a question about the value of human life

Science is as blind as justice. I'm not sure why the inclusion of eradication was necessary for colonization. These, to me, are mutually exclusive issues: 1) does science give reason for not eradicating 99% (or 95%) of Earth's population. 2) If at all possible, should humanity attempt to colonize the solar system and beyond.

As for your first question. Ethically? No, again science is as blind as justice. As a question on the sustainability of humanity with such great loss, I don't know. It would be a difficult, yet, perhaps an interesting question to answer; though, I hope we are never faced with such a dilemma.

And the second. Yes, we should explore and colonize as quickly as possible.

More so, I'm interested in why the question is posed. Other than philosophical debate, I see no reward from musing over the idea of 6.3 billion deaths. Seems a great disturbance in the force would be felt, to say the least.

i am considering the possibility that it is religious thought alone which holds human life as valuable

and that a purely scientific society would likely result in a small number of people having the power and the motive to kill off the rest of the planet

and no real argument or reason not to

and that this is not a smart thing to do

to promote a world view which allows for the justification of mass genocide

and also provides the means of accomplising it

that seems a bad idea to me

someone has recently suggested to me that it was religions promotion of the idea of truth as holy

and as sacred in ts own right and for its own sake

which lead to the scientific method to begin with

and that regardless of whether we can see a logic in promoting the idea that humanity is valuable

we should not at all promote the idea that it ISNT

because this will eventually result in mass murder on a global scale (as opposed to a national or regional scale)

it would very likely be only a matter of time

quite a few very intelligent people have made the case that we have come very very close to this already, a la the cold war

and it might be that there would be no way to avoid it under the condition of science itself as the sole arbiter of truth in human civilization

i understand that there may be no way to avoid it anyway

what i am wondering is if there is any reason to think that it would not be an inevitable outcome within a global society which existed under a purely scientific banner

i started this thread to explore these ideas

so far the results are not hopeful

I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!

Funny, I've been thinking about Nietzche, and what his actual thoughts on 'Will to Power' were. And then this pops up.


So no, science doesn't provide any direct, ethical reason. There are ethical constraints within the scientific community - at least traditionally - but that doesn't necessarily arise from science as much as it does from society, parents; the environment - and also to some extent possibly innate, at least in terms of emotions.

There does seem to be something more at work 'behind the scenes' in terms of why the question was asked, but as this is the internet and subtext is not necessarily easy to read - especially given the varieties of personal text-based grammar in use among various members of the www community - it cannot be assumed. The question itself is not innately "scientific" however, and would perhaps have been better served within the "philosophy" section. Because that's what this is - a philosophical brain game, designed partially to evoke an emotional response and partially to expand logical thought.

So let's see - we'll ignore the reiteration because it doesn't really seem to make any sense in connection to the first - or rather, it's an extraneous addition. The original did just fine.

f a man has the power to kill off 99% of the human population and place himself as supreme emperor of the remaining [population] - and devote the majority of the remaining workforce to ensuring the colonization of space...and the majority of the rest of his personal time to having as many children as [possible], does science offer any reason that he should NOT do it?


Alright, so to rephrase:


(1) Is genocide morally wrong?

(2) If so, why?

(3) What makes you think so?

Well, in order to answer this I'd suggest that we need to start way back along the road, somewhere around the question: "what is morality". I mean we're looking at this issue and trying to decide basically if there is some sort of underlying reason why killing people is wrong, or if it's solely the product of environment - jumping back to the early point about ulterior motives, the idea that there needs to be a social construct to train morality would seem to be the actual central argument in the lining. I'm frankly not entirely certain that that is incorrect - however that does not in any way mean that the social construct need be a religion or any form of spiritual organization, it could well be any code of social conduct implemented in the populace at the youngest possible age. This view sees it as simply social conditioning. It's also still missing something fundamental, which I still feel can be best considered by trying to figure out the root cause of the dilemma itself: morality (what is right and what is wrong). We can argue that a social construct is what gives the individuals in a society their general moral guidelines, but that society could just as easily be raised to believe that genocide is dandy as it could to believe that all life deserves to live.


