tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7782269064050484274..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Responsibility, Religion, and ScienceAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31173781904572712922011-12-21T04:45:47.665-07:002011-12-21T04:45:47.665-07:00Klatu,
While scientists may have invented the nuc...Klatu,<br /><br />While scientists may have invented the nuclear bomb, they also created nuclear power plants, which are beneficial to us. Science allows you to make your post, surf the Internet, drive to work etc. What does religion really contribute to society as a whole? I can think of many harmful effects and very few good ones. Religion might bring comfort to some or allow them to behave morally because they think a cosmic policeman is looking over their shoulder, but compared to science, religion is next to useless in the big scheme of things. <br /><br />Alonzo,<br /><br />I agree with your post. Great job. I've added your blog to the link list on mine.Canadian Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641777092783262463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59829553728422370412011-12-20T08:05:36.528-07:002011-12-20T08:05:36.528-07:00klatu
This is a bit like showing a taxi driver an...<b>klatu</b><br /><br />This is a bit like showing a taxi driver and a computer programmer and asking which is the best dancer.<br /><br />There's a serious category mistake here.<br /><br />If we have limited moral understanding, the question rests on where we can go to improve upon it. I would argue that it is in the scientific understanding of the relationships of living creatures - more so than in the fictions and myth of ignorant prehistoric tribes.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6167031031360484652011-12-20T06:37:55.305-07:002011-12-20T06:37:55.305-07:00There is a cartoon making its way around the scien...There is a cartoon making its way around the science vs religion discussions that showed both a scientist and religious in conversation. The scientist was showing off his new nuclear weapon and the the religious was suggesting we bomb those we hate.<br /><br />Yet who has the moral high ground. Those who make such weapons or those who use them? I would suggest that anyone who claims the moral high ground is self deceived. As a species, humanity has such limited <br />moral understanding and potential, that to pretend otherwise is where all problems begin! http://www.energon.org.ukgoliahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484401523720233875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52598619328917463542011-12-19T17:15:54.373-07:002011-12-19T17:15:54.373-07:00since we are using contempt as a tool for change i...since we are using contempt as a tool for change in the target, and people are more likely to take your "contempt" to heart if they care about your opnion, such as from a friend. would it not be better to withhold strong contempt, even when it was deserved, in a situation where a friendship could blossom so as to raise the power of your condemnation (and praise) and thus the likelihood of change?<br /><br />obviously in cases with high public scrutiny, where an example is needed for others and in cases where you are unlikely to become friends a more frank approach might be reccomended. <br /><br />Even if someone has repugnent views on science that will potential hurt society, a stranger telling them they are wrong is almost worthless. while a respected friend or family member telling them they are wrong might have some meaningful impact.<br /><br />furthermore life cannot be treated like a single issue pony. it is possible for people to deny evolution or gay marriage and still be good people in other parts of their lives. for example christopher hitchens. he was a great debater and public figure who advanced atheism in the public arena and for that he deserves praise. But the foreign policy that he advocated on national T.V. was incredibly and dangerously hawkish and perhaps more likely to cost innocent lives than evolution deniers. furthermore he drank alot and smoked publically which is hardly a good example. on the other hand I hear he was an exceptionally nice guy and fun to hang out with. <br /><br />if you use condemnation swiftly and rightously in a way that pushes people away from you, even when they deserve it, then you might find yourself un-able to effectively apply praise when it is deserved and your condemnation will have no weight for the target. <br /><br />if a religous zealot is running toward a target with a sword who do you think is more likely to be able to stop him, the target saying "wait" or his trusted friend telling him to wait. <br /><br />there are times when one should not be friendly but i dont think evolution deniers or even climate change deniers cross that line just for holding harmful beliefs. <br />that line is crossed by clinic bombers, rapists, and fraudsters; not joe schmo the well meaning but stupid fundie.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.com