Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion

[beerisit]

Well......................................................... sort of.

We can use scientific knowledge to theoretically cause any action possible in the known universe, but predicting the results of some actions can be, well, tricky.

Hve you heard of the Hadron Collider?

 

[Riverwolf]

And how lucky would we be if they all magically came together as a vaccine? Then god would really be showing his stuff, like he did during the bubonic plague. Oops sorry, different god, I think. Or maybe different scientists? What do you think?

I think that what you say does not negate the point that Solomon was right: there is nothing ultimately new under the sun.

I am a theist, but not in the typical sense. Gods are made gods by their followers, and most gods were once humans. (And, on that note, there are still such gods doing their thing today).

The bubonic plague (which was partially responsible for getting England out of the Feudal system, BTW) was, in my interpretation, as much a part of Mother's Will as the vaccine for bird flu.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hve you heard of the Hadron Collider?

Looks to primarily refer to quantum physics.

I was thinking more of the notion of a scientist trying a radical new experiment: changing the orbit of an entire planet. (And I seriously hope no scientist is ever so dense as to try this.)

While such an action might be possible, it could easily cause an asteroid which otherwise would never have hit earth to suddenly be thrown in our direction, and we'd be none the wiser.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well......................................................... sort of.

We can use scientific knowledge to theoretically cause any action possible in the known universe, but predicting the results of some actions can be, well, tricky.

I'm thinking of something a little more day to day when it comes to science manipulating nature...such as cross pollination, hybridization, IVF.....growing larger fruits, larger chickens or cattle....etc...

 

[beerisit]

Looks to primarily refer to quantum physics.

I was thinking more of the notion of a scientist trying a radical new experiment: changing the orbit of an entire planet. (And I seriously hope no scientist is ever so dense as to try this.)

While such an action might be possible, it could easily cause an asteroid which otherwise would never have hit earth to suddenly be thrown in our direction, and we'd be none the wiser.

And why would that be a concern? I don't understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm thinking of something a little more day to day when it comes to science manipulating nature...such as cross pollination, hybridization, IVF.....growing larger fruits, larger chickens or cattle....etc...

Oh, such things are easily manipulated.

Though, again, the potential consequences are very difficult to predict. I'm not saying that, in these cases, that should be a deterrent (since they're unlikely to be as destructive as my example above), but all factors need to be taken into account so that possible results can be recognized and avoided if harmful.

I've heard it said that every solution to a problem will always create more problems requiring their own solutions.

 

[Riverwolf]

And why would that be a concern? I don't understand.

I was responding to the notion of science being used to manipulate nature by saying that such manipulation might not always be desirable.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh, such things are easily manipulated.

Though, again, the potential consequences are very difficult to predict. I'm not saying that, in these cases, that should be a deterrent (since they're unlikely to be as destructive as my example above), but all factors need to be taken into account so that possible results can be recognized and avoided if harmful.

I've heard it said that every solution to a problem will always create more problems requiring their own solutions.

My examples were to counter the notion that Nature rules science and not vice versa. Regardless of outcome it is known that science can have some dominion over nature. Whether it be for good or bad was not my concern in my original rebuttal.

 

[Riverwolf]

My examples were to counter the notion that Nature rules science and not vice versa. Regardless of outcome it is known that science can have some dominion over nature. Whether it be for good or bad was not my concern in my original rebuttal.

Fair enough.

I prefer to fall on these words of wisdom: those who claim to control the gods are, in fact, controlled by the gods.

In order to control nature, science has to use nature; the former cannot exist without the latter.

 

[Orias]

Blind faith follows all aspects and dimensions of thought, how certain schools and trains of thought function solely depend on the product it produces.

Religion is more likely to produce "blind faith" as defined by most people simply because religion requires a following and not much else.

Science itself is a product of blind faith, but what it produces is fairly certain considering the goal of most sciences. But with that being said, science requires a following and not much else.

In essence, the faith required to make both aspects operant is purely confidence and doubt.

 

[paarsurrey]

You may want to pray to whatever deity you believe in that you don't contract bird flu, you see others can use the cures developed by science, you on the other hand are on your own.

Science does not produce anything from annihilation; it uses all that exists in nature; the mind, the materials, the tools etc.; nature (the will of the one true God) rules while science only gets a bit of it needed by humans at a specific time and space in human evolution.

 

[paarsurrey]

I would imagine it's the fact that a vaccine for Bird Flu did not previously exist 'in the wild' to be plucked from trees.

You mean the medicine was invented first and the disease came later?

 

[Orias]

Man creates disease, to fight other disease.

Its...a bacteria fest.

 

[paarsurrey]

From whence came the bird flu vaccine?

First came the bird flu and then the vaccine was discovered; all material and tools and mind existed before that; when the need arose, the vaccine was found out.

One factor that makes the evolution going is the need for a thing. If there will be no disease there will be no medicine.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science itself is a product of blind faith, but what it produces is fairly certain considering the goal of most sciences. But with that being said, science requires a following and not much else.

I think you have accepted that science itself is product of blind faith; and that was my point.

Thanks

 

[Orias]

I wouldn't say blind, just faith.

Religion as well, what makes it blind is all of the misrepresentation behind it, which as I said is observable on both sides.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You mean the medicine was invented first and the disease came later?

I mean the medicine was invented, and you decried anything made and not 'natural'.

 

[Krok]

I really, really dont understand how paarsurrey got:

You mean the medicine was invented first and the disease came later?

from

I would imagine it's the fact that a vaccine for Bird Flu did not previously exist 'in the wild' to be plucked from trees.

It seems as if some people just live on other planets where words have different meanings.

 

[beerisit]

You mean the medicine was invented first and the disease came later?

No he doesn't mean that at all. He means you can't just pluck it from the tree of knowledge, which brings us right back to the beginning, allegedly.

 

[Krok]

not all science is observable....

I think you should throw out your little pamphlets from the watchtower; it's obvious that they've already lied way to much to you. Time for you to start reading something else.

The word "observe" certainly does not mean "to directly see with your own little eyes"
The word "observe", from The Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Observe: 1. Keep, follow adhere to, perform duly (law, command, appointed time, method, principle, science, rite, anniversary, etc.
2. perceive, mark, watch, take notice of, become conscious of (person, thing, that, how)
3. examine or note (phenonema), without aid of experiment.
4. say, esp. in way of comment
5. make remark
6. Hence ~able.

I don't say The Oxford Dictionary is always right, they do make mistakes, but they do tend to fix those mistakes when informed that they are wrong.

The watchtower pamphlets, though, just keep on lying, edition after edition, even if it is demonstrated that they are wrong. Their answer in such a case is to just lie even more.