Scientific progress has to be tempered by morality. But certainly not the Christian version of it.
2007-11-04 15:59:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Hi Desiree,
I think Christian morals (depending on what you define as "Christian morals - some people have different interpretations of what is moral and what isn't). But, in general, I would have to say, if we acted a lot better to our fellow brothers and sisters and cooperated more with each other, scientific progress would "progress" even faster and better than it is now. So I think it goes without saying, if we could work together in loving harmony, we could produce more wondrous things more efficiently and effectively. Besides, if everyone was evil, there would be no scientific progress to begin with. You need people of good heart and passion to produce things in society. Morality is the fabric which holds society together. Without it, you have a police state. I really hope we can progress more emotionally, spiritually, compassionately, and understandingly towards one another at the same rate, if not faster, than our scientific progress because it seems that our values are far behind our scientific progress today.
2007-11-04 15:59:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Joe F 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Moral and scientific progress are both important. I would hate to have advanced scientific technology without the morals to stop anyone from using that technology poorly.
2007-11-04 16:01:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by cadisneygirl 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Science is more important as Christian morals benefit christians but scientific progress benefits everyone.
2007-11-04 15:56:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Tai 1
·
5⤊
0⤋
To Christians, it will obviously be Christian morals.
To athiests, agnostics etc, Scientific progress.
I'm an athiest (for now) but I like some of the ideas of Christianity; "Love thy neighbour" and the like.
Since I dont believe in heaven, I cant see how christian morals will help anyone except christians, whereas science will benefit the whole human race.
(in my humble opinion)
2007-11-04 15:58:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Christian morals. You have to know, or at least have an idea of, what God would consider to be acceptable for us to do.
Like chemo. God wants us to be healthy, so progress in this is important and supported.
But then there's also a form of electro-therapy that is directly applied to the hypothermus in your brain, (part of the brain that controls pain and pleasure) which gives us a dose of pure ecstacy. People would KILL for this, and if allowed, they would do nothing but knock themselves out repeatedly with ultimate pleasure. Negatives? Forgetting to eat or drink. Dying of starvation. Neglecting others in your life.
Scientific progress is great, but there has to be a line made as to how far we can go on certain studies.
2007-11-04 16:00:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by kellybelly42490 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Scientific progress will always be hampered by religious morals. If religion didn't exsist I would be living on Alpha Centauri and dating a hot alien chic.
2007-11-04 15:56:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Paul B 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Don't think it's christain morals.
Just universal values.
Ever wonder what good is scientific progress without the advancement of living human kind?
With all the advancement in science and technology.
What good is it when the children were living in misery with emptiness and "Dying inside" in fantasy toy land with the rise of a new lost city in the new Atlantis over the horizon surviving and running on batteries with shorten life cycle?
Luke 9.55-56
Getting kick on the butts as casualty of the dead mummy in not worshiping God.
Luke 6.39-40,41-45,46-49
What do you think?
2007-11-04 16:00:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Scientific progress
We can see now that most religions can be disproved in many ways. People feel the need to believe in something so they can feel safe after death and "keep morals".
2007-11-04 15:56:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by User84 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
good morals and scientific progress. christians dont have the best track record...
2007-11-04 15:56:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Zach 4
·
2⤊
0⤋