is reason alone valid knowledge, or do we always need evidence grounded in science to act .

[osgart]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

 

[Mister Silver]

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

I disagree. "Any reason" can imply that there is a monster hiding under the bed when, in fact, the monster is merely in the person's mind. That's kind of the problem with faith, it allows for the belief in something without any evidence to support its existence; kind of like the monster under the bed.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

I'm certainly going to know that the person who states that he lives in Florida is right about where he lives as opposed to someone who claims that skeletons nightly exit her closet to dance around her bed and keep her up all night is wrong. One thing can be verified while the other cannot.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

The problem with faith is that it creates an answer from the gaps of knowledge. Just because one does not have an answer to something, doesn't mean one creates a readily comfortable answer in the form of religion or god.

 

[osgart]

i was not saying "any reason" is a valid reason. every authority has set up a standard of conscience for it's citizens to obey. and those laws are based on their justifications from their consciences. and it is not entirely based on evidence other than their consciences.

 

[Mister Silver]

i was not saying "any reason" is a valid reason. every authority has set up a standard of conscience for it's citizens to obey. and those laws are based on their justifications from their consciences. and it is not entirely based on evidence other than their consciences.

I apologize if I misinterpreted you within that parameter.

Psychologically and anthropologically speaking, man learned to obey his conscience in regard to right and wrong during a time when birth rates were low and people did not live very long. They set up societal rules against harming one another within the group, because they understood that every single person was needed for all of them to survive for as long as they could.

 

[osgart]

I apologize if I misinterpreted you within that parameter.

Psychologically and anthropologically speaking, man learned to obey his conscience in regard to right and wrong during a time when birth rates were low and people did not live very long. They set up societal rules against harming one another within the group, because they understood that every single person was needed for all of them to survive for as long as they could.

perhaps I could have stated it better.

thankyou!

 

[sun rise]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

Science has not developed far enough to even consider trying to run our lives according to scientific understanding.

It is true that our standards of good and evil change with time, with culture and with religion. Who is to say? God residing in every heart speaking with the 'voice' of intuition.

My most important statement is "divine love is the meaning of existence and our mission is to love"

 

[sayak83]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

You are posting in the wrong forum section imo.

 

[David T]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

Since the anthropocene epoch is 99.99% generated by science then I am very sure we are in good hands with science!!! At least some "believe
" this. . The. 01%generated by religions mistake was in reading a single verse in a huge book lyrics, and poems" dominion over the land" which has been admitted by at least roman catholics as to be mistaken. So as soon as science can own up for being nearly totally responsible for the idiotic environmental cluster **** we can move on to better more powerful smart phones and more profound new reality TV shows in hhhhd in24000k!!!! Till then please already with the quazi science fetishists folks here who don't have jesus but science. Like southern baptists without jesus in lab coats. I barely tolerate religion, but this horrid science philosophy as my religion junk omg. We are doomed.

 

[Darkstorn]

I say you can't make a reasonable decision without considering available evidence.

Otherwise it would be like making an "informed decision" without knowing any details.

And again, reason without knowing the details, doesn't sound that reasonable.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science is an abstract concept. It can’t be given control of anything even if you wanted. Science is just a label for a general set of methods and procedures for assessing information to reach conclusions and in a very informal manner we apply it pretty much constantly (e.g. deciding whether it is safe to cross the road).

Conscience is somewhat separate, more related to deciding what actions to take in response to those conclusions. Different opinions based on individual conscience don’t change the fact or the science used to establish them though.

Societies do need a level of common consensus on these matters and generally do (if only unspoken principles) – it would be difficult to have a society without them really. There are disagreements and debates of course, though that could be seen as good thing, maybe even a vital part of developing and managing them. One of the limitations of religion as the basis for cultural conscience is that they’re typically decided by a small number of appointed individuals and not open to discussion or change.

Some “treading on people’s consciences” is inevitable and unavoidable. When we disagree on a policy or principle, the final decision is going to make somebody unhappy. That can often be where cold science can be a benefit, where however much we might not like a particular conclusion, we can’t present practical arguments against it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

"One race. One Earth. United and whole." Sounds good to me. Certainly better than anything I've seen come from a religion or nation.

