Philosophy Discussion Forums

The frivolous way we may choose to spend money and resources (when it is frivolous) is not the real issue, it's just a symptom of the real problem, which is that our techno-logical development lags far behind our spiritual/moral development. Our focus of attention reflects our values - or lack of values. Like immature children we build and play with our techno-toys while destroying the wild beauty of our planet and turning it into a wasteland fit only for citizens of virtual reality. I have nothing against science, but I am against careless obedience to it. It should be our servant, not our master.

Felix wrote: our techno-logical development lags far behind our spiritual/moral development. Our focus of attention reflects our values - or lack of values. Like immature children we build and play with our techno-toys while destroying the wild beauty of our planet and turning it into a wasteland fit only for citizens of virtual reality. I have nothing against science, but I am against careless obedience to it. It should be our servant, not our master.

I am sorry... but the planet is turning into wasteland because we, humans, keep depleting its resources, and that happens because there are progressively more and more humans on earth.

And why are there more and more humans on earth? Well, Science makes it POSSIBLE; religion (values, you say, properly so) encourages, nay, COMMANDS that humans keep on creating constantly an ever-growing, larger and larger multitude by diving and multiplying themselves.

There is nothing wrong in scientific values. If scientists were the leaders in the world, we would not be facing this environmental mess. It is due to the Christian and Muslim religions and to their teachings that we are destroying Planet Earth.

So please don't say that it's the "lack of values by scientists" that is the cause of earth's demise. Earth's demise is rooted in the religious tenet to produce more and more and more humans.

Check the bible if you don't believe me.

-- Updated December 11th, 2016, 3:37 am to add the following --

Felix wrote:The frivolous way we may choose to spend money and resources (when it is frivolous) is not the real issue,

Felix, in a few posts back, you wildly and harshly criticized me for not caring how frivolously money is spent. Now you are saying that is not an issue. Right here in no ambiguous terms you state that your earlier attack on me was unfounded, and you admit to that now.

Thank you very much, I appreciate your candid admission to your having erred earlier.

Andrian wrote:So, it strikes me that there are a lot of good reasons to rely on the conclusions of science and more importantly, on the scientific method. Science brings us technology, helps us better understand the world around us, and encourages us to push ourselves toward new heights of discovery and innovation.

This is all true. There are good reasons to rely on the conclusions of science. Let us agree that science is the best tool yet for uncovering useful factual information about reality.

It doesn't however automatically follow that knowledge development is therefore a net positive for humanity. It especially doesn't automatically follow that more information gathered at ever accelerating rates is a net positive.

These assumptions might be true, but to accept them blindly without questioning is to make science in to a kind of a religion. That's what's happening in our culture. We're losing our ability to believe in the traditional religions, but the need for religious-like experience is still there, so we are converting our relationship with science in to an unquestioned belief system etc.

Don't get confused here. It's true that we don't believe in the conclusions of science without question, for questioning is built-in to the scientific method. But we do believe without question that science is leading us to an ever better future, much as belief in Jesus used to promise a much better future. The same need for the all knowing parent-like clergy promising us utopia is still there, that need just has a new target. These authority figures used to be religious clergy, now they are science clergy. But clergy is still clergy, whatever the belief system, the relationship is the same whatever one calls it.

It's actually remarkably easy to make the case that accelerating knowledge development is leading us towards a collapse of modern civilization. No one can prove this of course, but a compelling case is easy to make. I've already done this a number of time on this forum.

The problem is that no one wants to hear that case, much as devoted Christians tend not to want to hear arguments that Jesus was just a loud mouthed carpenter. There is comfort to be found in trusting in authority, and believing that they know what they are doing, and are leading us by the hand to a better place. And few of us, religious or atheist, want that comfort disturbed.

I've had this conversation a hundred times all over the net for almost 20 years, and it always ends the same way. It becomes me against the entire forum, and once the faith based belief in out of control knowledge development is systematically ripped away, the thread dies and members run to some other topic. Have you ever tried to talk a Jehovah's Witness out of their religion? Challenging knowledge development is just exactly like that. Only a fool like me would try it.

