Z
Variable Constant
From the other thread, here...
It seems Darren would like science to disband, essentially. Certainly, if scientists cannot study the relationships and patterns within their sensations, and the objective existence of such things by comparison with other entities, then what can science study?
Darren seems to imply - yet again - that the cause of EVERYTHING is simply GOD - but God is completely able to be sensed or detected. So what, in Darren's view, does that leave to study?
If science were ever to have this 'paradigm shift', then science would simply end. There would be nothing to study, essentially.
So let's compare what science has accomplished versus what non-science has accomplished.
First, what is non-science? Let's consider any non-reality-based philosophy as a non-science; religion, certainly; and mysticism. Granted, in each case they may use science to move ahead, but let's consider them when they are not using science, and compare accomplishments.
Let's see - science is responsible for our improved health, longer lifespans, and higher quality of life. Religion has never improved our health, unless one counts faith-healing, and there is little solid evidence that faith-healing actually works. The same is true of mysticism.
Science has helped cure and treat innumerable medical conditions. Has religion done the same, without using science? Philosophy, perhaps?
Through the science of agriculture, men learned to grow plants for food, and to grow surplus food. So now there is more food available than ever for the world population. What has religion done? Oh, yes, that's right - created major divisions in the world preventing food from being distributed evenly. Philosophy? Well, politics - as a branch of philosophy - has certainly been instrumental in preventing food from reaching the hungry.
Through other sciences, we have air conditioning; refrigeration; stoves, ovens, and safe cookware; working plumbing and a ready supply of water; lights at night, heat in the winter, comfortable clothes; sunblock, toothpaste, and eyeglasses; artificial limbs, wheelchairs, etc.
And on and on and on.
Now, what advances has religion, philosophy, or mysticism managed without employing science? Honestly, I'm not even sure if major social advances have come without some science in them - for example, the Bible suggests that slavery is an acceptable practice, and that some humans are superior to others. But genetics tells another tale entirely, and simple biology revealed that humans were all one race. So which was more instrumental to the abolishment of slavery?
(Honestly I'm not sure on that one. For example, clearly Lincoln was influenced by religion, if not the Bible, so this may be an example of an achievement for not-using-science.)
Remember, I'm not just asking about religion or philosophy, I'm asking about these when they do not employ science.
So what advantages do we face if scientists abandon modern science in favor of gazerism? Apparently, a return to the Dark Ages.
And does gazerism have any other benefits? Apparently not.
So why does Darren try so hard to get people to embrace his silliness? Who knows?
It seems Darren would like science to disband, essentially. Certainly, if scientists cannot study the relationships and patterns within their sensations, and the objective existence of such things by comparison with other entities, then what can science study?
Darren seems to imply - yet again - that the cause of EVERYTHING is simply GOD - but God is completely able to be sensed or detected. So what, in Darren's view, does that leave to study?
If science were ever to have this 'paradigm shift', then science would simply end. There would be nothing to study, essentially.
So let's compare what science has accomplished versus what non-science has accomplished.
First, what is non-science? Let's consider any non-reality-based philosophy as a non-science; religion, certainly; and mysticism. Granted, in each case they may use science to move ahead, but let's consider them when they are not using science, and compare accomplishments.
Let's see - science is responsible for our improved health, longer lifespans, and higher quality of life. Religion has never improved our health, unless one counts faith-healing, and there is little solid evidence that faith-healing actually works. The same is true of mysticism.
Science has helped cure and treat innumerable medical conditions. Has religion done the same, without using science? Philosophy, perhaps?
Through the science of agriculture, men learned to grow plants for food, and to grow surplus food. So now there is more food available than ever for the world population. What has religion done? Oh, yes, that's right - created major divisions in the world preventing food from being distributed evenly. Philosophy? Well, politics - as a branch of philosophy - has certainly been instrumental in preventing food from reaching the hungry.
Through other sciences, we have air conditioning; refrigeration; stoves, ovens, and safe cookware; working plumbing and a ready supply of water; lights at night, heat in the winter, comfortable clothes; sunblock, toothpaste, and eyeglasses; artificial limbs, wheelchairs, etc.
And on and on and on.
Now, what advances has religion, philosophy, or mysticism managed without employing science? Honestly, I'm not even sure if major social advances have come without some science in them - for example, the Bible suggests that slavery is an acceptable practice, and that some humans are superior to others. But genetics tells another tale entirely, and simple biology revealed that humans were all one race. So which was more instrumental to the abolishment of slavery?
(Honestly I'm not sure on that one. For example, clearly Lincoln was influenced by religion, if not the Bible, so this may be an example of an achievement for not-using-science.)
Remember, I'm not just asking about religion or philosophy, I'm asking about these when they do not employ science.
So what advantages do we face if scientists abandon modern science in favor of gazerism? Apparently, a return to the Dark Ages.
And does gazerism have any other benefits? Apparently not.
So why does Darren try so hard to get people to embrace his silliness? Who knows?
