| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#FFRFonDA
#DAtheism
#Secular-Human
#inDISPUTE
#Ex-Christians
| Digital Art / Typography / Conceptual | ©2012-2013 ~rationalhub |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `ChewedKandi has certainly gone out of her way to keep the vector community on the right path. Always making sure that her talents are infinitely scalable, Sharon has put her bezier curves to excellent use, and firmly anchored herself as an inspirational leader. We're absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for June 2013 to `ChewedKandi. Congratulations, Sharon! Read More
|
Sta.sh
Your parallel doesn't quite work here. Yes Newtonian physics was shown to be approximations when relativity came along (based on empirical evidence, i.e.). It's not even remotely similar to verses of extreme homophobia/sexism or those of blatant scientific errors suddenly taking a U turn (based on nothing, or at best arbitrary interpretations). I know you said "religion and science are not the same" etc. but still that is quite flawed a comparison. Whether this is for the better is a whole different question, of course, that's not what we are talking of here.
Scientific changes are rooted in new experiments/data and religious changes are often rooted in developing science and a vast wealth of new information available to our culture. Consider sexism, for example: for thousands of years, many prominent cultures have considered women to be an inferior form of life to a man. The well-known truths were that women are dumb, weak, needing protection, and suited only for raising children (sometimes not even that). Once the culture developed and both science and experience taught us otherwise, people had to re-evaluate their beliefs. That verse doesn't make sense anymore? Well, either the whole book is crap (a valid option) or it was written within a certain context that isn't valid anymore. This revolution is certainly not built on nothing. Now, some might say that rejecting the whole book as crap is the better choice, but that doesn't mean that keeping parts of it isn't a valid option. Thus my parallel with science.
If you still disagree, I can understand. Different people treat their religious experiences so differently that it is hard to box them all together. I might just be seeing a different facet of things than you. In a lot of ways, I think that religion IS a human endeavor, which I guess makes me a heretic to a lot of other religious folk. I see it as a human endeavor to understand something supernatural. It requires trial and error, and I am certain I'll never arrive at the Truth. That's okay... it's exciting. So is the exploration of science. Anyway, sorry for rambling on, but I just wanted to share a different view of things and I'm interested to hear your opinion.
If they admitted it sucked, they'd have to close shop and look for a honest job ( and job opportunities aren't terrific just right now )
Firstly, Hitler was not a scientist. He was a madman, and science cannot be held responsible for politically warped versions of what it was meant to be. As it happens, science doesn't suggest models of society or dictate morals- it simply finds out what is true.
Hitler did adapt a variant of evolution, but it was refitted to suit his ideological views, and this retarded German science badly.
Secondly, the scientific theory of evolution is ONE field of science. To say that science wants the strong to rule and the weak to die is a gross generalization even if we assume that's the core of Darwinism. Which is isn't.
Thirdly, everything in the society of today rests on scientific discovery. Everything. From electricity to power plants to television to the internet to the computer you're using to type your misinformed attacks on it. Science was what raised the averae lifespan from forty to seventy in just a century or so. Science has given us everything. Do not dismiss it so casually.
Moral values are there whether one believes in god or not.