Psychologically and anthropologically speaking, man learned to obey his conscience in regard to right and wrong during a time when birth rates were low and people did not live very long. They set up societal rules against harming one another within the group, because they understood that every single person was needed for all of them to survive for as long as they could.

That's social animals as a whole. Even non-human animals can be said to have societal rules and rituals to aid in group cohesion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"is reason alone valid knowledge, or do we always need evidence grounded in science to act ."

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

Questions laced with useless universals are for all intents and purposes worthless garbage.

 

[shunyadragon]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

Our physical world is the realm of scientific knowledge, and it is in every aspect of our physical lives, but 'control,' that is more a problem of technology, not science.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

The reality is I do not really trust peoples conscience, but do endorse their right to express their conscience as long as it does not harm other people.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

Science does not claim to be the authority of all areas of knowledge.

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

A little over the top.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

We should give science no control over any part of life. It is a tool that can make life longer, healthier, safer, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting, but nobody need avail themselves of any of it.

Even if some scientific discovery is imposed on you against your will, it's not science doing it.

with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

Each of us decides what he considers right and wrong for himself, even if he chooses to submit to a preexisting moral code, even if he considers that moral code absolute, objective, and of divine origin. Such a person has agreed to that moral code, and has therefore chosen it.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

Scientists are only authoritative in matters of science. Science has nothing to offer the philosophy of ethics.

So as soon as science can own up for being nearly totally responsible for the idiotic environmental cluster **** we can move on

Science is responsible for nothing except allowing scientists to generate knowledge about physical reality. Governments and industry are responsible for the choices made implementing scientific discoveries on a societal scale.

Science gave us the combustible engine, but didn't tell us to destroy our environment with its exhaust. Science is now instructing the world that it needs to cut back on greenhouse gas emission, as government and industry glibly ignore the warnings.

this horrid science philosophy as my religion junk omg. We are doomed

Science is not a religion. It is indifferent to religion. Most complaints and criticisms I see about science come from theists who feel threatened by scientific discoveries that contradict their beliefs held by faith. They see religion and science as competing ideologies, but the secular humanist rarely does.

Science may have detractors, but it has no competitors. No other method provides useful knowledge about physical reality.

 

[Nakosis]

and should we give science control over every aspect of our lives.

You control science, science doesn't control you.

I believe every reason alone needs justification, and a worthy justification is in fact knowledge even if there is no tangible evidence other than good conscience.

Conscience is just genetically influenced feelings for the most part. Granted, feelings which supported survival. Science just allows us to validate and justify those things we feel to be correct.

and with so many individuals who differ in conscience, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

Those folks capable of validating what they claim to be true. This is where science comes in handy.

society is needful of general consensus on matters of common conscience. and science doesn't strike me as authority on all areas of knowledge.

A you noted, folks feel differently about things. So you'll never get a consensus that way. Would you rather follow a leader who relies on how he feels about things or one who relies on what can be proven to be true?

if you desire to remove religion from power, than it's in your interests to develop a common creed.

probably the most important statement i would say is "Don't tread on me".

we shouldn't be treading on people's consciences.

We have to sometimes. Some folks enjoy killing, torture. Some see women as property and see other races as inferior.

You believe your feelings can guide you. So does most people. How are you going to deal with folks who feel differently about things than you do?

Your feelings are your feelings and maybe you can't change them, but you might want to recognize that why your feelings may have a basis in survival they don't necessarily have a basis in truth.

Science is there for you to use to validate what you feel to be true. If you don't feel the need to validate what you feel to be true, why should anyone else. They are as likely right about what they feel to be true as you.

So yes, don't tread on the feelings of a serial killer?

 

[David T]

We should give science no control over any part of life. It is a tool that can make life longer, healthier, safer, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting, but nobody need avail themselves of any of it.

Even if some scientific discovery is imposed on you against your will, it's not science doing it.



Each of us decides what he considers right and wrong for himself, even if he chooses to submit to a preexisting moral code, even if he considers that moral code absolute, objective, and of divine origin. Such a person has agreed to that moral code, and has therefore chosen it.



Scientists are only authoritative in matters of science. Science has nothing to offer the philosophy of ethics.



