Interbane:

I don't think it's wise to anthropomorphize science. It leads to silly conclusions. It's like anthropomorphizing Scrabble. Sure, people are needed to play the game, but the two aren't equivalent.

ant perceives science as being at the bidding of Industrial Tycoons, but one could just as easily come from a different perspective and see science as freeing us from our religious prejudices and allowing us to explore medical breakthrough like stem-cell culture etc....

It depends on whether you think we are fit to be free. Are we morally worthy? I mean, the science itself tells the truth and it is impartial and quite rational, but we as human beings often need to be quite irrational in our decisions, because we must be kind if we are to evolve in the right direction. We must be kind to old and infirm people not dispose of them to make the race stronger. I mean how far do we combat natural selection by keeping alive and caring for the weak among us?

Because in a matter of morals and ethics, we are balancing moral judgement with stark rational judgement.

I think I have annoyed Chris O'Connor in the past by posting things like this, as he thinks I am judging you as hard hearted scientists and I know that you are not so. However, in your crusade against superstition and false belief, necessary though it is, I just point out that knowledge is a fine thing, but wisdom is better. Justice is a fine thing, but not blind justice, grace is better.

On my page 229 - of this chapter - a very telling paragraph - begins - 'Most of these figures are only after your money.....' This paragraph contains a thinly disguised description of the rise of Hitler in Natzi Germany, I believe. (No, just checked, it's in the next Chapter 13).

The trouble is, when you set up a fight - Science v Religion - it cannot ever be fair combat because science deals in definites - but religion, morals, ethics deals in uncertainties and transigence - decisions which are vital to the future of our race but which change with the development of science.

Penelope wrote:we as human beings often need to be quite irrational in our decisions, because we must be kind if we are to evolve in the right direction.

I'm not sure sure that the right moral direction is an irrational one. Only with a rational morality can we be sure it's the right direction. What you're comparing this to, I think, is a rational yet immoral set of goals and means.

Penelope wrote:However, in your crusade against superstition and false belief, necessary though it is, I just point out that knowledge is a fine thing, but wisdom is better.

I often consider wisdom to be less about science and more about philosophy. Seeing the truth of the world and how it relates to living life. Some people find their wisdom in religion, and that's fine as long as they keep from fundamentalism.

You brought this up once before, and I don’t think you understood my point then either. We’ve evolved to the point where our phenotype no longer needs to change.

evidence?

I'm sure I do, but that doesn't excuse either of us

Correct. no argument from me against that statement.

ant wrote:evidence?

We landed a man on the moon.

I

nterbane wrote

Only with a rational morality can we be sure it's the right direction. What you're comparing this to, I think, is a rational yet immoral set of goals and means.

As you have said before, science is just mathematics really, and can't be either right or wrong in a moral sense. But with the advancement of science, we need to make more and more moral judgements, that is our responsibility to future generations, well, and to ourselves. So, for instance, we find out how to change the sex of an individual who wishes it, then we have to make laws to cover the ethics of doing so.

This is what causes a lot of problems. People have learned one set of moral laws, commandments, and have been told in the past that 'God' says this is so........then those commandments have to be amended to fit in with scientific discovery......and we, well, some of us, get a bit prickly. Not really on behalf of 'God' but because we don't trust those in power to make the wisest and fairest of decisions. So we pray.

Interbane:

Some people find their wisdom in religion, and that's fine as long as they keep from fundamentalism.

I can't think of any cases where fundamentalism is a good thing. Not in politics, not in religion and not even in atheism.

I had essentially forgotten this chapter from my previous read, I'm glad for the rehash, The list of fallacious arguments seems somewhat familiar now to me from following the discussions hear on BT. CS list twenty types of "fallacies of logic and rhetoric" and nine points to consider when constructing and understanding a reasoned argument, A bonanza that could be considered a self-help manual, the lists should be posted at job sites next to Larry J Peter's "The Peter Principle".
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle .