In another thread, Herk stated the above. To me the above quote really says, "I have no faith in the human race" And this really seems to the crux of the battles between believers and non-believers. Where do you put your faith in: Mankind or a deity. I'll put my 'faith' in mankind. Religion was once needed, but today it is a burden on society. I think the human race is on the verge of greatness. With in the next 100 years, I think we'll be living on at least Mars, out life spans will be significantly higher, genetic diseases will be wiped out. I'll base this on past human progress and what we know today. The question is, will the believers stand down and let scientific progress happen? Will they let us 'play god'. Will they finally put their faith in mankind?
There are plenty of religious people. There is still science. The real question is whether or not atheists will accept the concept that a diversity of opinion an insight is a good thing?
You, starting this thread without responding to the questions posed to you on the same thread you mention above, is proof of why one should NOT put their trust/confidence/faith in another man. You prove that you cannot be trusted to even answer those questions that were posed to you without moving on to another subject.
I don't think there's a limit to human understanding but there is a limit to human knowledge, and I think that's what Herkdriver was 'driving' at. There's no reason why we may not understand the existence of something even though we may never know if it actually exists. Fortunately, it's not always necessary to let religios beliefs stand down to let science progress. Far the most of all religious people know, or, at least, have a basic sense, that religion has no scientific application and that science has no (immediate) religious application.
There is no rationalizations that will justify why we may not understand the existence of something even though we may never know if it actually exists. I don't recall reading where any Theist has suggested that 'religion' might have any 'scientific application'. I may be wrong on that as I have not read every thread and every post on this forum. My question on that would be; why would a Theist suggest that religion has a scientific application? As for the next part of your statement; "science has no (immediate) religious application.", my question would be 'why would science even suggest an interest in 'religion' when 'religion' at present time is disregarded by the mainstream of scientists? Is there an unstated interest that science might be entertaining pertaining to religion? Do the scientists have a hidden agenda pertaining to religion? Your suggestion of "..no (immediate) religious application.", suggests that there conceivably could be a future religious application. The impression I get from that sort of statement is 'we will put religion on the back burner, until such time as we can either prove or disprove the existence of God, but for now, we will officially say that we don't indulge ourselves in such nonsense.' Then when the proof is brought to public knowledge, the scientific community will race through a million theories making adjustments to those theories so that the newly found 'proof' will fit like a silk glove. That way, science will attempt to take any credit that it has not earned, especially in the case where that proof shows that God does exist.
- People know that science has no religious application. - But why are you saying science and religion in the same sentence? Do scientists have hidden agendas with religious implications? - No, I just said that science has no religion application. - Do scientists then have a future hidden agenda with religious implications? - Not likely, I just said that science has no religion application. - But you cannot prove that God exists with science! - Indeed, I just said that science has no religion application. - But WHEN it becomes possible to prove God with science then scientists must have a hidden agenda. - *sigh* But I just said that science has no religion application. - Yes, but when it becomes possible to prove God with science then scientists will take the credit for God! - Oh, sod off.
IF ONLY!!!! Capitalism and medicine are strange bedfellows. You don't have an incentive to completely cure someone, because then they won't need your product anymore. You have an incentive to lessen their symptoms, or only require a cure that requires a large amount of resources. Some things have slipped through the cracks, such as vaccines, but can you imagine if there was a cure for cancer? I don't think pharmaceutical companies would be hung ho about it unless it's more expensive than the current way of doings things, which is chemo. There is also the environment. If the climatologists are correct, global warming is going to change our habitat immensely, and could end up killing lots of people and causing food shortages. And so far, some of our so called leaders, thanks to the oil industry, I mean Republican, opposition, are completely denying climate change is occurring at all. This is epistemically, and morally reprehensible. And we also have the threat of World War III with a terrorist nation getting their hands on nuclear weapons and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the torpedoes and attacking the United States and other Western countries. The world is pretty unstable right now, and the future is hard to see. Therefore, due to capitalism's incentives when it comes to medicine, the lack of action on climate change, and the instability of the world as a whole, I have serious doubts about whether the future for humanity will be better. I'm inclined to believe it will be much worse before it gets better, because a paradigm shift is needed that many people are not willing to face. We need to stop looking to war to solve our problems and using our military advantage to bully other nations. Medicine is not about making money, but curing people's lives. Universal health care is what is needed. And climate change will also require we shift from a petroleum based economy to something else. There is no choice. A little off topic from putting faith in mankind or a deity. I'd say I put my faith in neither.
Religion and science can and do co-exist, but still In God We Trust, the rest of you can go (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself
None of the above has anything to do with religion. Most religious people will be happy to see longer lifespans, etc. Genetic diseases, however, will never be wiped out. They may be remedied, but they can't be wiped out.