This thread will be no different. Members will beat their chest proclaiming their fantasy superiority over religious believers, and once that's done they'll run off to another thread to repeat the exercise, unaware that they themselves have become a kind of religious believer.

Felix, in a few posts back, you wildly and harshly criticized me for not caring how frivolously money is spent. Now you are saying that is not an issue.

My reply to your post was not harsh, just sarcastic. You said it's o.k. to spend billions of dollars splitting atoms whether or not the endeavor produces anything of practical value because it will employ a large number of people (scientists, et. al.), who will then donate some of their income to charitable causes, and that makes the project economically viable. I'm sorry but that is just Mad Hatter quality thinking.

And why are there more and more humans on earth? Well, Science makes it POSSIBLE; religion (values, you say, properly so) encourages, nay, COMMANDS that humans keep on creating constantly an ever-growing, larger and larger multitude by diving and multiplying themselves.

You're going to blame over-population on religion? Seriously?

Let's try a thought experiment: Tomorrow we will either, (1) Remove all scientific knowledge from the face of the earth: every scientist will have technical amnesia, they'll forget every scientific principle they've ever learned and all stores of knowledge (digital and print) will have been erased, or, (2) Erase all known and accumulated religious knowledge.

Which of the above actions, #1 or #2, would be more effective at reducing human population?

Renee wrote:There is nothing wrong in scientific values. If scientists were the leaders in the world, we would not be facing this environmental mess. It is due to the Christian and Muslim religions and to their teachings that we are destroying Planet Earth.

Please explain why pollution is out of control in the world's most populous nation, a nation long led by an explicitly atheist regime, China.

What's wrong with the values of the science community is that they won't subject knowledge development to the same challenges we reasonably aim at religious proclamations.

Is science a religion? No, that stretches the word religion too far. Does our relationship with science have a religious-like quality? Yes, and your post offers an example, as you seem to be saying, science=good, religion=bad. What is that if not representative of the worst instincts of religion?

The science community is not evil. We should not demonize them. They are highly trained nerds with good intentions doing just what we ask of them, knowledge development. The problem is instead that our entire culture has an increasingly outdated relationship with knowledge. Our "more=better" relationship with knowledge is simplistic and childlike, and dangerous.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Why do we not give guns to ten year olds? Obviously we do so because we judge them incapable of sufficient judgment to successfully manage a tool which can so quickly have such existential consequences. This is very sensible.

But then, once we reach age 18, we blindly assume that now we should have as much power as science can give us, as soon as possible. Surely we are more mature at 18 than at 10. But mature enough to handle ANY amount of power delivered at ANY rate???

You won't buy any of this. Here's why. You're addicted to authority. It's not just you, it's the human condition. You will look around and see that few to none of the leading experts are shouting such warnings, and based on that you will assume there can't be that much to worry about.

But let's examine who you are looking to for guidance, the science community, people who do knowledge development for a living. Are they experts at science? Yes, they most certainly are. Are they experts at viewing knowledge development objectively from the outside? How could they possibly be that, given that their entire life depends on the machinery of knowledge development?

Should we deny science? No, science is good at what we ask it to do.

Should we deny our blind worshipful relationship with science. You bet!

Accelerating out of control knowledge development is racing towards a cliff, and it's only a matter of time until we create powers we can't control and careen over the edge. And when that happens the real reason for it will be a blind religious-like faith in science.

Spiral Out wrote:
Well, as pointed out before, it depends on what you mean exactly by "denying science". If you're speaking of monetary gain, then I can think of far better ways to spend $13.25 billion other than on finding some particle that will not help Humanity in any way anytime soon, if ever. We could "deny the science" of supposedly (it's a fake, they had to pretend to find something in order to justify the absurd cost of building the damn thing) finding particles and save $13.25 billion ... What can people gain by denying science? How about something actually worthwhile like spending that money on finding a cure for cancer, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, providing healthcare for veterans, etc. instead of useless trips to Mars, hunting particles, building massive telescopes and other wastes of time and money.