Scientifically speaking I really think Connor said it already though - science is apathetic to people's personal beliefs. It simply does what it does, damn personal opinion. Which is one of the reasons why it's such a powerful tool.

thank you for your response and the time it required

i have no idea how people interpret my words

i am explaining myself as well as i am able

the proposition i am working with is that science provides the means and ability to kill off pretty much everyone

without offering any reason not to

in fact i wonder if it is not eventually scientifically justifiable to do exactly that if you find yourself in the positon to be the one who makes the determination of who lives and who doesnt

and again, if this is the logical result, or at least A logical result- is it not a really good idea to acknowledge this and to counter it as soon as possible?

i would think "yes"

(EDIT - when i say "result" here i mean "result of a global civilization which promotes our current science as the only relevant/reliable source of truth)

it seemed to me when i wanted to get the conversation going that to present it as "hey this is what i think is true" was less polite and less interactive than "hey heres a question, who has an answer?"

i would actually be just as happy if someone could make a compelling case that i am missing something in my logic

because in this particular instance i would prefer to find the theory i am entertaining to be proven wrong

so far it seems not to be the case

(EDIT also, this is not MY theory- it is A theory which i have encountered and am exploring)

OB1Shinobi wrote: thank you for your response and the time it required

i have no idea how people interpret my words

You're welcome.
As for interpretations - that's the point I made in my post - they're easily mistaken on the internet. Because of the medium, a post in forum "A" takes with it the whole slew of experiences people have had with the poster in forum "B", "C", and "D". It's a bad habit honestly, because it devalues the conversation and places it below the supposed personal status's of the individuals discussing it. That said, I think it's of supreme importance to be aware of how one interprets other people's communication, and of equal importance for one to assess how their communication might be interpreted by others. Understanding that solves a lot of hassles before they start. :side:

But anyway... sorry for the weird formatting in the last post by the way. I really hate that we can't edit posts here.

it seemed to me when i wanted to get the conversation going that to present it as "hey this is what i think is true" was less polite and less interactive than "hey heres a question, who has an answer?"

Yes, much better. You know what they say about opinions. Besides, posing a question shows that you're earnestly working towards some sort of understanding, yes? That's good - it means that you really want to find flaws in this particular line of reasoning, and you're looking for input. All good in my book.

i would actually be just as happy if someone could make a compelling case that i am missing something in my logic

because in this particular instance i would prefer to find the theory i am entertaining to be proven wrong

so far it seems not to be the case

However this isn't quite true, or quite fair - I think. Not fair in the sense of unfair to the participants in the discussion, but unfair to the weight of the discussion itself. Connor's point was valid - if a bit wryly acerbic - but there's nothing wrong with a little humor! I did however try to make the point in my post that, in order to even begin to find a reasonable footing, I feel we need to step back a long way away and actually reassess our opinions on this topic from the ground up.

See, the fact of the matter is that this is not a new discussion - in the course of human history. We're talking now in terms of so-called global extinction (a relatively new phenomena in itself, true enough), but really it boils down to the much simpler standard question of "what is morality", which is what I was trying to get at. Another piece of the question might be "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should: is this correct?" Because the real point here is that science is a system of thought, analysis, deconstruction, and observation - it is a tool, and like any tool can be misused. That is not a point in contention I think - surely Oppenheimer would agree with me. But the question you seem to be raising sounds suspiciously like "it's science's fault", which is another question that needs solitary consideration before connecting it to the whole. The aforementioned noted scientist and many of his colleges battled with this same moral conundrum after the fruits of their work killed over 220,0000 people over fifty years ago.

"Does the scientist obsessed with the pure act of discovery immoral if he uses science to create something which another person might use for ill ends?" What sort of moral responsibility does a scientist have to his work? Opinions on this varies greatly from person to person, because it's not an issue set within the core of science, but rather within the individual scientist and the society in which (s)he lives.

and again, if this is the logical result, or at least A logical result- is it not a really good idea to acknowledge this and to counter it as soon as possible?

i would think "yes"

Fair enough, but again it's not a simple answer. I'm relatively certain it's not too difficult to see now that it's not science itself, as a system of approaching the observation and understanding of the universe, which is responsible - or even capable of being responsible - for the problem. Rather this is a social discussion - when brought into the terms of real-world consideration. Else it's a matter of philosophic debate. In either case I believe that the best way to go about understanding the subject is through careful deconstruction of the subject, by first figuring out what our terminology means, why it exists, and what it stands for.

Sidenote: I remember reading a really interesting essay on the topic of the word "genocide" a while back that was arguing that the term isn't well-defined enough to be used. A counter argument that came up in an article written by a biology professor was that the term encompasses a subject that otherwise has no match in the vocabulary... that we needed a word which could encompass such a large and abstract idea as "the death of a people".


