Religous law making a comeback
- Thread starter The Man
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
284Replies
-
4KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Chicken fucker, find answer to you fucking query here..
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science is powerful. It has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate a baby against polio, build a skyscraper, and drive a car. And science helps us answer important questions like which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how did the hole in the ozone layer form, how can we protect our crops from pests, and who were our evolutionary ancestors? With such breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless, but it is not. Science has definite limits.
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.
Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or dreadful. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.
Do gods exist? Do supernaturalentities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal withsupernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
weren't you blowing me?/ then who was it??
Chicken fucker, find answer to you fucking query here..
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science is powerful. It has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate a baby against polio, build a skyscraper, and drive a car. And science helps us answer important questions like which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how did the hole in the ozone layer form, how can we protect our crops from pests, and who were our evolutionary ancestors? With such breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless, but it is not. Science has definite limits.
Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or dreadful. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.
To learn more about the different ways that humans have applied scientific knowledge, explore What has science done for you lately?
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernaturalentities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal withsupernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
Another copy and paste by a lazy poster that can't think for himself.
I don't see anything there that relates to Man's question:
what morals has science destroyed?
Failing to hear anything meaningful here except fucking chatterings I rest my argument here,,,
THE NEW YORK TIMES
July 23, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE MORAL NATURALISTS
Scientific research is showing that we are born with an innate moral sense.
By DAVID BROOKS
Washington, Conn.
Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Most people think it is a gift from God, who revealed His laws and elevates us with His love. A smaller number think that we figure the rules out for ourselves, using our capacity to reason and choosing a philosophical system to live by.
Moral naturalists, on the other hand, believe that we have moral sentiments that have merged from a long history of relationships. To learn about morality, you don't rely upon revelation or metaphysics; you observe people as they live.
This week a group of moral naturalists gathered in Connecticut at a conference organized by the Edge Foundation. ...
By the time humans came around, evolution had forged a pretty firm foundation for a moral sense. Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia argues that this moral sense is like our sense of taste. We have natural receptors that help us pick up sweetness and saltiness. In the same way, we have natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty. Just as a few universal tastes can grow into many different cuisines, a few moral senses can grow into many different moral cultures.
Paul Bloom of Yale noted that this moral sense can be observed early in life. Bloom and his colleagues conducted an experiment in which they showed babies a scene featuring one figure struggling to climb a hill, another figure trying to help it, and a third trying to hinder it. ...
[...Continue]
THE NEW YORK TIMES
July 23, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE MORAL NATURALISTS
Scientific research is showing that we are born with an innate moral sense.
By DAVID BROOKS
Washington, Conn.
Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Most people think it is a gift from God, who revealed His laws and elevates us with His love. A smaller number think that we figure the rules out for ourselves, using our capacity to reason and choosing a philosophical system to live by.
Moral naturalists, on the other hand, believe that we have moral sentiments that have merged from a long history of relationships. To learn about morality, you don't rely upon revelation or metaphysics; you observe people as they live.
This week a group of moral naturalists gathered in Connecticut at a conference organized by the Edge Foundation. ...
By the time humans came around, evolution had forged a pretty firm foundation for a moral sense. Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia argues that this moral sense is like our sense of taste. We have natural receptors that help us pick up sweetness and saltiness. In the same way, we have natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty. Just as a few universal tastes can grow into many different cuisines, a few moral senses can grow into many different moral cultures.
Paul Bloom of Yale noted that this moral sense can be observed early in life. Bloom and his colleagues conducted an experiment in which they showed babies a scene featuring one figure struggling to climb a hill, another figure trying to help it, and a third trying to hinder it. ...
[...Continue]
science has destroyed you, your morals as you waste whole of your time bickering on the internet,
Science teaches you to make deadly weapons and to kill innocent people by nuking them/
Morality of Science exists in constructive as well as destructive pursuits..'
Lack of moral sense teaches you to produce porn as much a s possible and spread lechery around the world,
Your morals are based on domination,,,oppression and blackmail,,,
science inculcates more greed and envy for neighbor's wife...bad morals!!
Science teaches you to let a white women get ass fucked by a black burly dog and end up in a tie with some white men watching and pouring water on poor animals dick to release the knot
Interesting venting, but you still aren't listing what morals science has destroyed.
Just more avoidance.
what morals has science destroyed?
Last edited by a moderator:
Science teaches you morals...good manners too..
I sense confusion in your mind.
See what I mean, The Man.
mazHur flip flops when ever it's convenient to post some hate.
And he still avoids your question.
I see that...he spends all his effort avoiding the question rather than addressing it..not the scientific approach for sure.
Earlier you stated science destroyed morals..now you say it teaches them.
Science teaches you morals...good manners too..
which is it.?
What school did you go to?
You seem to remember the animal sex rather well.
you claimed prior that science destroyed morals..can you tell us which morals science has destroyed
Sex is instinct,,,don't you have it?? No? Are you gay??
Can you send me a link to horse sex with a white woman for a 'critical review'???
'I have written quite enough and even sent you more than sufficient references on topic...I think this thread has been exhausted and there is no sense in dragging it further by your idiotic gookings being the hallmark of a habitual troll.
G bye,,,,,this lousy thread and the two stooges here!!
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members