Science Vs. Religion | Black Vs. White | A vs. Z
- Thread starter iPwn
- Start date
Touché.
So I was discussing this thread with some friends at work I engage in philosophical discussion with at lunch. They added some interesting twists. I won't list their belief systems, but between us, there's quite the mix of ideologies. Moving on;
On the boat, a few start to row. Now one person has a carbon fiber oar. However, because another doesn't agree that using such materials is "right," this causes issues almost immediately. And while there is a storm approaching, you still have a group of people who disagree that it's even a storm, or still more that the storm will turn away before it ever reaches the boat.
The food supplies are dwindling, this is true, but land is nowhere in sight. Sitting still is not an option. However, if you start to row in direction A, you may be contended by those who believe direction B is a more appropriate direction as direction A has no land to be found. Certainly the rowing cannot be done out of unison, because the boat will go nowhere, or in circles.
What still of the issue of materials? We have wooden oars that came with the boat and those who have developed something they feel is better, and those who think otherwise damaging to the coral below. By challenging everyone to row along, is that not encouraging all to become "sheople?" If someone wants to investigate these claims of damage to the coral below, should we stop the boat and allow them dive below and check? Or should we simply tell them "If we're still here when you find out, let us know".. ?
It's certainly a complicated issue that deserves more attention. Perhaps it's an issue that need not be solved, but the resolution can only be worked out by the storm capsizing the boat and those who learn to swim finding their own way to the nearest island?
Thinking out loud at this point....
So I was discussing this thread with some friends at work I engage in philosophical discussion with at lunch. They added some interesting twists. I won't list their belief systems, but between us, there's quite the mix of ideologies. Moving on;
On the boat, a few start to row. Now one person has a carbon fiber oar. However, because another doesn't agree that using such materials is "right," this causes issues almost immediately. And while there is a storm approaching, you still have a group of people who disagree that it's even a storm, or still more that the storm will turn away before it ever reaches the boat.
The food supplies are dwindling, this is true, but land is nowhere in sight. Sitting still is not an option. However, if you start to row in direction A, you may be contended by those who believe direction B is a more appropriate direction as direction A has no land to be found. Certainly the rowing cannot be done out of unison, because the boat will go nowhere, or in circles.
What still of the issue of materials? We have wooden oars that came with the boat and those who have developed something they feel is better, and those who think otherwise damaging to the coral below. By challenging everyone to row along, is that not encouraging all to become "sheople?" If someone wants to investigate these claims of damage to the coral below, should we stop the boat and allow them dive below and check? Or should we simply tell them "If we're still here when you find out, let us know".. ?
It's certainly a complicated issue that deserves more attention. Perhaps it's an issue that need not be solved, but the resolution can only be worked out by the storm capsizing the boat and those who learn to swim finding their own way to the nearest island?
Thinking out loud at this point....
*invades forum*
I think at the heart of the problem is the inescapable fact that there is no perfect solution.
There are a million different priorities you can have with a world-sized population, often conflicting, all certainly valid. How do you choose between bulldozing some village whose people have lived there for generations vs letting a neighboring population starve through lack of farming land?
Or to keep with your rowboat analogy, what if you're out of food and can see land and someone's kid falls overboard in a particularly strong current heading away from the land? Do you risk people dying of hunger/exhaustion to save that child? Who decides that?
Tough & unfair decisions split good people.
I don't know any solution to that other than working towards a future where we try to minimise or remove as many meaningless points of contention as we can. Advance food production to the point that we don't need farms. Increase automation to the point that we don't need menial workers. Institute basic income for everyone so you don't have to worry about whether you have enough money to survive.
All these things can be solved given enough effort, and doing so will free us to worry more about things like rowing in the right direction.
I think at the heart of the problem is the inescapable fact that there is no perfect solution.
There are a million different priorities you can have with a world-sized population, often conflicting, all certainly valid. How do you choose between bulldozing some village whose people have lived there for generations vs letting a neighboring population starve through lack of farming land?
