contributions of science/technology vs contribut by religion
-
lets put the various contributions so that readers can know whether science/tech contribute more or religion
-
I don't think it's proper to say which contributed more, because saying that would mean we're judging the two, which isn't right. Rather, it should be what they contributed and what they brought about.Originally posted by january:lets put the various contributions so that readers can know whether science/tech contribute more or religion -
So correct me if I"m wrong.
You're trying to show that science has contributed a lot more to our world than religion.
I don't think this is a useful comparison.
1. It's not possible to fully list what science has contributed. I don't think anyone would disagree that science has contributed a lot to our understanding.
2. The issue is, "is science the only way we can understand the world". Some would argue that science and religion address two different magisteria. You cannot compare the contributions of science and religion because they are not addressing the same problems/issues.
So I think we could go on forever listing the contributions of science but it won't really convince anyone. -
Late Prof. Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-
Looking at 2 different incomparable areas, dude.Originally posted by january:lets put the various contributions so that readers can know whether science/tech contribute more or religion -
Einstein was an atheist. What he referred to as 'religion' is not how we commonly use that word. Same as his use of the word 'God'.Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Late Prof. Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Einstein's religion was his unbounded admiration of the universe in which we live. His 'God' was the fundamental nature of the universe.
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/einstein.htm -
or rather.. which one saves more lives.. captures more bad people... helps to stops more natural disaster
-
Thx for the link..Originally posted by Phaze:Einstein was an atheist. What he referred to as 'religion' is not how we commonly use that word. Same as his use of the word 'God'.
Einstein's religion was his unbounded admiration of the universe in which we live. His 'God' was the fundamental nature of the universe.
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/einstein.htm
Linkie.
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/einstein.htm -
It's not like science and religion are exclusive
-
I sense another religion-bashing party coming up.Originally posted by january:or rather.. which one saves more lives.. captures more bad people... helps to stops more natural disaster -
nice quote..Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Late Prof. Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -
let's just say that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which attempted to destroy all religions caused a moral vacuum in China...
the result is now.. a morally bankrupt country which will not hesitate to poison children for profit...
give it some thought -
It's hard to justify dude.. Another science did help to get crooks nabbed but the remain a crook, However religion give human a guideline to be good..Originally posted by january:or rather.. which one saves more lives.. captures more bad people... helps to stops more natural disaster -
Good illrustation...Originally posted by the Bear:let's just say that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which attempted to destroy all religions caused a moral vacuum in China...
the result is now.. a morally bankrupt country which will not hesitate to poison children for profit...
give it some thought -
But is the United States of America, the most professedly Christian country in the world, the example of the pinnacle of morality.
You might argue that people in the USA only claim to be Christians, but they are not true Christians as they don't practice the religion that they profess. But does anyone?
Christianity is also exploding in Africa. You could say that Africa is the most 'true' Christian country right now. African Christianity is deeply fundamentalist. Are they now the standard of morality?
Jesus said:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
But does any Christian group practice this?
They don't practice it because they know it's not true. If they really did turn the other cheek, they would be wiped out.
Such is the world we live in. -
Whether China is a morally bankrupt country is a matter of debate. And as we mentioned before, it's hard to define what "morally bankrupt" means when we can't even properly define the standards of morality. To a large degree, moral standards are simply based on what principles you value more.Originally posted by the Bear:let's just say that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which attempted to destroy all religions caused a moral vacuum in China...
the result is now.. a morally bankrupt country which will not hesitate to poison children for profit...
give it some thought
For example, if you could kill 1 person to save 10, would it be right for those 10 people to kill the one? Do the rights of the group trump the rights of the individual?
So if you value individual rights more, the answer is no. If you value group rights more, the answer is yes.
Religion in most cases fails as a moral compass as well.
In Mark 9:43, "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
This is moral?
And this is just one example. There are many far worse. -
i dun hate or dislike religion.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:I sense another religion-bashing party coming up.
i merely talk about the right and wrong of things factual and discuss about things.
i always remind not not to dislike or hate things, including religion.
I am disagree that people, non god believers should harbor hatred and dislike towards religion.
just focus on convincing others. if cannot, dun curse and scold them. just go back and refine your arguments. -
human arm transplant from right to left side. his left arm was lost in the past, and he suffer a right side stroke.
arm transplant has been successful since 1998.
these are what are called real workdone, real contributions, practical benefits brought by science, medicine, technology.
from straits time(tue)
i can come up with tons of this kind of practical benefits created by science/technology that does not have vague casuality or debatable possiblity of what may have happen actually
ok,now give me some religion example contribution if anyone could.
one of common example of religion contribution is the feel good factor and it gives hope but i can tell you that many things give people a feel good factor as well. -
knowledge gained by science, technology, doctors are often observable and can be seen how it works and how it have to be done in order to save lives, to improve lives, how it make our life more convinent ,more connected.
-
the ability of us being able to chat down here and exchange opinions is due to the computer programmers who write all the long list of codings, the invention of electricity by thomas edison(i think), the invention of transistor by some engineers, the invention of internet, the calculation of how to transmit data through underwater cable, satellite thru phsyics ,maths principle.....
arghh.... i love science. -
The very root of this 'discussion' is already illogical. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare the amount of lives saved by or natural disasters "stopped"Originally posted by january:i dun hate or dislike religion.
i merely talk about the right and wrong of things factual and discuss about things.
i always remind not not to dislike or hate things, including religion.
I am disagree that people, non god believers should harbor hatred and dislike towards religion.
just focus on convincing others. if cannot, dun curse and scold them. just go back and refine your arguments.
by either religion and science.
Its like saying I drink coffee and cut apples and I drink tea and cut apples. Which one do you think contributes to cutting more apples? The tea? The coffee? Or is it the knife that the hand is holding? -
I do think this topic is poorly phrased but I understand what January is trying to get at.
Science has contributed greatly to our understanding of the world that we live in. Religion gives made up answers that are not really answers at all. -
It depends what you value. If you value the conveniences science brings, you will definitely value it more.
How about the abolition of slavery? I think it is a significant contribution. -
[quote]Originally posted by DriftingGuy:
The very root of this 'discussion' is already illogical. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare the amount of lives saved by or natural disasters "stopped" by either religion and science.
Its like saying I drink coffee and cut apples and I drink tea and cut apples. Which one do you think contributes to cutting more apples? The tea? The coffee? Or is it the knife that the hand is holding? [/quote
the point is that we have to divert resources and people focus onto science/tech more than religion so that more work can be done.
religion activities and ritual take up time and give people a false sense of direction all will be better after ritual, which is not true.
all will be better if people value research, and knowledge seeking, practise science and contribute towards inventions and stuff, think and be creativeto come out with real solutions to real world.
rituals are just rituals and rituals held every month,very year and it goes on and on and on and in the end, there is very little output.
humans have finite resources and finite time. we cannot afford to be waste on time doing unproductive things. -
abolition of slavery probably comes under governance and not so much of science or religion.Originally posted by sillyme:It depends what you value. If you value the conveniences science brings, you will definitely value it more.
How about the abolition of slavery? I think it is a significant contribution.