Consider the vast amounts of money that have been wasted over the decades on studying and teaching the useless theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:
Well, as pointed out before, it depends on what you mean exactly by "denying science". If you're speaking of monetary gain, then I can think of far better ways to spend $13.25 billion other than on finding some particle that will not help Humanity in any way anytime soon, if ever. We could "deny the science" of supposedly (it's a fake, they had to pretend to find something in order to justify the absurd cost of building the damn thing) finding particles and save $13.25 billion ... What can people gain by denying science? How about something actually worthwhile like spending that money on finding a cure for cancer, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, providing healthcare for veterans, etc. instead of useless trips to Mars, hunting particles, building massive telescopes and other wastes of time and money.

Consider the vast amounts of money that have been wasted over the decades on studying and teaching the useless theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism.

Consider the trillions in taxes that religion have not had to pay. Consider the trillions spent in the latest religious war. Consider the historical meddling with policy by theists?

I do prefer eveolution to your preferred explanation - that a magic man created women from a man's rib.

Greta wrote: Consider the trillions in taxes that religion have not had to pay. Consider the trillions spent in the latest religious war. Consider the historical meddling with policy by theists?

I do prefer eveolution to your preferred explanation - that a magic man created women from a man's rib.

Here's Greta, right on que ... and right off topic. But while we're here, let's remind the viewers that the two World Wars weren't religious and the resultant casulaties, lost of property and money far exceeded that of all religious wars combined. And let's not forget the massive loss of life and destruction of economies wrought by evolution-believing Communists ...

Ormond wrote:

Andrian wrote:So, it strikes me that there are a lot of good reasons to rely on the conclusions of science and more importantly, on the scientific method. Science brings us technology, helps us better understand the world around us, and encourages us to push ourselves toward new heights of discovery and innovation.

This is all true. There are good reasons to rely on the conclusions of science. Let us agree that science is the best tool yet for uncovering useful factual information about reality.

It doesn't however automatically follow that knowledge development is therefore a net positive for humanity. It especially doesn't automatically follow that more information gathered at ever accelerating rates is a net positive.

These assumptions might be true, but to accept them blindly without questioning is to make science in to a kind of a religion. That's what's happening in our culture. We're losing our ability to believe in the traditional religions, but the need for religious-like experience is still there, so we are converting our relationship with science in to an unquestioned belief system etc.

Don't get confused here. It's true that we don't believe in the conclusions of science without question, for questioning is built-in to the scientific method. But we do believe without question that science is leading us to an ever better future, much as belief in Jesus used to promise a much better future. The same need for the all knowing parent-like clergy promising us utopia is still there, that need just has a new target. These authority figures used to be religious clergy, now they are science clergy. But clergy is still clergy, whatever the belief system, the relationship is the same whatever one calls it.

It's actually remarkably easy to make the case that accelerating knowledge development is leading us towards a collapse of modern civilization. No one can prove this of course, but a compelling case is easy to make. I've already done this a number of time on this forum.

The problem is that no one wants to hear that case, much as devoted Christians tend not to want to hear arguments that Jesus was just a loud mouthed carpenter. There is comfort to be found in trusting in authority, and believing that they know what they are doing, and are leading us by the hand to a better place. And few of us, religious or atheist, want that comfort disturbed.

I've had this conversation a hundred times all over the net for almost 20 years, and it always ends the same way. It becomes me against the entire forum, and once the faith based belief in out of control knowledge development is systematically ripped away, the thread dies and members run to some other topic. Have you ever tried to talk a Jehovah's Witness out of their religion? Challenging knowledge development is just exactly like that. Only a fool like me would try it.

