Should science replace religion?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 7, 2019.

  1. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,605
    You don’t know me at all, Q. I don’t consider myself really anything you’re labeling me. *shrug*
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,318
    I'm not labeling you at all, Wegs. You stated you have beliefs in Jesus' teachings, which would have come from the Bible, which has some good gems in it as well as some negative stuff. I'm merely assuming you probably take the good stuff and try to live your life accordingly. Is that way off the mark?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,605
    You implied that you feel sorry for me. I think you’re condescending so perhaps you should go pick on another believer. That seems to be your sport.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,318
    Wow, that wasn't what I implied at all.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,716
    Faith based "science" is already here.

     
    wegs likes this.
  9. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,605
    Faith based science. I think you’ve coined a new phrase! I kinda like it lol
     
    sculptor likes this.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    The US Constitution supports slavery, and even says you have to return escaped slaves to their owners. Do you feel the same way about Americans - wanting to take the best from the Constitution, but unfortunately stuck with all that negative baggage, and destined to spend their time denying the Constitution?
     
    wegs likes this.
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,505
    You make a good point however surely even the most sacred writings deserve amendment to remove the bad bits?
    Re slavery for example, what objection could there be to the proposition of removing negative references to slavery in both the bible and in the constitution.
    Alex
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Sure they do. But that part of the US Constitution was never erased; we just said "well, we didn't really mean it; here's what we think now in Amendment 13." But the original is right there, preserved for eternity under glass in our capitol.

    (I would also note that the same thing happens in religion. Example - a recent Pope said that evolution was valid.)
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,111
    The word "slavery" appears in the text of the Constitution for the first time in the amendment banning it.
    The language of Article IV 2 specifically refers to "involuntary servitude" as supported by State law only, not Federal law.
    To return a slave to its owner is now, and has been for 150 years, a violation of the Constitutional rights of the enslaved.
    That confusion of physical and legislated "law" has done a lot of harm over the centuries. The word in physics was a metaphor - an unfortunate and misleading one, as it has turned out. It's not the same thing.

    And that bears directly on any attempts to replace religion with science or vice versa - religious law and scientific law are not interchangeable, and one cannot replace the one with the other.

    Institutional inertia appears whenever and wherever institutions appear.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    "No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." You can still see it under glass in Washington, DC.

    They used the term "held to labor" to describe slavery. Nothing to do with "involuntary servitude." Specifically, any slave "held to labor" had to be returned to their owner upon demand.

    Fortunately, we do not heed that portion of the US Constitution any more. If we did, you'd have to return sex slaves to their owner upon demand.
    Exactly. Times change, and we later amend our understanding of that document based on those changes.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,111
    And they did that deliberately, to avoid saddling the Federal government with "slavery".

    There are many ways to hold a person to service or labor without enslaving them, without creating ownership of human beings or making capital of them.
    It would make no difference if we did. (And we do, in the case of prison labor and contracted services - such as the doctors who reneged on their agreement to deliver national service in return for government-paid medical schooling, and faced extradition.
    As far as me and my ancestors, no amendment of "understanding" was necessary, and the understanding of that document has not changed in that respect.
    We - in my familial case - have understood that aspect of that document pretty much as we do now from the day it was written. So did lots of other people - abolition was a powerful political force in American politics.
    Ownership is a legal matter.
    There are no legal owners of sex slaves in the US. Ownership of a human being is illegal, and so there is no owner to legally return a de facto slave to.
    That's one of the differences between "held for service" and "enslaved" - foreseen by the abolitionists and liberals and southern capitalists alike, in the US.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Yes. However, that part of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment - because it was put in there to support slavery. Specifically, it was put in to placate the southern states that the north would not interfere with their slaves.
    That's fine. However, someone reading the Constitution for the first time will not know that, and will have to note that the 13th amendment changes that part of the Constitution.
    Exactly. And that is due to the 13th Amendment.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,111
    It was carefully worded to avoid committing the Federal government to support of slavery.
    And so if we heeded the Article, now, we would not be bound to return sex slaves to their owners - despite the Article's continued presence in the Constitution.
    This, in other words, is wrong:
    Meanwhile, we do, return those held to service or labor under the laws of a State. Not to "owners", but to the penal systems and prisons and military units and so forth that have a legal hold on their services. That is, we do heed the Article - right now.

    And no change in the meaning of the carefully worded Article is necessary.
     
  18. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    But it will.

    EDIT: No, but it will. Was what I meant to say, good post!
     

Share This Page