nothing to answer the question, not that you have to
You don’t think the desire to produce technology far exceeds? You have to own resources. Have organization and a relatively cowed populace. How does anyone think that came about?
Want a modern technological city? You first have to even have a city at all. A civilization. A society under some order. The computer is built out of resources ultimately harvested from a ground soaked in the blood from conflicts to establish dominion over that land and resources. Resources then used in conjunction with the lessons learned from scholarly pursuits. Pursuits only possible because of leisure time emerging as a result of taming and subjugation of people. All of which required at least the threat of violence.
Yes it’s humans harming humans.
Would we get hung up on it less if I said throughout history a lot of people have hurt others in the name of religion?
I’m not sure it’s a feather in the cap for religion if we just say “hey a lot of people have been hurt/maimed/killed” by holy the interpretation of holy texts?
To answer your question a look into the book doesn’t have to harm people of course. It just has a lot over history.
And I don’t feel like splitting hairs over semantics like “well they weren’t following the correct teachings.”