Why modern science destroys human morality....

In my opinion science as of today promotes atheism because sceintists today are not openminded to the fact that they can only measure and see things in one single dimension - basically it is stone age..

Anyway, we have many-worlds theories, 11-dimensional spaces, universal wave equations etc and yet nobody(almost) dares to make the simple conclusion that there are an infinite number of lives in other dimensions and their time-spaces are completely different from ours. Basically, what religion states is no fantasy, it is just a higher form of science, just like Tesla, Newton and Einstein realized.

Now we have Falun Dafa Qi Gong(cultivation of mind and body introduced to mankind by Master Li Hongzhi) who can explain it all.

Just my two cents, no truth can be offered from me..

Here is what Master Li Hongzhi says about the subject:

www.falundafa.org...

The issue that I have just mentioned is to say that the purpose of a human life is not to be a human being. Many people probably still do not quite understand what it means. They think that human beings should just live this way. Yes, when you were born from your mother's womb, everyone was the same and could not see the existence of other dimensions. Then, you would not believe them either. In addition, people nowadays believe too much in modern science while modern science is in itself incomplete and imperfect. The extent of its understanding of this universe is very shallow or it is something of very low level in other words. Then, when people believe in it excessively, it will make mankind face the greatest danger: namely, the human morality will be thoroughly destroyed. Accordingly, the paradises up there no longer regard people without moral values as human beings! Because it is not only human beings who have the external human form, ghosts, monkeys, and apes all exist with brains and four limbs. The reason that man is called man is because he must have the human moral codes to live in the world with the standard of human morality as well as the human way of existence. Without these, gods will not regard people as human beings. However, people all think how they should live better and how they should develop. Nevertheless, human society is controlled by higher lives, and mankind can never reach the realm of Buddha through technology. Otherwise, star wars would indeed break out! Therefore, the human technology that bears the competitive mentality, jealousy, various kinds of sentimentality and desires is just not allowed to reach a higher standard.

More than seventy percent of the human brain cannot be used, and modern medicine has also recognized this point. Why is it? Human wisdom is repressed. Why do Buddhas have great wisdom and great supernatural powers then? Why are they able to know everything? And have great wisdom and intelligence? It is because of this principle that I have just explained. Some people say that this book of mine encompasses a very wide range of scientific knowledge! Does the teacher have a lot of scholarly knowledge or has he attended many colleges? I have not. Why is it then? The difference between myself and everyone else is that my mind is completely opened up while yours is not. Because in this world, whether it is philosophy, astronomy, physics, chemistry, or human history, etc., people may consider them very complicated. They are actually very simple and it is just that little bit of stuff of mankind at the lowest level within the scope of the Buddha Fa. They are all of one same principle and brought about by the characteristic of the universe as well as by the existing form of matter at this level. It is just this little bit. Yet, human wisdom is already unable to accommodate it because the human brain is sealed and cannot accommodate it. What can be done about it? To learn more things, but one’s brain is unable to take them. Then, you will have to study physics, and you study chemistry, and you study astronomy, and you study high-energy physics, and you study philosophy, and you study history. You will study this and you will study that. Yet, even for knowledge in one such subject, one is unable to grasp all of it in one’s lifetime. Therefore, human knowledge is very pitiful.

As I have just mentioned that, no matter how much knowledge you have learned, you still remain an ordinary person even if you are a professor or a supervisor in a university or however well-known you are. This is because your knowledge has not gone beyond this level of ordinary people. In addition, this empirical science of modern man is imperfect. For instance, this modern science cannot prove the existence of gods, nor can it verify the existence of other dimensions. It cannot see the lives and the existing forms of matter in other dimensions. It does not know that there is the manifestation from the matter of virtue on the human body. Nor does it know that there is the manifestation from the matter of karma around the human body either. People all believe in modern science and yet, modern science is unable to verify such things. What’s more, whenever virtues, kindness, sins, or other things beyond science are mentioned, they are considered superstitions. In essence, isn't it waving the stick of modern science to strike at the most fundamental nature of our mankind -- the human morality? Isn't it so? Because it does not recognize, nor is it able to verify the existence of De (virtue), it will claim that it is superstitious. If human moral values are indeed wiped out, man will lose the constraints from the Fa of mind and the moral codes. People may dare to do anything and dare to commit any wrong doing, which will make the human moral values decline constantly. This is the role played by the weakest side of science.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

