Probably wasting my breath (fingers?), but anyway...
Originally posted by Broly
Also this whole “scientists says so” is pure garbage. How often are scientists wrong? Often.
Science is a process of rigorously learning about reality. If anyone is "wrong," then they are only wrong because another expert in the field came up with more evidence to progress the understanding of whatever it is. They are constantly trying to prove each other wrong. It's a competition for evidence to further understanding.
Religion has no such mechanism in place to improve itself. In fact, quite the opposite. Dogma prevents any sort of progress. They've clung to the same ridiculous holy books for ages.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Probably wasting my breath (fingers?), but anyway...Science is a process of rigorously learning about reality. If anyone is "wrong," then they are only wrong because another expert in the field came up with more evidence to progress the understanding of whatever it is. They are constantly trying to prove each other wrong. It's a competition for evidence to further understanding.
Religion has no such mechanism in place to improve itself. In fact, quite the opposite. Dogma prevents any sort of progress. They've clung to the same ridiculous holy books for ages.
They can’t determine what this is based on this ridiculous picture. It’s 23 million light years away. It might not even exist anymore.
This is pretty trippy...
1. It's 55 million light years away. Not 23
2. It takes considerably longer than 55 million years for a black hole to evaporate via hawking radiation. A black hole the same mass as our sun would take 10^67 years and M87 is billions of times more massive and it's increasing its mass which is how we can see it and one of the reasons it was easier to photograph than the black hole at the centre of our own galaxy only 26,000 light years away
3. You're*
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What has the power to truly unify the world: Science. And to continue to divide and subjugate? revelatory Religion.
However science has also given us the nuclear bomb, and if we all wipe each other out in a thermonuclear war that has nothing to do with religion, how will science have united us? Maybe united us in death but that's about it.
The point I'm making is that science is a tool, and fundamentally it is value judgment neutral. As important as science is, and it is very important, it doesn't constitute a set of values and values are a very important thing because they determine the aim to which our scientific discoveries are used.
Various futuristic dystopian novels show societies that are more scientifically advanced than our own but at the same time are still dystopian.
Brave New World- individuality and free thought is stamped out as everyone is brainwashed or preprogrammed into their place in society.
1984- certainly technology aided the state in stamping out any dissent
The Giver- Everyone became pussies and used their scientific capabilities to create "sameness" and get rid of anything truly deep or engaging
The Hunger Games- Elite overclass tyrannizing an underclass
I'm not even arguing that people have to believe in God, but there is a necessary importance as to what values and moral principles we adhere to. The conceptualization of human rights was an ethical philosophical endeavor rather than a scientific one.
Also I do not think it is a correct assumption that division and subjugation are properties uniquely endemic to religion. The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology. A lot of modern public shaming, censorship, and deplatforming of Richard Dawkins is not due to religious people. The main cause for divide in the United States between people lies at the feet of politics rather than religion, as does the majority of visceral disagreements on this board.
Obviously I agree with you that black holes exist, I'm not taking Broly's side in this argument.
I just don't agree with the notion that science is some repository of unifying values, and instead believe it is a repository of knowledge and tools which will be used in service to the values of whoever holds that knowledge.
I also don't agree with the assumption that religion is a unique repository of social ills and the, in my opinion, naive assumption that if you got rid of religion all of the problems associated with it would disappear or be severely reduced. I think those things are instead endemic to human nature and ideological thinking (and ideological thinking is necessary in order to negotiate the values we live under which are of utmost importance), and that if you were to get rid of religion they would instead migrate somewhere else.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Science in conjunction with economics has produced wealth and a standard of living that has cut global poverty in half over the past few decades.However science has also given us the nuclear bomb, and if we all wipe each other out in a thermonuclear war that has nothing to do with religion, how will science have united us? Maybe united us in death but that's about it.
The point I'm making is that science is a tool, and fundamentally it is value judgment neutral. As important as science is, and it is very important, it doesn't constitute a set of values and values are a very important thing because they determine the aim to which our scientific discoveries are used.
Various futuristic dystopian novels show societies that are more scientifically advanced than our own but at the same time are still dystopian.
Brave New World- individuality and free thought is stamped out as everyone is brainwashed or preprogrammed into their place in society.
1984- certainly technology aided the state in stamping out any dissent
The Giver- Everyone became pussies and used their scientific capabilities to create "sameness" and get rid of anything truly deep or engaging
The Hunger Games- Elite overclass tyrannizing an underclass
I'm not even arguing that people have to believe in God, but there is a necessary importance as to what values and moral principles we adhere to. The conceptualization of human rights was an ethical philosophical endeavor rather than a scientific one.
