Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That in the name of science it was okay to conduct forced/covert medical experiments on humans.
Science needs a proper moral framework. Science is merely the "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." That study in and of itself needs both a moral framework and a code of ethics for proper research of science to have good results.
You can't assume all science is properly done, just like I can't assume all religion or even all Quakerism is properly done.
Science is a pursuit of understanding and that pursuit can be corrupted. Which is why science has gotten answers wrong, promoted racism, promoted evil, promoted misogyny, etc.
Religion can also be viewed as a pursuit of understanding and can also be corrupted and has gotten answers wrong, promoted racism, promoted evil, promoted misogyny, etc.
Both need a proper moral framework and a code of ethics.
That's why religion has better answers in that area.
Which is what the thread title asks: "Has religion ever come up with a better answer than science?"
That's why religion has better answers in that area.
Which is what the thread title asks: "Has religion ever come up with a better answer than science?"
"Has religion ever come up with a better answer than science?"
Yes. again. Also with regards to reincarnation.
That in the name of science it was okay to conduct forced/covert medical experiments on humans.
Science needs a proper moral framework. Science is merely the "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." That study in and of itself needs both a moral framework and a code of ethics for proper research of science to have good results.
You can't assume all science is properly done, just like I can't assume all religion or even all Quakerism is properly done.
Science is a pursuit of understanding and that pursuit can be corrupted. Which is why science has gotten answers wrong, promoted racism, promoted evil, promoted misogyny, etc.
Religion can also be viewed as a pursuit of understanding and can also be corrupted and has gotten answers wrong, promoted racism, promoted evil, promoted misogyny, etc.
Both need a proper moral framework and a code of ethics.
I note a finger pointed at 'forced' science (abrogating humans rights). Well that's not the fault of science but of the administration. I think that religion is just as likely to use science for causes it thinks is justified. Developing more weapons to fight against enemies as defined by nearly always religious dominated US administrations has long been the case.
atomic bomb - Eisenhower (or was he not president then? (1) ), religious. Agent orange, Vietnam war, a line of religious administrations. Military spending, Reagan, a real Bible - believer. Ok star wars (together with losing Afghanistan) brought the Russians to the peace table, but - still military initiatives, war on Taliban and Iraq, the work of the most religious president we've had.
Various medical advances like transplants and genetic studies (stem cells, being a big no no) opposed by religion.
No you can't blame the bad of science of science and claim the good for religion. It is of course the old, easy materialism -bash: live in a life of ease and technological marvels provided by materialist science, then denounce it all as evil and anything good for religion.
(1) No of course, Truman. Not that I recall him being materialist science rather than religious, but I had in mind that Eisenhower in the 50's was fully behind the scientific developments of the Bomb.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-01-2021 at 11:45 PM..
To be a better answer, that answer has to be true.
science is limited in its ability to measure what people and religion have known and taught and recognized and put to practical use for tens of thousands of years.
that speaks to the limitation of science.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 03-02-2021 at 02:21 AM..
religion confirms it. science does not.
ergo better answer. per thread title.
The only thing religion confirms is that it is full of BS, and, by extension, believers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
