Science can save us, yes, and it can destroy us just as easily as that comet. All it takes is one boundary pushed just a little too far and it'll swing back so fast and kick us in the backside so hard that we'll wish for a comet. We've been lucky so far, but after the singularity, perhaps one day we will have to move aside to make way for the better race that we create, the machine race. Perhaps we won't even make it that far, perhaps one day a scientist will create a nanite designed to consume its surroundings and reproduce, and for whatever reason it fails to shut itself off. Within a month or two the planet is grey and we are history.

Science is great, I love science and I look forward to a future with the technology that today we can only dream of, but we have got to be so careful that we don't sacrifice what makes us human in the pursuit of science.

@ 6:18 pfft! Big deal, on the planet I came from, we have 8 senses and can see through time, Earthlings still have a long way to go.

In what star system might this planet be?

Why? Oh no reason...

:O:

Hah, just watched that episode last night. :DL

Think this is my 4th time watching the whole series over, gotta say it's probably
the best Stargate series. :yep: (not that there is any competition except for SG-1 :O:)

Jacob: Come on, Sam. It can't be any harder than blowing up a sun.
Sam: You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
[Alien control panel lights up.]
Sam: Next step, parting the Red Sea!

Anyone else notice the irony of that video in a thread about the hope and promise of science?

Yea.

Other options have been suggested.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx...f6a3o1_500.jpg

Just remember; there is only one spot at the top of the food chain, and technology implies belligerence.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3...theresnowa.jpg

Very contrary to the video, which presents science as the harbinger of peace. Your vision of science sounds a whole lot like the author's vision of religion. Could it be that, in the end, they're not so different after all?

Never said it had anything to do with science.

Science gives you the tools to keep you alive in a cold uncaring universe. A society's willingness to use them keeps it alive.

Religion? Well I guess you could try and pray away the barbarians at the city walls.

Your disdain for matters of faith aside, I think you are missing the point. The video postulates that people have acted in religious matters out of fear, and that this has led mankind down a destructive path. What you are illustrating is the desire to turn to science out of that same fear, leading mankind along exactly the same path, which has been the case throughout recorded history. And so we come, again, to my central premise. This is not a problem with religion. This is not a problem with science. Religion and science are both constructs of humanity, which makes them convenient foils. The problem, rather, is with humanity itself.

We can fly among the stars with impunity, carrying whatever miraculous new inventions that have come through our study of science. The problem is that we will be taking ourselves along as well.

Of course we bring ourselves along or what is the point in doing it, and I do see your central premise. The problem I have is religion says this is the model of the universe, it is divinely perfect and shall remain so forever. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and should be corrected or destroyed. Science says this is the model of the universe, it is not perfect and it will change as we learn more. Anyone who disagrees may be wrong and their evidence should be tested.

Both schools of thought don't welcome change as that is human nature, but the one school doesn't condemn people to death for speaking of change.

Religion does not condemn people to death. People condemn people to death and for, as I have illustrated earlier, reasons pertaining to the human lust for power. Religion is the scapegoat. The scriptural mention of a geocentric universe was oblique at best. Copenicus wasn't persecuted because his view was religious. He was persecuted because his view threatened the political power of the Catholic Church. The matters of religion were as simple convenience.

I just watched the video again and noticed early on, that he said @1:05 'We told tales about another life; the cornerstone of our civilization' This is a reference to religious beliefs and is granted the cornerstone importance. Without which, our civilization would not have evolved (possibly I'm not sure I agree). I do agree though that in times past, religious ideas have been a catalyst for our development as a species, and the development of our minds, even the development of science itself. Takeda & CCIP both made comments suggesting science and religion are the same or similar, and I assert they are not. Having similarities does not make them the same, besides the fact that the similarities are very few, and the antagonistic qualities are many.

What would happen today if we (as a civilization) abandoned scientific thinking, and all that it has given us? It is surely hard to imagine how different life would be.

What would happen today if as above, we abandoned religious thinking and all that has given us? Would the world be much different?

Opinions welcomed...

Regards, Sam.

P.S. I would like to avoid assigning abstract better/worse values to either condition :)

Point taken, however I disagree that Religion is the scapegoat for human shortcomings. I see it as a human construct, a tool for which to consolidate power over and control other humans, and strives always to declare how right it is and censor dissenting thought, threaten eternal damnation and so on. Science provides an alternate path to that end, but science, though born out of human thought as well, seeks always to prove it is right by trying to prove it is wrong.