Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammi79
Takeda,
First let me assure you of my personal respect for you, as a balanced and reasonable moderator here, I mean no offense.
Yes I think Einstein was scared. After all he was human, with all the weakness that entails. Someone who was not scared under those circumstances would be a fool at the very least, or somehow above said weakness, no?
The problem I have with your first post is this; the study of science has only led to more death and misery (your words) Now please correct me if I have mistaken your meaning, but this seems to me to be taking the effect, and linking causality to the tool, rather than the one who wields it. To analogize with the 2001 scene, it is like blaming the bone being grasped by the ape, for the murder that is done later with it. To elaborate, the ape has an agenda, to compete for resource, to survive. This is what quickly leads him to the realization that the bone tool can aid him in his endeavor. I assert that Einstein had no comparable agenda in 1905 (I think?) when he first penned his famous equation, and realized the incredible amount of energy that is locked away in all matter. He cannot be held responsible for the inferior agendas of others who took one of his greatest works and created an abhorrent weapon, and nor can his curiosity and studies that brought him to his discovery. The climate of fear that compelled him to lend his work to the military was certainly not of his making after all, he was acutely aware of the vast energies that might now threaten the allies. I firmly disagree with your notion that all science is rooted in conflict, we are not measuring the speed of neutrinos with the aim to build a weapon, and we are not searching for a force carrying gravity particle to enable us take resource from our enemies. We are uncovering reality layer by layer, because we are curious.
I do not intend to preach to you about the benefits of science, of which you are doubtless aware as you read this reply on your screen, though in your statement you use the word 'only' which I assume is simply a slightly careless use of words, as you later state 'I have no issue with the role that religion has played in mankind's misery' now I am sure this is not quite your meaning, but I do sir. Very much so and on a personal level. But my intent is not to preach to you of the harm that has been done, is still being done in the name of 'religion' either, I am happy to disagree. I lay none of this at your feet, like I said, honestly, you have my respect. As you say, it is wrong to place all humanities faults on religion, but you are equally wrong to place them on the study of science.
Regards, Sam.
|
First, please don't be put off by the moderator avatar. We're just having a conversation here.
I agree that my statement was sweeping. However, was this any less so than was done in by the author of the video? I simply substituted 'science' for 'religion'.
What we are really talking about is the purity of both natural law and spirituality and contrasting them with man's constructs of science and religion. Take, for example, metallurgy. The creation of alloys itself is not evil, and the application of these natural laws has no doubt benefitted manking. However, it should be noted that nearly all of these developments came as a result of powerful men seeking to create better weapoons. As such, science becomes a front for the lust for power; the human drive for supremacy at the expense of the other. It is an attempt to save face by doing something in the 'name of science' rather than doing something to enforce or preserve one's own power.
Man behaves identically in matters of religion. While the principles in sprituality, and even in religious theology are not evil, man uses his religion as a mask for his drive for supremacy. The Crusades were hailed as a great religious cause, but the true reason was blatently political. The authorities of the Church were looking to expand their powers and needed a more stable Europe in order to do so. However, convincing a continent of bloodthirsty rulers and despotic local warlords to put their swords down was an impossibility. The Muslims may have very well been on the other side of the world by 11th Century standards, but they were an enemy against which this rogue's gallery could unite against. And so, it is far more convenient to claim the matter as religious than telling people the real reason. Like science it becomes the foil for the powerful and as in science, religion becomes a victim of the real problem--humanity and it's nature.