It would not matter what field to such as you.
If I go to a lecture and learn something, or do something new and it teaches me something I feel, by my definition, more "enlightened" than I did before.
Nothing cultish about that.
In other words, you are not a scientist, you have no understanding of science, and now you are dishonestly trying to deflect.
Stop being a liar and just admit the truth.
That's completely cultish. You are acting EXACTLY LIKE the "religious" people you take a crap upon. You "feel" enlightened. Okay, so where is the SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENT of this "enlightened" status? What are the units, where is this published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
Go, ahead, cultist, show me the SCIENCE, in the terms of SCIENCE, in the journals of SCIENCE.
If you do not, that only proves that you are every bit identical to the "religious" that you so despise.
Shawn, are you aware that the Gulags and the extermination camps such as Auschwitz, were rationalized in the minds of the people by "scientific" means, specifically Darwinian socialism? In other words, these were products of science, not religion.I can think of example of Gulags which worked "quite well" or plantations and slave camps, sheesh, even Auschwitz "worked" very well.
Science is a tool which can be used for our enlightenment and our collective betterment,and it can be quite effective in that purpose, if we apply it correctly.
In other words, these were products of science, not religion.
Time for the 2nd installment:
We remember and so we know.
The early beliefs in the supernatural were established by various "miracle" workers who were recruited and trained, and injected as agents to found and popularize mass movements and countercultures based on myth, and to undermine and discredit any tendencies towards the emergence of the rational systems of thought that could lead to advanced technology, mastery over the environment and a real challenge then to the position of the overlords.
The superstitions and religions of Earth's early cultures were carefully contrived and implanted.
The beliefs of the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Mayans, ancient Egyptians, the early Chinese, The native Americans, etc, all were based on notions of the supernatural, magic, legend and folklore.
Primarily, to sap them of any potential for developing logical methods of thought.
The civilizations that grew upon these foundations built cities, developed arts and agriculture, and constructed ships and simple machines, but they never evolved the sciences that could have unlocked significant power to any great degree.
It was always thwarted.
Perhaps...but neither do they have any science...certainly not as we are familiar with both of these terms.For one, even a casual observation of wild creatures will show that animals have no religion and yet show compassion,mercy, charity and kindness, even uncharacteristically so, at times.
It is difficult to say if China might have had the kind of scientific revolution that happened in Western Europe. I think a major problem was that the feudal society of Imperial China may have prevented the kind of innovation that happened in Western Europe. Perhaps the more individualistic nature of Western society allowed scientific progress to happen faster.
Using this same reasoning then, science has done nothing for anyone...it was all the people acting in the name of science that did the work, "inspired" by their scientific ideologies.Ford and GM built zero vehicles in their entire history, the people working there can take the credit.
Likewise, religion can claim no credit for any good done as all the good (or bad) was again done by people who at the most can say that they were "inspired" by their religious ideologies.
Isn't that one of those things that floats outside of the observable, that floats outside the realm of science? We can guess, but we don't know.Ideas, but where did they come from?
This is one of the main themes of this thread.
How did these "ideas" get injected into our collective consciousness?
Science and religion have both been misused.
But while science has advanced well beyond the understanding we had 2,000 years ago, religion is virtually indistinguishable.
2,000 years later people are still waiting for the second coming.
Of course, if Jesus arrived tomorrow, it would render 2,000 years of scientific advances meaningless.
But I wouldn't count on it.
Agreed. Now, who shall be appointed to dictate how to apply it correctly? I think scientists as a whole are subject to the same frailties and misgivings as any of the rest of us. Since science by definition is amoral, that leaves scientists out of the loop as to determining right and wrong, correct and incorrect.
Just as I was about to agree, and then *wham!*
Is Buddhism the same now as it was 2000 years ago?
Is Judaism the same as it was 2000 years ago?
Is Islam the same as it was 2000 years ago?
I can tell you for fact Christianity is not the same as it was 2000 years ago...
Oh? Did they come out with new books?
Last time I checked, Christians still read the Bible, Muslims the Qu'ran and Jews the Torah.
Now I will agree that these religions have changed some over time and based on the culture in which they're practiced. But I think most adherents would be offended if you argued that their religion strayed from its origins. I think most would try to convince you that their interpretation honors the original more closely than others.
But please, tell me how they have changed.
Yup. I've seen enough sci-fi movies over the years to know how this works.
"Zere are some sinks man vas not mean to know"
Don't you just love them old movies?...Omega Man (or the modern remake I am Legend), Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green, the original Planet of the Apes...or how about Crack in the World? Ever see that one? Or my favorite...Jurassic Park. "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should." (I see a theme developing...Charlton Heston...and Michael Crichton)
Ah science, the savior of the universe! Come to save us from ourselves...*not.*