Point is, it's not a simple discussion, and there will be no simple answers - especially not on an online forum. Conversation might be sparked, which is always good, but it wouldn't make sense to expect an "answer" to a subject this complex, vague, and (at least on an emotional level) troubling. Certainly not before a discussion has even had the chance to begin.

So, either we find a new place to start the discussion, or we could go with my previous question and see where that takes us - without forgetting the reason we started discussing it in the first place (which forums actually make easier! :laugh: )

From earlier:

I'd suggest that we need to start way back along the road, somewhere around the question: "what is morality"

OB1Shinobi wrote: i am considering the possibility that it is religious thought alone which holds human life as valuable

It was clear from the beginning that there was more to the argument, which is fine, but this topic really belonged in the philosophy section, and it would have been better to lead with the whole point you were trying to make from the beginning. If you want an honest discussion, the topic needs to be as clearly defined as you can make it, and if you don't want an honest discussion I just wasted an hour of my life typing at my keyboard - c'est la vie.

Edit: everything in my above post stands however. The discussion cannot be disappointing until we've actually had a discussion.

No structure of thought is so failure-proof that it would stop everyone from massacring the entire planet. Science, while demanding a few moral standards relevant to productive scientific work, is not strictly in the business of dictating or indeed even suggesting morals. All it can do is inform us about some of the short and long term consequences of our actions. This seems like too little at first; however, this is more than we get from anything else and arguably the most we even can get. The question "why be moral at all?" is one that has been troubling moral philosophers in ages now and seems ever more to be an insoluble one. Why indeed?
To say that life in general or human life in particular is inherently valuable or sacred really doesn't help. It is a label with no content. What does it mean that it is valuable or sacred? And, even granting that we understand what this means, the question of "why should we care?" remains as solid as it was before and we can confidently go on and murder everyone with no reason not to.
Even under divine command theory, at best one could say that one should follow the deities will either because axiomatically one should or because deviating from it bears undesirable consequences. Why we should avoid those or why there is anything good about the commands remains unanswered. Equally unanswered remains why we should care what is good and what isn't.
Other deontological models fail for similar reasons. If they are internally consistent, they still lack justification from outside.
Consequentionalist frameworks tend not to bother much with ultimate justification either, but given a few basic precepts they can in principle lead to fleshed out models of various applicability, though one soon ventures ouside of consequentionalism, depending on how complicated it gets.
Virtue ethics likewise tell you nothing about why you should care to try for their definition of a good life, they just assert what it takes and sometimes why they think so.
Science can at best claim to be a consequentionalist's best tool. It tries to learn what will happen given starting points, but whether you care and to what extent and what goals you pursue and why is completely outside of it.

They are at best outside of all moral thought, current and past, aided or not aided by knowledge, and at worst addressed in a rude equivalent of "coz we said so, that's why". The difference with science is that unlike arm-chair philosophy, it can demonstrate some correspondence to the reality we happen to live in. That is not to say that philosophy in general or moral thought in particular are overall inferior - far from it! Rather science has the disadvantage of being restricted to the world it can operate in and for this reason tries to do within it as accurate as it can, thus creating an advantage to compensate for the limitation the advantage spawns from.

Stating your question as it has morphed, I read:

Does science hold an ethical (moral) foundation? And, if not, do we rely solely on religion for said ethics?

Am I closure to the heart of your question? If I am I would answer your question by say, No science holds no inherent moral basis as it is a means of gaining knowledge; a tool for aquirment of the intangible. As well, I would agree with Locksley that any ethical basis within science is a manifestation of the culture utilizing the application.

However, with that said, I also do not see myth (religion) as the foundation of human morality;as it too is a tool. A tool utilized for the application of moral understanding. Ethics and morality seem to have evolved into the collective as a means of understanding the individual's role within a greater society. What is morality was one of the first philosophical debates and continues to this day, as evidenced in this discussion. It seems to have derived from our need for understanding why we are here; and thereby how we may utilize this manifestation.

I too am interested in why and how, but do not see a need for religion or science to direct my morality as much as reason and logic.

It is questions such as this that have convinced me of the amorality, and thus incomplete nature of science as a tool for good.

i am considering the possibility that it is religious thought alone which holds human life as valuable

Hmm, your conclusion that it is religion that holds life as sacred or of value is only as true as the people under whatever religion... Well, you certainly have a selective memory in regards to history...

