Discussion in 'The Senate Floor' started by JediMaster1511, Aug 2, 2010.
An exemplary post!
Why thank you.
Now I don't know where to begin.
...at the end!
good one Every end is a new beginning.
While I think that Spirituality and Science are both all well and good, science is more verifiable in a physical sense, and spirituality is something we just came up with to make ourselves happy for the short time we're here. I'm fine with both, am more scientific than spiritual, but still believe in Spirituality as a way of emotions expressing themselves.
But I'm also closer to Nihilism right now than anything, so what do I know? Nothing, that's what.
Don't discredit yourself. It seems you know something.
I think science and spirituality need each other. Science is good for discovering things, yes. But it is cold. It cares little for our motives and intentions. It will help discover something to save lives. Then aid in it's distrction. I do have to ask if prolonging our lives is worth the trade of easier killing techniques. I often wonder if that is balance being kept as well. It seems that since we have discovered to prolong our lives, we have discovered more effective ways to end it and on a mass scale. That is why I favour a Taoist belief. But there is no strong evidence to prove that a higher power is here keeping the balance I will admit.
Plenty of us are able to be perfectly good people without spirituality.
Pray, tell me, what does spiritualism bring?
Well in the sense of religion it can bring peace. (Not all the time I know) In principal, it helps us distinguish right and wrong. Like I said before, science doesn't seem to care our motive. Where as most religion establishes a moral code in the hopes of keeping people from doing bad things. It does however have the same problem as science in that it achieves a seemingly equal amount of bad as good.
In me personelly, I feel better after doing something right over something wrong. If I do something wrong it makes me feel incomplete. It hangs on me until I can correct it. It also helps me remain modest. Or as modest as I can get, I'm still working on that. You are right that there are perfectly good people w/o spirituality, however wasn't their sense of right and wrong established at some point by some religion/phiosophy even if they don't follow one.
Not if I'm a nihilist I don't.
I always thought nihilism was a bit of a paradox. But I might not be understanding either.
1)All of these things can be done without religion or spirituality.
2)Religion "makes up" a moral code based on what religious leaders and some old books say. You don't need religion for a moral code. Tell me, have you heard of utilitarianism? Virtue ethics? Deontology and it's various forms? These are all moral theories and methods that do not require spiritualism or religion. In addition, everyone is capable for forming their own moral code without the aid of spirituality or supernaturalism.
This is not spirituality.
1)Philosophy =/= religion or spirituality
2)Not everyone's sense of right and wrong was established by religion.
So far you've brought up nothing that persuades anyone that spirituality is needed. It's not. We don't *need* it. In addition, your critique of how "cold" science is shows you have some lack of understanding of it. Science is just a method of understanding the world. It's not supposed to care about our motives. That's our job.
This is exactly why I tried to get a definition of "spirituality" laid down at the outset, to avoid this goalpost-shifting. JediMaster1511 uses the ill-defined word to mean anything from a vague warm fuzzy feeling to specific claims of religion, and all he has to do to avoid any rebuttal is change which definition is in play at any given time.
To me spiritualty is very vague. I'm not really sure exactly. We can go with the "fuzzy feeling" definition if you want. I think that may be more suited. The problem I have is religion does cause the fuzzy feeling, and I don't want to leave anything out.
Religion or spirituality doesn't cause a fuzzy-feeling. That's our biology that does so. Nothing supernatural about it.
Also, in order to have a meaningful discussion, one must have accurate and precise definitions.
Tell the mother of a child born from IVF that science is 'cold'. Science is a methodology but it is employed to further the benefit of human beings in a range of endeavours. If you have ever had a very sick child cured by scientific endeavour then I can assure you there is nothing 'cold' about it. As Vivec said, we decide how science is to applied, it forms part of our moral makeup. Science itself is just the manner in which we discover things. In my opinion, religion can be 'cold' as there are religions out there whose dogma perpetuates an endless cycle of suffering (see starving children whose parents cannot afford to feed them yet will never use birth control because it is a sin).
By "cold" I meant it doesn't care for our motives. I agree religion can be cold as well.
The only problem with giving it a solid def is I think it does a disservice to the discussion as a whole because we may cut out different perspectives and limit our options.
The problem with that, then, is it means no meaningful discussion can transpire because no one actually knows what anyone else is talking about.
The presumption being that without religion, one MUST use science as a basis for morality.
I am agnostic, but I do not look to science to tell me how to treat others with respect. Yours is a nonsensical argument.
Not exactly. What I was proposing is that science doesn't give a basis for morality. And as a result, though we get amazing advances in medicine and such, we also get great advancements in weapons and killing technology. Technology that can destroy this world. Although many people use said tech in the name of religion, science doesn't care for motives, and the most dangerous of these weapons are used in wars mostly pertaining to a nationalistic and political sense. Again, religion can be political, but not all the time.
I, myself, am relatively agnostic. Actually, I'm more of a Taoist. I wasn't implying that people will look to science for a basis for morality.
You are making this odd assertion that because science is not a system of morals that you then blame science for evil things done with technology. You blame people for that, not scientific research. And religion is not exactly some squeeky clean system of morality.
I don't nescsesarilly blame science. I guess I do, but no, your right it is the responsibility of people. And no, religion is not clean by no means. I think what I'm trying to say is completely trusting in science completely isn't necsesarilly the right thing to do. At least not for everyone. For all of you that don't need religion for a moral code, you need to take it into account that a lot of people aren't as strong as you are, aren't as "intelligent." (I don't mean they're stupid, just not....I actually don't know how to put it) So they need both.
Science is just a tool used by humankind. What you seem to be saying is that human beings use science to do bad things? Human beings have to apply their own morality and ethics in the use of scientific endeavour. Science itself has no moral framework, neither does a computer or a hammer or any other tool we utilise, and so it is a matter for the scientific community to agree on an ethical framework. You will find that weapons and such are developed by governments and so that opens a whole different sphere of ethical considerations, mostly centered around international law.
Two points... the first is that while I think completely trusting in science is the wrong phrase for what I do, I'm accepting of the results of science only when it comes to understanding the universe because it's the only thing with a track record of doing so well. My usage of science doesn't go beyond what it actually does.
The second is that I think it absurd to say that, well, I'm strong and intelligent so I can rationally determine a set of morals off of my values but most/many people can't do that. I refuse to believe, for example, that if it wasn't for religion most people would think that it's ok to go around killing people just because no one said not to.
But don't you get into a "what if" scenario? Most morals such as not being allowed to kill, come from religion. I, too, would like to beleive that we wouldn't need to be told not to do something in order to not do it. Let me use this example, what if an adult doesn't tell a child right and wrong. They let them do whatever. It could be said that the child would do hurtful things to other children because the parent never established a right and wrong system.
That being said, you do make an excellent point, yes.
I don't think they come from religion, but are present in religion. The idea that you should treat people the way you want to be treated isn't a stance that requires religion and is quite logical, and explains why one shouldn't steal or such. There's also a difference between the expectations I'd have for a child understanding right and wrong, given that they're not fully developed in terms of thought or maturity, and the expectations I'd have of an adult to be able to process right and wrong independent of being told it.
There is also that there's a fair bit of stuff that people base on religion that I'd argue isn't moral, either now or in the past, so I don't think it's valid to present it as a clear a to b.