Pim: That of course depends on how you define 'important issues'.
Science surely has affected some very important issues.
Mike: Like what?
Health for instance. Exploration of the unknown.
Mike: Religion deals with the important issues - who are we?
Pim: Actually those issues I consider quite low in importance.
Mike: why are we here? what should we do?
Pim: Once agian such issues might be important to some but
personally they are of low importance to me.
Mike: It is questions such as these rather than questions of
measurement (science) that define our sense of being.
Pim: Does it?
Mike: I think so. For example, just think how much we could
learn about human biology if we experimented on
the mentally retarded, criminals, homeless, etc. Why
don't we?
For a large variety of reasons. But what does this prove?
Mike: Why do we thus constrain the progress
of science? I submit it has something to do with
the questions I raised.
Does it?
Mike: For example, the Christian religion imparts
value to our lives, as we are in some way created in the image
of God (the means of this creation are disputed by Christians,
but that is not important).
Pim: Of course the value is merely determined by what some
have written down.
Mike: If Christianity is true, it does not. But this misses the
point. I was simply opining that some fundamentals
of Christian faith are best left unchanged.
But what are the fundamentals? And even if they remain unchanged, could not the interpretation over time change?
Mike: The Christian religion imparts meaning and direction to our
lives, as we exist for a reason.
Pim: And this perceived meaning and direction is important? I have seen
plenty of people who find direction and meaning outside religion.
Mike: I'm not talking about the particular meaning and direction
one accepts, I'm talking about the reality of meaning
and direction that is not dependent on human belief. This
is another thing, that IMO, is best left unchanged.
And how do you distinguish what is "not dependent on human belief" from what is?