Or to keep with your rowboat analogy, what if you're out of food and can see land and someone's kid falls overboard in a particularly strong current heading away from the land? Do you risk people dying of hunger/exhaustion to save that child? Who decides that?
Tough & unfair decisions split good people.
I don't know any solution to that other than working towards a future where we try to minimise or remove as many meaningless points of contention as we can. Advance food production to the point that we don't need farms. Increase automation to the point that we don't need menial workers. Institute basic income for everyone so you don't have to worry about whether you have enough money to survive.
All these things can be solved given enough effort, and doing so will free us to worry more about things like rowing in the right direction.
Smart_Guy
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,856
- Location
- Saudi Arabia
Both science and religion should, can and do live with each other, IMHO. The problem is "people". Religions are ideas and teachings, they are not people, similarly is science which is findings and experiments. People of the same religion could disagree with each other or even agree in something interpreted wrong, and people in specific science fields could have different theories for the same thing, or even agree on a wrong finding that doesn't have other findings to change its authenticity. The limitation here is "people".
I'm a religious person myself as you guys probably know (I'm Muslim). Personally I believe in both my religion and science. What people find out with science that conflicts with a religious belief of mine, I consider, but I don't denounce the text that game me that belief, but instead see if there are other interpretations for it. I won't lie tho; I prioritize my beliefs. I don't use it to hurt the innocent tho.
I personally believe the earth is kinda round, by the way. But frankly, and I said that with a strange feeling, we are humans. We do not know the true limitations of the human eye. What if watching earth from outer space affects the vision somehow due to the huge distance? Camera lenses are also made based on the human eye. What of photos taken have that limitation too? Same thing with planet orbiting. Does earth orbit the sun, or is it the other way around? What if light in outer space in long distances move in an awkward way that makes us see things other that what they really are? Hahaha! I think I'm losing it
I'm a religious person myself as you guys probably know (I'm Muslim). Personally I believe in both my religion and science. What people find out with science that conflicts with a religious belief of mine, I consider, but I don't denounce the text that game me that belief, but instead see if there are other interpretations for it. I won't lie tho; I prioritize my beliefs. I don't use it to hurt the innocent tho.
I personally believe the earth is kinda round, by the way. But frankly, and I said that with a strange feeling, we are humans. We do not know the true limitations of the human eye. What if watching earth from outer space affects the vision somehow due to the huge distance? Camera lenses are also made based on the human eye. What of photos taken have that limitation too? Same thing with planet orbiting. Does earth orbit the sun, or is it the other way around? What if light in outer space in long distances move in an awkward way that makes us see things other that what they really are? Hahaha! I think I'm losing it
All valid points but I cannot help but feel that the majority of the population does not care. As I said before, a mindless bunch.
The world is divided into sheep and shepherds. Then they are divided by geological areas, each with their own set of beliefs. Theirs ideals is more important than yours.
What is right to them is not right to you.
And vice versa.
The world is divided into sheep and shepherds. Then they are divided by geological areas, each with their own set of beliefs. Theirs ideals is more important than yours.
What is right to them is not right to you.
And vice versa.
Smart_Guy
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,856
- Location
- Saudi Arabia
Mindless bunch? Try a bunch with minds full of "it"
I really like this statement because it accurately captures very much of the human problem (IMHO).
Mindless bunch? Try a bunch with minds full of "it"
IT being food and sex.
Perhaps the complexity of the problem(s) we face make chasing "distractions" so much easier. The argument goes on so long on the deck that eventually people make their way to the galley (sticking with the boat analogy) and just start getting drunk because it's much easier to get "wasted" than it is argue with those who won't listen.
Smart_guy said:
I couldn't agree more! Although in the same breadth, I must admit that I'm in that same class and that I'm a part of the problem as well. Perhaps the real problem is that we expect all people to be more like us and to align more with how we feel individually?
Similar threads