reply to post by Gaussq

Science and religion aren't inherently incompatible. Why are you trying to make it so?

So you make a couple digs at science and then plop down paragraphs of someone else's work without giving them credit. Solid argument you got there.

[ ex ] tags, for future reference.

reply to post by boncho


Well, I can not explain these things clearly but Master Li surely can, so I just pasted something from his article into this thread. I try to stay humble and I know that I know nothing and I also believe Master Li knows the truth of these matters. So he is the one who should have all the credit of course. When you read his article everything is very clear.

Thanks for your advice.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Gaussq

 

Science and religion aren't inherently incompatible. Why are you trying to make it so?

I am not making it incompatible, it is just that many atheists make them incompatible by saying everything they can not see is superstition..

reply to post by Gaussq

I try to stay humble and I know that I know nothing and I also believe Master Li knows the truth of these matters.

Well no, you're not humble. You just said today's science is in the stone age, and then you continued by promoting qi gong on the site.

That's not humble.

By the way, I'm not humble either. But I will tell you straight up...

Originally posted by Gaussq

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Gaussq

 

Science and religion aren't inherently incompatible. Why are you trying to make it so?

I am not making it incompatible, it is just that many atheists make them incompatible by saying everything they can not see is superstition..

could it be that you confuse atheists with empiricists or physicalists?
aks Master Li, for sure he'll know

the sociological phenomenon of growing anti-science attitudes really scares me.
true science by definition is open minded as it aims at trying to get rid of previous findings.
no true scientist will ever claim something to be true, as true scientists know about Popper's insights.

(just like the person who wrote the post below this one, it's not my intention to flame you. If that would have been my intention I would have listed some acts performed by religious people and challenge the morality of those acts. I didn't.)

Originally posted by Gaussq

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Gaussq

 

Science and religion aren't inherently incompatible. Why are you trying to make it so?

I am not making it incompatible, it is just that many atheists make them incompatible by saying everything they can not see is superstition..

Athiest's are the one's who are open minded though? I think it might be the religious fanatics that are a danger to progression of the human race.

Not flaming you though. I just don't see the connection between athiest's and science?

reply to post by Gaussq

I am not making it incompatible, it is just that many atheists make them incompatible by saying everything they can not see is superstition.

No, atheists lack a belief in deities. There are plenty of atheists out there that believe in things for which there is no objective evidence. There are also plenty that don't. Further, you're making the common mistake of conflating science, atheism, and immorality without providing any steps in that chain of non-logic. Science and faith consist of two completely different kinds of knowledge, and there are plenty of theistic scientists out there. Further, the assumption that there is no morality without a deity is pure, unadulterated bunk. Atheists are just as moral or immoral as their theist counterparts. Peddle your intolerance elsewhere.

The tagline of this site is "Deny Ignorance" not "Embrace Bigotry".

reply to post by Samuelis

Athiest's are the one's who are open minded though? I think it might be the religious fanatics that are a danger to progression of the human race.

Not flaming you though. I just don't see the connection between athiest's and science?

I think the reason people lump the two together is because of a number of religious beliefs that don't even meld with well known, common, evidence backed science. In a sense, they are almost enemies (or have been made to be) and atheism is sitting on the science camp because atheists also rely data over the years to justify/explain their position.

But that's not to say it's the only way. You will find people of all sorts..

I knew a girl that was a biologist, devout christian... didn't believe in evolution or that the Earth was over 10,000 years old. She was a biologist.

