Do you deny science if it conflicts with your "morality"?

[Russell797]

In theory, yes. In practicality, no. Religions change, albeit slowly and subtly, all the time trying to keep up with society.

Just one example: How many religions allow women as high officials today that would never have done so as recent as 50 years ago?

Sure, but the rituals and conduct of a particular religious sect are not core religious dogma. They are more like traditions. Belief in the Holy Trinity is religious dogma. The Resurrection of Christ is religious dogma. Being forgiven for one's sins is religious dogma.

 

[Cephus]

This was funny to read. The Bible says it is the inerrant Word of God, and talk to any fervent Christian and they will tell you so and they'll have a spin to explain everything that may seem incorrect to others.

And that is EXACTLY what you did here. You say science is never wrong, then you go on to spin how, when it is wrong, it's still not wrong. LOL, classic.

So, basically, science is your religion.

No, I said the scientific method is never wrong because it is self-correcting. I said scientists can, and sometimes are wrong. Learn to read.

 

[Cephus]

In theory, yes. In practicality, no. Religions change, albeit slowly and subtly, all the time trying to keep up with society.

Just one example: How many religions allow women as high officials today that would never have done so as recent as 50 years ago?

Religion changes to allow continued social success, it never changes because the evidence shows their core beliefs to be factually incorrect. That isn't the case with science.

 

[radcen]

No, I said the scientific method is never wrong because it is self-correcting. I said scientists can, and sometimes are wrong. Learn to read.

I read it just fine. You're just upset because I read it correctly and called you out on your inconveniently obvious inconsistency.

Religion changes to allow continued social success, it never changes because the evidence shows their core beliefs to be factually incorrect. That isn't the case with science.

...and there we go again. Does religion change or does it not change? Cherry-picking and euphemistic spin is for the intellectually weak. Reading and comprehension is not my issue. Consistency and self-awareness is your's.

 

[Cephus]

I read it just fine. You're just upset because I read it correctly and called you out on your inconveniently obvious inconsistency.

It's not an inconsistency, everyone else can apparently read it just fine. What's your problem?

...and there we go again. Does religion change or does it not change? Cherry-picking and euphemistic spin is for the intellectually weak. Reading and comprehension is not my issue. Consistency and self-awareness is your's.

And the parts you highlighted and complained about were immediately disproven by the words immediately following them. Dishonest much?

 

[Cyrylek]

Conservatives deny things like climate change because it conflicts with their individualist "morality" (climate change = more regulation = "bigger" government.)
Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior because it goes against their egalitarian "morality."

Being both/neither, I would say: I "deny" not "climate change", but the ideological abuse of science and the regulatory crusade based on biased modeling/speculation and politics. Basically, this is about charlatanism and a power-grab. Has very little to do with "individualist morality".

Racial differences in intelligence are nowhere close to being an established fact. The Left's paranoia about GMOs is a better example. And on the Right, that would be cruder versions of Creationism.

To answer the question. No: Science is science, morality is morality. Science is about what is. Morality is about what I cannot do. For example, I cannot swindle another person, whether he is smart or dumb, and whether such qualities correlate with his race or not.