Science is responsible for nothing except allowing scientists to generate knowledge about physical reality. Governments and industry are responsible for the choices made implementing scientific discoveries on a societal scale.

Science gave us the combustible engine, but didn't tell us to destroy our environment with its exhaust. Science is now instructing the world that it needs to cut back on greenhouse gas emission, as government and industry glibly ignore the warnings.



Science is not a religion. It is indifferent to religion. Most complaints and criticisms I see about science come from theists who feel threatened by scientific discoveries that contradict their beliefs held by faith. They see religion and science as competing ideologies, but the secular humanist rarely does.

Science may have detractors, but it has no competitors. No other method provides useful knowledge about physical reality.

Hey I write fiction this is just my place to see peoples perceptions

 

[David T]

We should give science no control over any part of life. It is a tool that can make life longer, healthier, safer, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting, but nobody need avail themselves of any of it.

Even if some scientific discovery is imposed on you against your will, it's not science doing it.



Each of us decides what he considers right and wrong for himself, even if he chooses to submit to a preexisting moral code, even if he considers that moral code absolute, objective, and of divine origin. Such a person has agreed to that moral code, and has therefore chosen it.



Scientists are only authoritative in matters of science. Science has nothing to offer the philosophy of ethics.



Science is responsible for nothing except allowing scientists to generate knowledge about physical reality. Governments and industry are responsible for the choices made implementing scientific discoveries on a societal scale.

Science gave us the combustible engine, but didn't tell us to destroy our environment with its exhaust. Science is now instructing the world that it needs to cut back on greenhouse gas emission, as government and industry glibly ignore the warnings.



Science is not a religion. It is indifferent to religion. Most complaints and criticisms I see about science come from theists who feel threatened by scientific discoveries that contradict their beliefs held by faith. They see religion and science as competing ideologies, but the secular humanist rarely does.

Science may have detractors, but it has no competitors. No other method provides useful knowledge about physical reality.

It is just a collective agreement which is radically different from religion. And yes the collective agreement evolves rapidly from flavor of the day like a herd, and like a herd it occasionally bumps Into self correction in spite of itself and proclaims we really understand now. It's the same herd that gave us the Easter bunny. And it existed in religion and magically believed by many is sprang ex nihilo into existence. I use science everyday it is called a tape measure I just don't hump it

 

[osgart]

You control science, science doesn't control you.



Conscience is just genetically influenced feelings for the most part. Granted, feelings which supported survival. Science just allows us to validate and justify those things we feel to be correct.



Those folks capable of validating what they claim to be true. This is where science comes in handy.



A you noted, folks feel differently about things. So you'll never get a consensus that way. Would you rather follow a leader who relies on how he feels about things or one who relies on what can be proven to be true?



We have to sometimes. Some folks enjoy killing, torture. Some see women as property and see other races as inferior.

You believe your feelings can guide you. So does most people. How are you going to deal with folks who feel differently about things than you do?

Your feelings are your feelings and maybe you can't change them, but you might want to recognize that why your feelings may have a basis in survival they don't necessarily have a basis in truth.

Science is there for you to use to validate what you feel to be true. If you don't feel the need to validate what you feel to be true, why should anyone else. They are as likely right about what they feel to be true as you.

So yes, don't tread on the feelings of a serial killer?

no way, a serial killer deserves severe punishment. I was talking about people other than criminals

 

[Sapiens]

no way, a serial killer deserves severe punishment. I was talking about people other than criminals

Therein lies the issue, can you provide a list of all people who are criminals, or at least a list of all action that should be crimes, without provoking disagreement? Similarly, David (Son of Sam) Berkowitz was just, in his mind, following divine guidance to kill all those people. As long as we permit religion without evidence to make claims without evidence, and style criticism of religion as insulting and/or uncivil, then all of our freedoms, and possibly our very lives are endangered.

 

[osgart]

Therein lies the issue, can you provide a list of all people who are criminals, or at least a list of all action that should be crimes, without provoking disagreement? Similarly, David (Son of Sam) Berkowitz was just, in his mind, following divine guidance to kill all those people. As long as we permit religion without evidence to make claims without evidence, and style criticism of religion as insulting and/or uncivil, then all of our freedoms, and possibly our very lives are endangered.

I agree with that