Also I do not think it is a correct assumption that division and subjugation are properties uniquely endemic to religion. The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology. A lot of modern public shaming, censorship, and deplatforming of Richard Dawkins is not due to religious people. The main cause for divide in the United States between people lies at the feet of politics rather than religion, as does the majority of visceral disagreements on this board.
Obviously I agree with you that black holes exist, I'm not taking Broly's side in this argument.
I just don't agree with the notion that science is some repository of unifying values, and instead believe it is a repository of knowledge and tools which will be used in service to the values of whoever holds that knowledge.
I also don't agree with the assumption that religion is a unique repository of social ills and the, in my opinion, naive assumption that if you got rid of religion all of the problems associated with it would disappear or be severely reduced. I think those things are instead endemic to human nature and ideological thinking (and ideological thinking is necessary in order to negotiate the values we live under which are of utmost importance), and that if you were to get rid of religion they would instead migrate somewhere else.
Of course science is a tool. And yes, the atom bomb has demonstrated great potential for destruction. But there's no reason why science can't determine the values we seek. It could certainly do a better job than centuries old books that were written before we knew anything close to what we know now about reality. I just have to face-palm and laugh if people suggest that ancient, barbaric books are the best method of determining human values.
And this claim is often repeated, but rarely discussed fairly: "The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology." They resembled religion. Irrational, dogmatic. The devotion was just pointed toward the state instead of a supernatural being. The leaders just didn't want the competition. But they were hardly the pinnacle of level-headed human rationality.
That's why "dogma" is the enemy, not "religion" per se. If you want to worship a deistic entity, feel free, but any unchanging beliefs are the true enemy. And science is the perfect antidote to dogma.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also, can't wait till they get a less blurry image. Ever since I was in first grade I've been fascinated by black holes.
Yeah, check out that last video I posted. It has a simulation that is trippy as f#ck.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Science in conjunction with economics has produced wealth and a standard of living that has cut global poverty in half over the past few decades.However science has also given us the nuclear bomb, and if we all wipe each other out in a thermonuclear war that has nothing to do with religion, how will science have united us? Maybe united us in death but that's about it.
The point I'm making is that science is a tool, and fundamentally it is value judgment neutral. As important as science is, and it is very important, it doesn't constitute a set of values and values are a very important thing because they determine the aim to which our scientific discoveries are used.
Various futuristic dystopian novels show societies that are more scientifically advanced than our own but at the same time are still dystopian.
Brave New World- individuality and free thought is stamped out as everyone is brainwashed or preprogrammed into their place in society.
1984- certainly technology aided the state in stamping out any dissent
The Giver- Everyone became pussies and used their scientific capabilities to create "sameness" and get rid of anything truly deep or engaging
The Hunger Games- Elite overclass tyrannizing an underclass
I'm not even arguing that people have to believe in God, but there is a necessary importance as to what values and moral principles we adhere to. The conceptualization of human rights was an ethical philosophical endeavor rather than a scientific one.
Also I do not think it is a correct assumption that division and subjugation are properties uniquely endemic to religion. The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology. A lot of modern public shaming, censorship, and deplatforming of Richard Dawkins is not due to religious people. The main cause for divide in the United States between people lies at the feet of politics rather than religion, as does the majority of visceral disagreements on this board.
Obviously I agree with you that black holes exist, I'm not taking Broly's side in this argument.
I just don't agree with the notion that science is some repository of unifying values, and instead believe it is a repository of knowledge and tools which will be used in service to the values of whoever holds that knowledge.
I also don't agree with the assumption that religion is a unique repository of social ills and the, in my opinion, naive assumption that if you got rid of religion all of the problems associated with it would disappear or be severely reduced. I think those things are instead endemic to human nature and ideological thinking (and ideological thinking is necessary in order to negotiate the values we live under which are of utmost importance), and that if you were to get rid of religion they would instead migrate somewhere else.
I do think they exist, but we have no clue if this is actually a black hole, the rush to accept a blurry image is amazing when people want to accept something. Its funny how clear pictures of Joe Biden groping children and women are somehow not evidence of a serial molester, but a blurry image from 50 million light years away is automatically accepted.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
I do think they exist, but we have no clue if this is actually a black hole, the rush to accept a blurry image is amazing when people want to accept something. Its funny how clear pictures of Joe Biden groping children and women are somehow not evidence of a serial molester, but a blurry image from 50 million light years away is automatically accdepted.