No really.

A biologist...

reply to post by Gaussq


Just to pull up a single point from his statement

More than seventy percent of the human brain cannot be used, and modern medicine has also recognized this point.

This statment alone is absolute tripe.. Modern medicine has actually proven that we use 100% of our brains, just not all at one given moment...

I think that a lack of self responsibility destroys human morals,not science.
I also don't think science promotes atheism because they are self responsible for their choice of belief/disbelief or whatever,instead of blaming the devil or saying god told me to do it.
Scientists can't prove god is real,well,neither can religion prove it.
I'm also pretty sure that there are christians who are scientists so they do seem to work together!
That's just of the top of my head,there seems to be a mixed bag in your post,some just not adding up or not much pre-thought put into it as to what your really getting at.
No offence meant to anyone

You got a problem with science?
You're using a laptop, in fact your whole existence depends upon what science has given you.
Atheism has no actual connections to the scientific method, plenty of scientists believe in a God.
Science is a search for answers period, in looking for answers ideas are generated, technology is developed etc. We've been doing it since our brains got big enough, fire is science, the wheel is science.
Anti-science, as an earlier poster mentioned, is indeed scary, it's like saying "we don't like people who ask questions".

Science tells us what we have found to be the truth,through reason and experimentation.
Religion tells us how someone else,usually long ago,interprets things which we cannot know for sure.

Interestingly to me at least,both science and religion were and are used to control the will of humankind.

A religion will (falsely IMO)claim to have all the answers-and only there specific religion is correct,whereas science will at least admit that there are things beyond our knowledge that we are not yet advanced enough to know of.

Both have their flaws,yet at least science can PROVE what it has found to be the truth...

reply to post by Silcone Synapse

while I second your overall position, I do not agree with the "truth" statements: serious science (the one that doesn't have to sell) will never make such claims as we know, thanks to Karl Popper that this impossible from a logical point of view. Science can tell for sure what is a false statements. What is "true" can't but be approached as a probability.

reply to post by Gaussq


Modern science does not destroy human morality, and is not responsible for teenage pregnancy, increased use of recreational drugs, heavy alcohol abuse, child molestation, fascism, cannibalism, murder or rape. Modern science operates at levels that most people do not have the intellectual capacity to follow closely enough to be psychologically affected by the fruits of its labours.

Physics nowadays is so arcane that your average man in the street cannot be relied upon to speak about, let alone comprehend its merest facet. Medical science these days has come on to the point where lazers and radiation are as key to its operation as scalpels and bed pans. Engineering and computer sciences, increasingly rely on microcomponent manufacture so complex, that telecoms engineers of yesteryear would think they have fallen into a Star Trek like future, where light itself is the transmission medium, and data is shifted far faster than ever before.

These things do not add up to a decay of moral fibre. It is not these things that have damaged the population of the world to the point of moral collapse, and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise on a specific case by case basis. The fact that some people wish to deamonise the scientific community and thier works is nothing more than an unhelpful relic from times when people were burned as witches for handing out effective remedies for colds, and binding wounds in such a way as to prevent infection.

Human morality is erroded by circumstance. A huge combination of factors play into each case where a person shows a lack of human compassion, loyalty, love , decency and respect. Often poor treatment on the behalf of responsible adults during childhood, suffering deep mental trauma without support, can be devastating for a young person, and can result in a difficult adolescence, and if left to fester, an adult hood that is destined to be either short, or harmful to others.

The only people who could possibly claim that thier morality has been destroyed by science are those who make it thier sole aim to use science to kill, maim, sterilise, and torture others. And to be absolutely fair, there have been dark geniuses behind every major improvement in military equipment since well before we dropped the sword in favour of the gun.