This thread will be no different. Members will beat their chest proclaiming their fantasy superiority over religious believers, and once that's done they'll run off to another thread to repeat the exercise, unaware that they themselves have become a kind of religious believer.

Well, here's the question I would pose to you: What system of thinking has consistently proven to improve the lives of humans in the past?

The answer, of course, is science. Say what you will about the problems of the modern world, they are a far cry from what we used to deal with. Life is a LOT more comfortable than it was for our ancestors. Let's take one very innocuous example: music. For hundreds of thousands of years, the only way to listen to music was to have a live person perform it for you. The quality of that performance was of course dependent on the quality of the performer and a bit of luck (even the best performers have off days), and once it was over, you had only the memory of the experience. Today, it's possible to listen to perfect recordings of the best performances by the most talented performers on the planet at any time for less than a dollar a song. We can even listen to performances by people who are no longer alive! That was a pipe dream only 200 years ago. What brought us this unprecedented improvement in the quality of our entertainment? Science. I could just as easily have listed any number of relevant examples, from food and shelter to health and medicine to transportation and infrastructure.

I'm certainly not the sort that believes that the future will be a utopia, but then again, I don't think I know anyone who does... well, unless you count heaven as a future utopia, in which case I know lots of people who believe in that. I certainly don't know anyone who believes in an earthly utopia, and belief in any kind of utopia seems to be negatively correlated with intelligence and education in my experience. I don't have any numbers or data to back this up, of course, so take it with a kilogram of salt, but still, I can't think of any popular science communicator who is predicting a future utopia.

Now, what I HAVE heard, and what you might be mistaking for predictions of future utopias, are predictions of solving many of our current problems in the future. I have heard a lot of that, and I have heard a lot of optimism with regards to that. Considering science's track record of solving problems in the past, I think that optimism is well-founded. Sure, some of these possible future technologies may prove to be impossible, but that doesn't mean we should abandon trying them. We may never be able to upload human consciousness to computers, for example, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least work toward that goal. We might learn a lot of valuable things along the way, even if we fail at that end goal.

Obviously, science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused. In World War II, we got an awful glimpse of just how powerful science can be and the true destructive potential of technology in the wrong hands. Still, that's no reason to abandon the system. You don't ban axes just because sometimes axes are used for murder, because the benefits of the tool outweigh the risks associated with the misuse of that tool. Science is the same way. If we want to keep improving our lives, science is the best way to go.

Science ends in absurdity as the poet has shown.
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ssible.pdf

The system of mathematics contains everything it containes each sentence of the theory's language and its negation
The system of science contains everything it containes each sentence of the theory's language and its negation

Each view contains within it its negation as all views end in meaninglessness

Rinse and repeat.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: Consider the trillions in taxes that religion have not had to pay. Consider the trillions spent in the latest religious war. Consider the historical meddling with policy by theists?

I do prefer evolution to your preferred explanation - that a magic man created women from a man's rib.

Here's Greta, right on que ... and right off topic. But while we're here, let's remind the viewers that the two World Wars weren't religious and the resultant casulaties, lost of property and money far exceeded that of all religious wars combined. And let's not forget the massive loss of life and destruction of economies wrought by evolution-believing Communists ...

Religions should pay tax like any other lobby groups, ye? If one embraces rationality, then it's clear that the amount of charity done by religions versus the amount of money saved by religions' tax free status does not add up. Funding is effectively being provided for their lobbying work as well - including lobbying work that interferes with legitimate scientific work.

Religions do not deserve their sacred cow status. Mere myths and fables from the middle east during the Iron Age.

You claim that belief in evolution was the cause of WWII atrocities is noted

Andrian wrote:Well, here's the question I would pose to you: What system of thinking has consistently proven to improve the lives of humans in the past?

As predicted, here we go, as the faithful assemble to defend the Holy Church Of Science. And please watch, once this chanting of the holy dogmas is systematically dismantled, members will simply move on to the other threads where they can continue the chanting without such distractions. To be fair to my fellow members, this is not your problem exclusively, but is rather the mindset of nearly our entire culture, including the leading experts.

