Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
He thinks science and religion can compromise on some sort of middle ground. Wishful thinking if you ask me. Compromise on science and it stops being science.
He's completely right that society tries to dictate to science what it should and should not do though, and given that most people are religious then those rules are going to be founded on religious beliefs, at least to some extent.
Personally I don't think such rules accomplish anything much in the long term though. Historically, it seems to me that whatever is possible is done eventually, no matter how icky it may seem to people when it is invented. It is the morals of society that warp to conform to science, not vice versa.
He's completely right that society tries to dictate to science what it should and should not do though, and given that most people are religious then those rules are going to be founded on religious beliefs, at least to some extent.
Personally I don't think such rules accomplish anything much in the long term though. Historically, it seems to me that whatever is possible is done eventually, no matter how icky it may seem to people when it is invented. It is the morals of society that warp to conform to science, not vice versa.