Well, we could define and measure good and evil with the Golden Rule (and similar axiomatic systems). One nice benefit is that it breaks the symmetry between good and evil, in favor of good, with pure logic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Science a Good Thing?
- Thread starter Kurt31416
- Start date
Well, we could define and measure good and evil with the Golden Rule (and similar axiomatic systems). One nice benefit is that it breaks the symmetry between good and evil, in favor of good, with pure logic.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Fruballs.
McBell
Unbound
sure does.
On the outside only.
McBell
Unbound
By outside I meant that although it sounds good on paper, when applied to real life, it fails.
I like science, so I would say that it is good. It is what have brought us to where we are today. However, just as about anything else it can be used for what is bad as well. There is a difference between if an idea or whatever is good or bad, and if what applications it has is.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that of individuals or the masses?
Well, in enforcing it, it fails miserably in general, but not always. In it's twisted way, MAD is the Golden Rule and it's kept the ICBM's from launching for half a century.
And in judging it, well, there's always gonna be unknowable things in any axiomatic system. Gonna be tough cases to judge.
And in judging it, well, there's always gonna be unknowable things in any axiomatic system. Gonna be tough cases to judge.
McBell
Unbound
that is all I was saying
slave2six
Substitious
No. People do what they do and then use whatever dogmas they want to try to justify their actions. Initially, anyways. In closed societies, the dogmas are not seen as such - they are simply accepted without question in which case one cannot really view it as a dogma, can they?
In some societies in history, it was simply God's will to kill the infidel. Who's gonna question God's will? It wasn't a concept that people debated and weighed against other concepts. It was simply "thus sayeth the Lord" and that's that.
Science does not have this problem of obedience without dissent. Science is more dissent than belief. In this science is far better than religion because it encourages dissent and commentary and questioning and thinking. Religion wants nothing to do with such things because religion is about control. Science is not.
slave2six
Substitious
Yes. Nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants. The base concepts are the same but the applications are not.
Agreed. Religions tend to emphasize cultural traditions that are no longer relevant in today's society, or worse, actually harmful. Religions tend to be slow in changing or conforming to new evidence that contradicts previous assumptions; science is inherently about being open minded to change. Science is about predicting and actively seeking criticism to validate an idea; religions have historically opposed any questioning and actively suppressed it.
As others have already said, science is a method or a tool of inquiry. Technology is the physically engineered result of applying scientific ideas, and that technology can be used for anything from wiping out polio to weapons. Science is inherently amoral.
The people of Germany just did what they did?
If ideas didn't have power, seems they wouldn't spend so much on advertising.
Renji
Well-Known Member
Of course it is. Science is greatly studied in medical courses (like in my course). If it is not because of the study science, many diseases could not have been cured.
Science is the study of the natural world and how things work. Dogma is a set of principles or tenets.
Science doesn't deal with morality, except where morality as a whole is studied by a branch of science. Science is effectively a collection of knowledge, NOT a belief system, no matter how strongly the religious right insists that it is.
Dogma deals directly with morality, particularly where morality and religion intersect. Dogma is a set of doctrines that deal with morality, effectively dogma dictates morality and IS a belief system.
See the difference? Science IS NOT a belief, Dogma IS a belief.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
"Magical thinking"
I think it has something to do with the imagination, I wouldn't call it the "default position" of the consciousness; just an innate aspect of the mind, like reason. And it could just be, that overindulgence in imaginative thinking is foster by our society.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
"Dogma deals directly with morality, particularly where morality and religion intersect. Dogma is a set of doctrines that deal with morality, effectively dogma dictates morality and IS a belief system."
Dogma is terrible for morality, it may even be impossible to establish good morality with dogma. Because anything you lay down, not matter how carefully, will be twisted and perverted by others later on. The good that is written into law today will become the platform of evil tomorrow.
Secular philosophy is much better for moral reasoning because, most importantly, it is adaptable. Which is the terrible flaw in dogma, it is not changeable and that is just plain stupid. Basing "morals" on an indisputable authority has proven to be far to destructive and blind adherence to a rule that make no sense (which happens all to often with dogma) is not morality. Morality only exist when it is accompanied by understanding, a person must know why something is bad or good, otherwise we are all just clockwork oranges.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
The scientific worldwide eradication of smallpox I would have thought was a good thing, even though it meant the extinction (well almost) of another life form. The philosophical debate then begins. Since frozen live sample smallpox cultures still exist in laboratories in Russia and the US (and others?)
"Should the last of the smallpox virus be destroyed resulting in its universal extinction?"
This becomes a moral question, "Does one life form have the right to consciously force another life form into total extinction?"
From a scientific point of view it is a good idea to have a sample of your enemy to study and understand its weaknesses develop deterrents and cures, but inherent in this is risk.
Cheers
"Should the last of the smallpox virus be destroyed resulting in its universal extinction?"
This becomes a moral question, "Does one life form have the right to consciously force another life form into total extinction?"
From a scientific point of view it is a good idea to have a sample of your enemy to study and understand its weaknesses develop deterrents and cures, but inherent in this is risk.
Cheers
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Science is a tool, a method. It is in itself neither good nor bad.