You are asking whether people act on their beliefs?

Thing is, a directive interpreted that broadly would freeze people like an original series Star Trek android given a logical contradiction. You can't do much of anything without harming people, if harm is defined that loosely. For example you wouldn't be able to discipline a child because that would be traumatizing them; but not disciplining them also harms them, so the command would keep you from doing anything. Stick you in a loop or something of the sort. You need to make judgement call, to choose the path of least long term harm, which an inflexible command won't let happen.

The problem is, a tightly interpreted command like that will be lawyered around, as in Stas Bush's example; a loosely interpreted command will disable people because so much would be forbidden by it.

I wouldn't give ANY command. I'd be too afraid of the results. I guess I've read too many cautionary tales or other fiction where someone made the djinni's wish, gave the robots the command, made the unbreakable law, and had it work out just the wrong way.

Think and act with compassion at least one time a day.

If you think about it, why not make an ultra-long sentence that encompasses everything you want to say? It doesn't have to be grammatically correct does it?

If you think about it, why not make an ultra-long sentence that encompasses everything you want to say? It doesn't have to be grammatically correct does it?

The problem is that the longer the sentence, the easier it is to corrupt. So if you've got an ultra-long sentence, it won't take as long to corrupt as a short, sweet, and simple proposition.

The following are incontrovertible facts which demand a cyclical, low growth society: Oil is finite and will no long be a viable energy resource within four decades and global warming is progressive, a reality, and a threat to human survival.

I have something bigger and more important over the long term, "The exploration and permanent colonization of space is indispensable to the survival of the human species." Even if we do something about PO and GW, we're still all going to die horribly the next time a big rock smashes into the planet.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me.

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

[...](without the constant fighting, etc).[...]

You two are fucking morons. Laguna uses the idiot logic that we shouldn't bother solving environmental problems because something else might destroy us eventually, which is almost exactly the same "logic" employed by people who refuse to quit smoking because they could get hit by a bus.

You did consider that people might fight not because of religion, but because they're sociopaths, right? For a moment, at least?

Instilling a healthy respect for rational thought and empirical knowledge also alleviates all those other non-religious problems, because it would increase both awareness and willingness to take measures toward solving them.

I see no reason why expressly removing religion from the equation would help that at all, however.

I'm Christian (oh noez) can still see that global warming and pollution are terrifyingly real problems. I don't treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

I still use scientific method.

I can look at the universe the same way a scientist does, analyze it the same way a scientist does, and act on what I find the same way that a scientist does.

In other words, suddenly not believing in God isn't going to change how I look at a problem, or affect how I solve it...

It would be a natural side-effect of causing all humans to think logically and objectively.

So you're a liberal Christian.

No you don't, at least not consistently.

Unless you have actual training, those statements are false.

If you actually viewed the universe using the scientific method, you would discard God as a worthless non-theory. People who practice science while simultaneously believing in God simply decide to have two faces, like libertarians with government jobs.

-snipped-
If you actually viewed the universe using the scientific method, you would discard God as a worthless non-theory. People who practice science while simultaneously believing in God simply decide to have two faces, like libertarians with government jobs.

So Christians can't be scientists, because they believe in God? I am aware, of course, that my question is an extreme simplification (and possibly distortion) of your statement. I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean.

So Christians can't be scientists, because they believe in God? I am aware, of course, that my question is an extreme simplification (and possibly distortion) of your statement. I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean.

In science, things are presumed not to exist unless there is evidence for them. This is a simplification, but I figure it will get the point across. Since there is no evidence for God, according to science he doesn't exist. Therefore any scientists who are also Christian are refusing to apply the scientific method to the question of God's existence.

Right, I got that. It just seems to me that a person's private beliefs shouldn't be a basis for judging their professional work. If they are intellectually honest in their research, why should they have to apply the scientific method to their personal lives?

As far as I'm aware, nobody is saying that they should have to, merely pointing out that they don't.