The answer, of course, is science. Say what you will about the problems of the modern world, they are a far cry from what we used to deal with.

Once nuclear weapons arc over the poles and erase most of civilization, leaving the rest to collapse in to chaos, there will be no more problems to worry about.

Apologies for being snarky, and for stepping over the rest of your comments, but I've heard it all so many times before. So many times. Again, don't take this personally, as it's not you particularly who is the issue here.

Once you see this, you'll be astounded how remarkably simple it is.

Knowledge gives us power, that's why we like it.

As knowledge development accelerates we get greater and greater powers at a faster and faster rate.

Some of these powers will be of existential scale, where misuse and mistakes can bring down civilization, such as nuclear weapons.

As knowledge development accelerates we will develop more and more existential scale powers at a faster and faster rate.

All that is required is that ONE of such existential scale powers run out of control just ONE time, and the game is over. As example, it takes only one bad day with nuclear weapons to collapse civilization.

PLEASE NOTE: This theory agrees that we may very well be able to successfully manage most existential scale powers most of the time. But that's not enough. Existential scale powers require a perfect record of successful management which continues forever, a blatantly absurd possibility in the realm of human affairs.

Are we doomed? Probably. But it's not an automatic given.

Avoiding such a fate will require updating our primitive "more is better" relationship with knowledge to a modern relationship which is far less childlike and simplistic. As it stands now we would literally rather die than do this, but near miss existential calamities (for instance, a nuclear war in south Asia) may wake us up. Pray for that. Massive carnage which slaps us out of our slothful stupor before it's too late.

Please don't confuse the power of science to develop information (very good) with our blind childlike simplistic faith based worship of science culture (very bad).

Some parts of religion are cool, but it's stupid to blindly follow the religious clergy where ever they may go. Right?

Same is true with the science clergy. If you place blind faith in the science clergy they will drive you right off the cliff because they were born to do science and don't know how to do anything else. They are very good at doing science, and very bad at observing science from an objective distance. If you let them, they'll keep doing more and more and more science until the very day some existential scale power brings the game to an end.

None of you are going to get this. We'll just have to wait for that war between India and Pakistan or perhaps North Korea and Japan. It's going to take tens of millions of people dead on a single day before we'll be ready to have this conversation.

Ormond wrote:

Andrian wrote:Well, here's the question I would pose to you: What system of thinking has consistently proven to improve the lives of humans in the past?

As predicted, here we go, as the faithful assemble to defend the Holy Church Of Science. And please watch, once this chanting of the holy dogmas is systematically dismantled, members will simply move on to the other threads where they can continue the chanting without such distractions. To be fair to my fellow members, this is not your problem exclusively, but is rather the mindset of nearly our entire culture, including the leading experts.

The answer, of course, is science. Say what you will about the problems of the modern world, they are a far cry from what we used to deal with.

Once nuclear weapons arc over the poles and erase most of civilization, leaving the rest to collapse in to chaos, there will be no more problems to worry about.

Apologies for being snarky, and for stepping over the rest of your comments, but I've heard it all so many times before. So many times. Again, don't take this personally, as it's not you particularly who is the issue here.

Once you see this, you'll be astounded how remarkably simple it is.

Knowledge gives us power, that's why we like it.

As knowledge development accelerates we get greater and greater powers at a faster and faster rate.

Some of these powers will be of existential scale, where misuse and mistakes can bring down civilization, such as nuclear weapons.

As knowledge development accelerates we will develop more and more existential scale powers at a faster and faster rate.

All that is required is that ONE of such existential scale powers run out of control just ONE time, and the game is over. As example, it takes only one bad day with nuclear weapons to collapse civilization.

PLEASE NOTE: This theory agrees that we may very well be able to successfully manage most existential scale powers most of the time. But that's not enough. Existential scale powers require a perfect record of successful management which continues forever, a blatantly absurd possibility in the realm of human affairs.