Given how much death has happened in the name of religion, despite all it teaches about sacredness of life and being a good person, it is strange how science is the one on the block for what it does and doesnt give.

Religion creates and us and them mentality.

By its very nature, if you state this and this is good, and that, and that, is sin, well, lets look at history and you will see how sacred an religion holds the value of life and how it teaches more that might makes right then being a god person does.

Science on the other hand makes no claims to make you a better person from the outset, and so there is no deception.

It is available to all, and so, it only creates and us and them mentality through a religious lens, and monetary one sometimes.

f a man has the power to kill off 99% of the human population and place himself as supreme emperor of the remaining [population] - and devote the majority of the remaining workforce to ensuring the colonization of space...and the majority of the rest of his personal time to having as many children as [possible], does science offer any reason that he should NOT do it?

Hmm, except for the colonization of space, this scenario has been played out by the religious plently. Perhaps not killing 99% of the population, but certainly a good number of it,( in some regards 99%, or a whole culture) and then enslaving the rest and then having lots of kids, and while science may not provide adequate reasons NOT to do it, religion has provided man with plenty of reason to do it.

Science has shown us many things in regards to environment and other factors in which our destructive behavior is not helpful.

Not based on some arbitrary notions of good or bad, but continued existence, or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovlrV7SoPCo

EDIT
Khaos your post wasnt there when i started this
i am watching the harris video
ill get back to you

---

i dont like the quoting and picking apart every detail thing that people usually do so im just going to respond, sort of freestyle to everyone as best as i am able
if i miss anything that anyone feels is important then please direct me to it again

first, if the topic is more accessible by re-framing it then by all means do so

i felt that putting it in the scenario format made it a little more immediate - which imo is appropriate

rather than a completely abstract "does science offer a sense of morality?"
which sort of keeps us all out of it, to an extent

it could be "hey for those who promote science as the foundation of all truth, what reason does science offer to NOT kill (virtually) everybody?"

but like i said, i dont care that much how the question is considered - im really just interested in the feedback and the discussion

as for "is it sciences FAULT? or do i BLAME science?"

no

i think science is awesome - these are two of my favorites in the hope that someone finds one of these interesting

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology


i guess i should have put this in philosophy - my apologies
if a mod wants to move it i am ok with that

im not new to the essential question presented here but i AM new to the experience of taking it seriously as a question

when confronted with the idea that people need religion to be decent to each other i have thought "thats stupid"

but now im asking WHY; why is that stupid? where else does the idea come from? that life has value? that it is RIGHT to be good to each other in a way that is bigger than just personal feelings or the avoidance of negative consequences?

is it not possible that the very reason we assume that treating people decent is self evident is because we have some religious conditioning which tells us it is so?

if it doesnt come from religion then where?

in a relatively equal society, where everyone is basically dependent on everyone else or at least someone else, then yes, cooperation and general respect are in order and are justified by logic and reason

but

in a technological society where innovation has produced the ability to change the social structure virtually over night (consider the intentional release of a biological agent, for example) and where one person or group may see the legitimate opportunity to re-write the existing social structure and place themselves tyrannically above it (nazi germany or stalin or any other terrible regimes or dictatorships you might name) - the need for respect of life drops exponentially in relative proportion to the total numbers of the individuals and logistics involved - i.e. "we only need X number of you - as slaves - and the rest can die".

also, what about personal responsibility insofar as that the ideas which we promote as individuals will inevitably influence our societies?

especially now in the internet era, one single idea can make more of a difference in the intellectual development of mass peoples than ever before in known human history

which brings me to Consequentialism

i dont know where the limits of the consequentialist philosophy are drawn;

if a parent teaches the child that nothing matters and its ok to do whatever they want to anyone as long as they can get away with doing it to, and the child grows to be a monster, is the parent responsible for the consequences of their teaching?

if mom says "go steal me some beer" is she responsible for the child doing it?

if she simply says "theres nothing wrong with stealing in and of itself, because theres no such thing as right or wrong anyway" and the kid goes and steals, is she responsible?

if so, then are we, as individuals not also responsible for what we teach each other?

does the question not become "is it responsible to promote ideas which inherently deny essential value to human life?"

if i teach that life has no value and existence has no meaning, and the charisma of my presentation inspires someone in such a way that their personality develops with faith in the ideas that i presented to them, do i not share in the responsibility when they act on those ideas?

and is it not inevitable that they eventually will?

