The why question is a nonsense question. For science it’s obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don’t have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.
Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?
You’re pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?
If you want to make your case, be sure you don’t get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.
I don’t know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.
War is not a product of science.
There is no doubt that science has increased quality of life, health and life expectancy for human kind in general.
But I’m sure you have problems daily with napalm, and don’t have any of the benefits science has brought us.
Again with the statements being made here like they’re empirically true. If I said “war is not a product of God” (not something I’m likely to say) would you let me get away with it? But here you are, claiming innocence for your pet ideology (while you claim to be pragmatic).
You say “there is no doubt (yadda yadda yadda)”. We live longer, but are the years good? Better health for the wealthy, but is that increased quality of life for humankind? Our modern serf society is largely brought to us by scientific advances that allow the ruling to control the ruled more completely than they ever could in the past.
If humankind is extinct in the future, you can be certain it will be “the benefits science had brought us” that will be to blame, and not religion. Who poisoned the planet with plastics? God, or men and their science? Who warmed the globe?
Absolutely, because god doesn’t exist, but we also know that war is often is a result of religion.
but are the years good
They are obviously (again obvious ) better than the multiple diseases and starvation and extreme wear on the body from hard labor.
People died early because life was hard.
If humankind is extinct in the future, you can be certain it will be “the benefits science had brought us” that will be to blame, and not religion.
You are so narrow minded it’s sickening. Religion is very much to blame for USA not being serious about global warming. We have the technologies to curb it, but the richest country in the world is doing the least because of religion.
On the other hand, if a giant meteor should have course towards earth, we have a chance to save ourselves through science. You may try to pray it away, but every study done on the matter shows that praying doesn’t make a difference.
Who warmed the globe?
People who don’t believe the science that prove global warming.
Metaphysics addresses “why”. Like, “why are we doing science anyway?”
Can’t answer that with the scientific method.
The why question is a nonsense question. For science it’s obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don’t have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.
Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?
You’re pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?
If you want to make your case, be sure you don’t get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.
I don’t know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.
War is not a product of science.
There is no doubt that science has increased quality of life, health and life expectancy for human kind in general.
But I’m sure you have problems daily with napalm, and don’t have any of the benefits science has brought us.
Again with the statements being made here like they’re empirically true. If I said “war is not a product of God” (not something I’m likely to say) would you let me get away with it? But here you are, claiming innocence for your pet ideology (while you claim to be pragmatic).
You say “there is no doubt (yadda yadda yadda)”. We live longer, but are the years good? Better health for the wealthy, but is that increased quality of life for humankind? Our modern serf society is largely brought to us by scientific advances that allow the ruling to control the ruled more completely than they ever could in the past.
If humankind is extinct in the future, you can be certain it will be “the benefits science had brought us” that will be to blame, and not religion. Who poisoned the planet with plastics? God, or men and their science? Who warmed the globe?
Absolutely, because god doesn’t exist, but we also know that war is often is a result of religion.
They are obviously (again obvious ) better than the multiple diseases and starvation and extreme wear on the body from hard labor.
People died early because life was hard.
You are so narrow minded it’s sickening. Religion is very much to blame for USA not being serious about global warming. We have the technologies to curb it, but the richest country in the world is doing the least because of religion.
On the other hand, if a giant meteor should have course towards earth, we have a chance to save ourselves through science. You may try to pray it away, but every study done on the matter shows that praying doesn’t make a difference.
People who don’t believe the science that prove global warming.