Heheheeh, ok, I shall find the most rabid ranting religious nutter (might already ahve him right here!) I know, then make him the poster boy of religion, and from this, I'll deduct that ALL religious people must be exactly like this dude.
Nice try Cabby, but obviously utterly flawed.
If we talk about science on a broad scale, it must be said that it has been hampered back to the days of Galileo Galilei) by religion, since it has moved in on the turf covered by religion (and previously mentioned religious nutters
).
But his statement is overly broad, and this chap is oblivious to the history of science. indeed, many of the early scientists were religious.
Science is a methodology, not a religion. This dude is just a love muffin, no biggie.
Regarding technology, scientists develop the technology. Politicians use it. Those of you in favour of having the right to own a gun should know the argument of "guns don't kill people" and that is essentially what we have here. And science, or the spinoffs hereof, have enabled us to live past 35, deal with diseases and do lots of stuff that was unthinkable a mere 200 years ago.
I think there are very very few scentists who do not think science should have ethical and moral considerations included.
This chap is just a dweeb. probably just some lab technician working for one of those places that help people get babies to the world.
He is saying what he's saying just to piss religious people off, and hiding behind his labcoat.
Yep the only difference between a lot of "scientific" people and religious people is the institution in which they have placed
their blind unquestioning faith.Now funked, I didn't expect it from someone as educated as you.
The scientific methodology differs radically from the any religion. And it's not faith based. Anyone with a decent understanding of the scientific methodology would know it is just that - a set of methods put together to accomplish something. Saying that science and religion require the same level of faith is a bit disturbing I think - for one, for a scientist the only thing almost as good as coming up with a new theory is destroying an old one. And as time has shown, once new data enters, old theories that do not match them are reevaluated and might be dropped entirely. With religious dogma, this is very rare indeed.
Christianity, for instance is founded on faith. In some sects or variants, if there were proof on the existane of god, it should not be mentioned or even dealt with; because the *faith* in God is what matters.
This differs drastically to the scientific methdology.
Just for fun, take a look what the devil's dictionary has to say about faith:
From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993) :
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
In short, one love muffin unidentified "scientist" making inflammatory statements that are wrong. but please, feel to state that this is how every scientist is based on this
.
If you do, I have some very nice examples of religious people you ought to see
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