i understand that there is no guarantee that a "religious" or "god worshiping" society wont produce such a thing as well

religious people have certainly proven that they are capable of mass murder

but does the argument "its not the science that is to blame for the murder, it is the people" not equally hold true for religion?

certainly in the case of christianity and most definitely in the case of buddhism (and buddhists have been known to fight over religion) the doctrine itself advocates love and respect and tolerance and justifies it with the assertion that life is or can be a holy experience

and that there is a cosmic order of which we are a part and that this order is inherently valuable

and religion at least, allows for conversion

do we not have on the one hand "there is no meaning to existence and no inherent value to life"
vs
"we are a part of something inherently meaningful and holy and must treat each other and the world accordingly"

it seems logical to me
(and to others, who i have been impressed with and by whom i am inspired to have this discussion with the group)
that one of those world views virtually guarantees genocidal outcomes and the other at least has within it a mechanism which limits or reduces the likelihood, as well as encourages its resistance

and if not religion, then, again, in the face of the awesome power of science, WHAT?

i am reminded of the fight club quote about the panda that wouldnt screw to save its own species

I DONT WANT TO BE THAT PANDA :deadpanda

on the issue of the word "genocide"
i dont know the context or history of that discussion
my thought is that the debate over a word is fair and good here on an internet forum where the entire experience is centered around words - but that in the face of actual genocide, in the face of the EVENT, the personality who would quibble over the DEFINITION would be part of the problem

it seems to me the shorthand definition most of the world will acknowledge would be something like "mass murder of a predetermined group of people"
you could add "regardless of their level of hostility" and i think that would seal the deal about the word and its definition
some people have mental associations to religious implication, or geographical or cultural, but i think its a safe bet that most of the world would look at any event which met that criteria/definition and say "genocide"

the only positive thing i can come away with is the idea that not really having a good word for the event seems hopeful in its own right

i am reminded of the fight club quote about the panda that wouldnt screw to save its species and i wonder if belife in the value of life is not something we ought to teach on faith

i think the world needs more than science alone to move us forward, if for no other reason than that science does not provide any real reason TO move forward

one of those degrassi tyson talks he mentions that chimps and humans have only about 2% difference in genetic make up and that this two percent is the difference between say vivaldi and koko the gorilla

he suggests that "aliens" if they were ahead of us by the same two percent margin might wheel a stephen hawking or isaac newton out on a chair and say "look this one is a little bit smarter than the others - it can do math, sort of"

and in the context of this discussion - if koko the gorilla told me there was no meaning to the universe and no value to life because her culture couldnt find any evidence of it being otherwise, if i wouldnt then laugh at the clever little monkey and its clever little science (sorry ms goodall, i know shes not actually monkey)

what im saying is, since we are not by any means guaranteed to be the measure of intelligence (in the "grand cosmic sense")
even though our science is doing a great job in a lot of things in its own right, who are we to say that it is the be all and end all of what is true in the universe?
isnt it still premature to accept this?

it cant even prove that we should continue to live
isnt this the most basic thing?

is it rather like crawling around in a dark room and only being certain that anything exists at all if we can fit it into our hand and smell it and set it back on the floor and crawl our way back to it and find that its still there?

compared to someone who knows how to flip the switch (that theoretical alien with a 2 percent difference to us) arent we imbeciles?

isnt this enough to confirm that we shouldnt put ALL our faith in the results of science to provide the answers - at least in this one instance?

Lol, I think you need to try to shorten your posts. Seriously, they run on for so long and I get lost into what it is your trying to say.

but does the argument "its not the science that is to blame for the murder, it is the people" not equally hold true for religion?

In that context, replace the blame for murder, for the blame for doing good. Hence religion holds no real corner in the market in regards to morality, any more than science anyway.

So ultimately, who is to blame? The individual, or group, who if they are going to do bad or good, probably do not need science, or religion, as you have reduced them to tools, blameless tools, and so, the rest of the argument is moot in my opinion.

You don need science, or religion to do bad, or good things, or to look to to justify your acts of atrocity, or benevolence.

Perhaps people put to much time into looking for those answers outside to begin with.

You will not get rid of bad people, or god people, and there excuses are largely irrelevant, and the means with which they carry it out, the tools as it were? Well, you cant blame them right?

Those that will do good will, and though they have excuses, would not need them. The same for those that would do bad.

You cant look to the tools for answers.

Do you ask your ethical and moral questions to a hammer?

So why ask it of science, if it is just a tool?

