Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That applies to LR's post as well which was saying we were here because of science which seems to be cherry picking. I think Vlad's position here, and is in line with yours. Either science is neutral or it has to be debited with the bad things as well as credited with  the good.

Spot on.

[floo]

Yeh 1) what have you ever had to do with science?
      2) Thanks to science we have global warming, species extinction and Nuclear weapons.

My husband's specialism is science! OK so you would prefer to be back in the time of the cave dwellers would you?

[Nearly Sane]

My husband's specialism is science! OK so you would prefer to be back in the time of the cave dwellers would you?

What your husband's specialism is irrelevant. The point is that science is a neutral process and includes the various ills that lad has listed. Viewing it as simply a positive is cherry picking.

[floo]

What your husband's specialism is irrelevant. The point is that science is a neutral process and includes the various ills that lad has listed. Viewing it as simply a positive is cherry picking.

No my husband's specialism is not irrelevant, as Vlad asked me what I had to do with science, my husband has discussed scientific theories with me in our many years of marriage. Of course not every scientific process is benign I didn't say it was.

[Nearly Sane]

No my husband's specialism is not irrelevant, as Vlad asked me what I had to do with science, my husband has discussed scientific theories with me in our many years of marriage. Of course not every scientific process is benign I didn't say it was.

  Then what is your claim about science?

[Aruntraveller]

Spot on.

Apologies, must have misunderstood.

[floo]

  Then what is your claim about science?

My claim about science is that we would still be back in the dark ages without the benefits it has produced over the years, but as has been pointed there are many negatives too. I prefer to live in the modern world, than days of yore, even if it is far from perfect.

[Nearly Sane]

My claim about science is that we would still be back in the dark ages without the benefits it has produced over the years, but as has been pointed there are many negatives too. I prefer to live in the modern world, than days of yore, even if it is far from perfect.

But if we move into a period of mass extinction and severe climate change brought on because of our use of scientific advances wouldn't that be subject to change?

[floo]

But if we move into a period of mass extinction and severe climate change brought on because of our use of scientific advances wouldn't that be subject to change?

Of course we need to change things that are harming the environment if human activity is the cause, I have never denied that.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course we need to change things that are harming the environment if human activity is the cause, I have never denied that.

I didn't say you had denied it Rather I wondered that if the uses of science were to have an outcome that was a severe d is off of both other species (already happening) and in humans, whether your attitude to science might not be liable to change?

[floo]

I didn't say you had denied it Rather I wondered that if the uses of science were to have an outcome that was a severe d is off of both other species (already happening) and in humans, whether your attitude to science might not be liable to change?

Change what exactly, wishing we lived in the times before scientific activity impinged on our lives? If that is the question, I have to say I prefer to live as we are today. I hope there will be scientific breakthroughs which will put right the damage that has been done.

NS where do you stand on this, would you like to go back to a pre-science era?

[Nearly Sane]

Change what exactly, wishing we lived in the times before scientific activity impinged on our lives? If that is the question, I have to say I prefer to live as we are today. I hope there will be scientific breakthroughs which will put right the damage that has been done.

NS where do you stand on this, would you like to go back to a pre-science era?

Change whether you saw science as a good, rather than as a neutral. You seem to be struggling with how hypotheticals work. You deal with the question not with saying, it won't arise.


As to my position, I have no interest in going back in time but that's because of a complex set of considerations. There has never really been a pre science era for humans. Science exists because that's how we do things and it works. Arguably religion or perhaps spirituality is another way we do things and that for many of us, not me,  seems to work.

[floo]

Change whether you saw science as a good, rather than as a neutral. You seem to be struggling with how hypotheticals work. You deal with the question not with saying, it won't arise.


As to my position, I have no interest in going back in time but that's because of a complex set of considerations. There has never really been a pre science era for humans. Science exists because that's how we do things and it works. Arguably religion or perhaps spirituality is another way we do things and that for many of us, not me,  seems to work.

I don't understand what you mean by science being neutral when it effects our lives? 

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand what you mean by science being neutral when it effects our lives?

It's just a process. It isn't external. It doesn't do anything. It is us. The knowledge we fInd through the process is then used by us. How we use it isn't dependent on science but upon us.

[floo]

It's just a process. It isn't external. It doesn't do anything. It is us. The knowledge we fInd through the process is then used by us. How we use it isn't dependent on science but upon us.

You mean the way we use the scientific discoveries?

[Nearly Sane]

You mean the way we use the scientific discoveries?

Or technological advancements. It doesn't do anything, we do.

[floo]

Or technological advancements. It doesn't do anything, we do.

Science and technology are implemented by human ingenuity.

[Nearly Sane]

Science and technology are implemented by human ingenuity.

And more particularly human desires and wants.

[floo]

And more particularly human desires and wants.

And needs, like finding a cure for illnesses.

[Nearly Sane]

And needs, like finding a cure for illnesses.

Or killing enemies.

[Maeght]

Science is a method to make discoveries and increase knowledge. The other way to look at it therefore is is increasing human knowledge good, bad or neutral.

[Nearly Sane]

Science is a method to make discoveries and increase knowledge. The other way to look at it therefore is is increasing human knowledge good, bad or neutral.

Not sure I see those as alternative views.

[Maeght]

Not sure I see those as alternative views.

Maybe not, but I hoped it would clarify things a bit as you and LR seemed to be thinking about it in different ways. Feel free to ignore me if not :-)

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe not, but I hoped it would clarify things a bit as you and LR seemed to be thinking about it in different ways. Feel free to ignore me if not :-)

Why would I ignore you? I just don't get the point you are making. Do you want to expand?

[Maeght]

Why would I ignore you? I just don't get the point you are making. Do you want to expand?

Ok.

You said in your reply that you didn't think 'those' were alternative views. Did you mean the two sentences in my post? If so they weren't meant as alternative views.

Anyway ....... my point was, rather than considering the use that scientific knowledge is put to as good, bad or neutral that you can rather consider if increasing our knowledge in itself is good, bad or neutral, regardless of what purpose that knowledge is put to.

This maybe what you and LR were considering anyway, but it wasn't clear to me.