Are we doomed? Probably. But it's not an automatic given.

Avoiding such a fate will require updating our primitive "more is better" relationship with knowledge to a modern relationship which is far less childlike and simplistic. As it stands now we would literally rather die than do this, but near miss existential calamities (for instance, a nuclear war in south Asia) may wake us up. Pray for that. Massive carnage which slaps us out of our slothful stupor before it's too late.

Please don't confuse the power of science to develop information (very good) with our blind childlike simplistic faith based worship of science culture (very bad).

Some parts of religion are cool, but it's stupid to blindly follow the religious clergy where ever they may go. Right?

Same is true with the science clergy. If you place blind faith in the science clergy they will drive you right off the cliff because they were born to do science and don't know how to do anything else. They are very good at doing science, and very bad at observing science from an objective distance. If you let them, they'll keep doing more and more and more science until the very day some existential scale power brings the game to an end.

None of you are going to get this. We'll just have to wait for that war between India and Pakistan or perhaps North Korea and Japan. It's going to take tens of millions of people dead on a single day before we'll be ready to have this conversation.

Well, one thing that would help me to understand your thinking would be if you expressed your ideas more clearly and provided examples to back up your assertions. The point about nuclear weapons is well taken, however, but I would like to point out that ignorance is not the solution to the problems with them. Instead, it's actually more knowledge. Knowing the harmful effects that nuclear weapons can have serves as a strong deterrent against using them.

I grant that all it would currently take to wipe out nearly all the progress humanity has made (and possibly humanity itself) is a single, disastrous misuse of certain kinds of knowledge. We currently have all our eggs in one basket, as it were, as there's only one planet with humans on it. Still, that's not an argument against continuing to advance knowledge. Only by continuing to advance scientifically can we find solutions to the problems posed by such threats. It's a race to find a way to prevent nuclear war from wiping out all human life before some maniac gets access to nuclear weapons and decides to use them.

First, apologies Andrian for being impatient and not taking your post as seriously as I should have. It's not your fault I've been having this conversation for years, and am weary of reading the same failed arguments repeatedly. Not your fault, my bad. If I'm going to engage this topic, yet again, I should be willing to set previous conversations aside. Will try harder to do that.

Andrian wrote:Well, one thing that would help me to understand your thinking would be if you expressed your ideas more clearly and provided examples to back up your assertions.

If this topic still interests you, perhaps we could try this. Could you perhaps review the following assertions I made above, and tell me precisely where you feel my logic is flawed? I can do a better job of being clear and providing examples if you can tell me just what part of my case you don't find convincing. Thank you.

Which of the following assertions is incorrect in your view?

---------------------------

1) Knowledge gives us power, that's why we like it.

2) As knowledge development accelerates we get greater and greater powers at a faster and faster rate.

3) Some of these powers will be of existential scale, where misuse and mistakes can bring down civilization, such as nuclear weapons.

4) As knowledge development accelerates we will develop more and more existential scale powers at a faster and faster rate.

5) All that is required is that ONE of such existential scale powers run out of control just ONE time, and the game is over. As example, it takes only one bad day with nuclear weapons to collapse civilization.

---------------------------

The point about nuclear weapons is well taken, however, but I would like to point out that ignorance is not the solution to the problems with them. Instead, it's actually more knowledge. Knowing the harmful effects that nuclear weapons can have serves as a strong deterrent against using them.

Ok, but I am arguing FOR more knowledge, and my critics are arguing AGAINST more knowledge.

I'm arguing we now need to develop knowledge about about to better manage the development of knowledge.

We need to adapt to the environment we now find ourselves in, where knowledge is exploding like never before in human history. In this revolutionary new environment continuing to have the same old "more is better" attitude we've always had is not progress, but clinging to the past. The irony is so rich here, and so dangerous.

Say hello to Bob Dylan's wise words, from over 50 years ago...

Come gather around people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
And if your breath to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changing