Lol, and if religion is also a tool, it has just as much of an answer, or lack of one.

isnt this enough to confirm that we shouldnt put ALL our faith in the results of science to provide the answers - at least in this one instance?

Heres the thing....Science has in no way said it could asnwer the questions you are asking of it.

So the instance, this one instance, to say it doesnt have the answer to a question it doesnt ask...

What are you trying to prove exactly?

Science doesnt ask for, or require faith anyway.

For those paths, or avenues, or what have you, that do say they have the answers...None of them have an overwhelming corner in the market on morals and ethics, but all have been vehicles for various levels of atrocity.

Science holds no morals as science is not an ideology because science is a tool. Everything that science does it dependent on the one who uses it.
You can use science to create or to destroy. Which you choose depends on who you are as a person. Will you use the hammer to smash the vase or build a shelf for it?

Does human life only hold value in a religious sense? No, absolutely not. The value of life is inherit to all of us if we care to listen to our natural instincts because without other people we won't survive and the instinct to keep our species alive is just as strong in humans as in other animals and organisms. Many ideas, though, has given us an ethnocentric view of the world that sets us apart from the natural world and has taught us to ignore natural instincts.

In the end I can't answer your question because I believe you're holding two things up against eachother which aren't comparable. In a sense it's like asking if you prefer icecream or jazz.

A heads up to the newer members and guests here, most of us are geeks, and we love science. Consider yourselves warned when posting theoretical questions...

the sam harris video was cool

the only thing i see that needs to be addressed in response to his talk is what i already mentioned about the situation where a person or small group sees a legitimate chance to overthrow the existing structure and kill off most of the competitors (i.e. the rest of the human race)

the conclusions of science dont require faith insofar as they are able to be reproduced deliberately and reliably

what i meant when i said something about "faith in science" is that i see people putting forward the idea that religion is bad and science is good and therefore we should do away with religion and count on science to provide all the answers

i see that religion is pretty much a bad word among people who pride themselves on being intellectual and the more i think of it, the more i come to believe thats a terrible way to see things

i guess thats my point

Zenchi wrote: A heads up to the newer members and guests here

Consider yourselves warned when posting theoretical questions...

the taliban say stuff like this

OB1Shinobi wrote: the sam harris video was cool

the only thing i see that needs to be addressed in response to his talk is what i already mentioned about the situation where a person or small group sees a legitimate chance to overthrow the existing structure and kill off most of the competitors (i.e. the rest of the human race)

the conclusions of science dont require faith insofar as they are able to be reproduced deliberately and reliably

what i meant when i said something about "faith in science" is that i see people putting forward the idea that religion is bad and science is good and therefore we should do away with religion and count on science to provide all the answers

i see that religion is pretty much a bad word among people who pride themselves on being intellectual and the more i think of it, the more i come to believe thats a terrible way to see things

i guess thats my point

But that would be the intentions of that small group of people, not the intention of science as science has no intentions in itself. Math enables you to calculate how many bombs it would take to destroy a certain amount of buildings but it also enables you to calculate how many throws of a dice it would take to spell out "Macbeth" in Morse code. Math doesn't care. Chemistry doesn't care or judge the right or wrong in making Agent Orange more than it does when I make soap at home. Chemistry just do what it does.
I see no conflict between religion and science as they deal with two different things. The spiritual and the earthly. Coming from Druidism do I see a problem with science explaining how photosynthesis works considering I attribute Life to the Force? No, it just makes it all so much more wonderful and beautiful to me. It doesn't change the fact that I believe there's an all-pervasive Force running through the entire universe, it simply shows me another aspect of it.

i agree

i love learning about a wide variety of subjects- i myself am not a scientist, strictly speaking, but i do promote science and i am fascinated with scientific discovery

the feeling that inspired this thread was a response to the idea that religion is a blight on humanity and in its place we should accept science

in the place of religion

i grew up seeing religious people act like asses and for a time i had a sense that religion was more trouble than its worth

every now and again a religious person would say "without god people would have no morals" and i thought "thats absolutely stupid"

but i realize that its not stupid at all

its not precise that we need "god" but it seems to me that it IS religion that insists life is valuable and so i was interested in exploring that basic topic

i bet science would care if you could make a soap that would wash away the agent orange

and i feel the same way with a lot of astronomy and physics

the universe is amazing and every time i hear or read scientists talking about how atoms and molecules behave and space time and the multiverse i always think "science is proving the ancients were right about a lot of stuff"