I think the thing that errodes our morality as a species most of all, is blaming stimuli we encounter for our behavior all the time, rather than just accepting that some human beings behave like savages, or tyrants, and dealing with them as they deserve, on thier own merits. We blame apparant increases in deplorable behavior on the part of our fellow man, on changes in our society, in the balance of the religious demographics in our nations, on changes to the law and order systems, and the media. We blame and we blame, but in reality, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Society has ALWAYS had its outlaws, its savages and marauders, its thieves and carpet baggers. Ever since we had developed minds, we have had the capacity to backstab another human being, if we so chose. We see increases in the figures and wonder why we see more of it these days, and I argue that in terms of proportion we do NOT see much more sickness than there used to be. We see proportionally the same amount, but there are more people around, more different cultures, more advances in entertainment and media coverage, more access to that which was once considered risque. We lambast these changes because we are desperate to find a reason for our savagery and excise it from us like a cancer.

Look at it this way... Science was barely out of the larval stage of its development when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and so on, and as any learned person would know, Shakespeare like all playwrites of the time he worked in, was but a social commentator. And abundantly talented and poetic one, but a commentator none the less. Do you really think that in a world free of the supposed moral threat of modern science, that such terrible things ought to have been happening by your reckoning, for him to write such horrific tales as Macbeth? Or speak of such betrayal as was represented in Julius Ceasar? Science did not exist in a format I would recognise when Vlad the Impaler, around whom the Dracula tale was constructed, was sundering villages and putting those who opposed him on long iron tipped spikes.

Human morality has always been fragile, and from what I have seen, science does more to support morality than it has ever done to errode it. We use science now to catch serious criminals, and to keep an eye out for the launch of nuclear weapons. We use science to examine the causes and treatments of cancer, and all other disease... Our morality is under more threat from politics than science, mark my words.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Science has also given us weaponized Small pox, and the neutron bomb and a patch of garbage in the pacific the size of California... The problem is not religion or science.. It's how they are used.

So you are saying someone who does not believe in your mythologies is immoral -- that is an incredibly naive stance. I take offense and would say your really don't know what morality is

On a rationality scale..

Conspiracy theorist are the lowest of the low..in fact they rank lower than moderate religious folk

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Samuelis

Athiest's are the one's who are open minded though? I think it might be the religious fanatics that are a danger to progression of the human race.

Not flaming you though. I just don't see the connection between athiest's and science?

 

I think the reason people lump the two together is because of a number of religious beliefs that don't even meld with well known, common, evidence backed science. In a sense, they are almost enemies (or have been made to be) and atheism is sitting on the science camp because atheists also rely data over the years to justify/explain their position.

But that's not to say it's the only way. You will find people of all sorts..

I knew a girl that was a biologist, devout christian... didn't believe in evolution or that the Earth was over 10,000 years old. She was a biologist.

No really.

A biologist...

edit on 30-4-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

About that biologist, she is much more clever than people can imagine because she has faith. Evolution is mathematically impossible and it is proven by genetics.. The evolution theory has never been scientific since it has become politically correct and all arguments are quickly silenced by certain influential professors etc. I remember a Jesuit conference where they specifically said the forbid any argumentation about the evolution theory, it is a fixed truth and may not be discussed anymore..

Check out a small sample of maths for evolutionists here: Mathematics of Evolution

And about the 7000 years lifespan of the earth, how can it not be true??.. That would mean that the Bible is not an upright document.

I can tell you that one day in heaven is said to be 1000 years on earth in the Bible, and that is in a specific paradise where the time-space is that fast.

So if you take that into account the age of this earth would suddenly be like 2,6 billion years, quite similar to modern science´s calculations. Is it not funny that all these people slander Christians for the 7000 years while the Bible states that is is about 2,6 Billion years?

And reincarnation is also included in the Bible in several places and was a natural part of the original Christianity, it was just suppressed by modern Church after AD 325.

What I am saying is that if one has a one-dimensional perspective of this world, how can anyone ever understand orthodox religion?

Just my two cents, no truth can be offered from me..