Science wins because the magic works. Making wine from grape juice works; making wine from water does not. — unenlightened

:smirk: :up:

But notoriously, science cannot tell us how to live, only expand our options.

Neither can "religion", which has only ever told us how to tribally conform, servilely obey & scapegoat "others".

:clap: :strong:

Neither can "religion", which has only ever told us how to tribally conform, servilely obey & scapegoat. — 180 Proof

That is telling us how to live. You may tell a different tale. I certainly do. Science is silent on the matter.

Well, science does show us how to think.

It shows us how to think about science, maybe. So what?

Have you looked at the op's project? I would have thought we'd be about on the same side of rejecting it out of hand.

It shows us how to think about science, maybe — unenlightened

Science show us how to think about nature and to correct our 'common sense', which can help one adaptively discern how to live.

which can help one adaptively discern how to live. — 180 Proof

Sure it can. Rather too often though, it doesn't; hence the maladaptive policies being followed in the age of the triumph of science and the decline of religion.

Science show us how to think about nature and to correct our 'common sense', which can help one adaptively discern how to live. — 180 Proof

However accurate our models of objective reality are thanks to science, it doesn't do away with our subjectivity and that we have to make subjective decisions what to do. Hence, just like @unenlightened said above, we can surely make wrong decisions even with scientific knowledge. And sometimes even with relying on scientific reasoning we can make decisions that later we find out to have been wrong, as our questioning and understanding of complex issues can be limited. How things are don't give us easy answers to the question how things ought to be.

Do you think that's faster than a big rock from space could achieve, or how about a massive eruption of the caldera under Yellowstone park or — universeness

Meteor strikes and volcano eruptions are not in the sphere of influence of either religion or science, and so that comparison is irrelevant. I was responding to your uncritical admiration of science. It's just a method whereby humans make tools to manipulate matter. Humans use tools for good and for evil, wisely and stupidly, constructively and destructively. In that regard, religion, which provides tools for the manipulation of minds, is exactly like science.

how fast do you think the Christian god could do it, if it existed?

The point there is: he doesn't. He's a product of human imagination, and he's used by humans as a benevolent force and a destructive force, because humans have both of those impulses and they express both of those impulses in all their creations.

1959! You are impatient Vera! That's only 63 years ago. It's a bit of a 'diva stance' to complain that the human race has not made enough satisfactory global improvements in your lifetime. — universeness

Zero. If you wait as long as Christianity has failed to

unite people in common cause — universeness

even though they both have

put significant dents in human primal fear.

I think you'll be alone in a desert.
Or on the moon. Good luck with that project!

Meteor strikes and volcano eruptions are not in the sphere of influence of either religion or science, and so that comparison is irrelevant. — Vera Mont

Not at all. Science makes every effort to protect us from both.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/saving-earth-from-asteroids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_of_volcanic_activity

In that regard, religion, which provides tools for the manipulation of minds, is exactly like science. — Vera Mont

Nonsense! Any new threat created via science is due to how some people choose to employ or manipulate new tech. Even the most benevolent theists have their foundations firmly embed in that which is irrefutable described by 180 proof earlier as:

Neither can "religion", which has only ever told us how to tribally conform, servilely obey & scapegoat. — 180 Proof

Science has no doctrinal intent to stealthily capture human minds. It obtains its supporters by honest open means. It does not preach, it calculates. It does not peddle fables as truth or offer us all elixirs in the form of blessed holy waters or faith based bottles of 'doctor good.' It does detailed research using rigor, experimentation and empirical conformation. It is also fully open to completely change its orthodoxy if the evidence compels it to. No religion EVER does that.

The point there is: he doesn't. He's a product of human imagination, and he's used by humans as a benevolent force and a destructive force, because humans have both of those impulses and they express both of those impulses in all their creations. — Vera Mont

True, so it's time we abandoned such irrational BS, yes?

I think you'll be alone in a desert.
Or on the moon. Good luck with that project! — Vera Mont

Nah! I think if you knew I found myself in such a circumstance, you would join the search team looking to rescue me. You would then hail me for my attempts to bring new life to the dessert and/or the moon and you would encourage your children to help me and the many millions who support me in trying to make Carl Sagan's prediction of "We are ready at last to set sail for the Stars!" come true.
Ok, maybe not me personally as I am mostly a spent force but space exploration and development is the inevitable destiny of our species.

Nonsense! Any new threat created via science is due to how some people choose to employ or manipulate new tech. — universeness

Isn't that exactly what I said: Science

It's just a method whereby humans make tools to manipulate matter. — Vera Mont

[humans use] religion, which provides tools for the manipulation of minds, — Vera Mont

The operative words are humans and tools.

This is a perennial deflection employed by both the advocates or science and religion. They argue as if the thing itself: Science, were pure and good, and when someone points it that it's also corrupt and bad, they say, Oh, that's just the people who misuse it.
Well, of course it is! Science isn't some pristine concept descended like the Christian dove, a gift and attribute of some god - it's a methodology people invented so they could do things they wanted to do - it's all about human desire and behaviour.
And Religion is not some nebulous cloud that consumed people; it's a set of ideas people invented, so they could describe what they wanted to describe - it's all about human desire and behaviour. (Double Helix.)

You would then hail me for my attempts to bring new life to the dessert and/or the moon and you would encourage your children to help me and the many millions who support me in trying to make Carl Sagan's prediction of "We are ready at last to set sail for the Stars!" come true. — universeness

No, I won't. I applaud people who try to bring some kinds of life to the desert - not the was the 'Israelis' went about it.
But as for going to the stars, I don't believe we are anywhere near ready. I don't think it will happen, and that's fine - I don't think we should be exporting our destructive craziness. Anyway, Sagan missed an opportunity. When asked whether she believed in a supreme deity, like 95% of the population she was going to represent, Jodi Foster should have said: "If you all agree on the god I will present it the aliens."

it's a methodology people invented so they could do things they wanted to do - it's all about human desire and behaviour. — Vera Mont

I think you just enjoy taking any contrary viewpoint you can muster Vera, just for the fun of stoking the embers. I see no particular harm in that and I hope you are having fun doing it. But you overreach in my opinion, when you try to equate aspirational humanity using science with aspirational humanity using theism and theosophistry. I think it's important to assert Hitchens razer here! "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The theistic imperative is far more pernicious to me than the concerns I have regarding those who use science for nefarious reasons. Some 'well intentioned' delusional theists, even suggest you can find contentment, if you just accept god the totalitarian dictator, without question. If you don't want to plant your flag and champion science or theism, then where do you want to place your flag? A back to basics epicurean / bohemian, low tech society, who might eventually create a nice wee existence for all, here on Earth, but will never leave this pale blue dot?
Do you now choose to throw your flag away and not plant it anywhere?

When asked whether she believed in a supreme deity, like 95% of the population she was going to represent, Jodi Foster should have said: "If you all agree on the god I will present it the aliens." — Vera Mont

I think that 95% is now under continuing pressure from an ever growing, well organised alternative. Theism is losing more and more of its adherents every day. You should listen to some of the atheist phone in shows on youtube. I think that change for the better will continue.
Carl played his cards well in 'Contact,' when he dramatised some of the sad and rather embarrassing possible affects that American theism could have, on who we might choose to represent us, in a first encounter with aliens scenario. In Contact, we saw a nefarious character chosen and the idea of 'fanatics getting access to the machines,' represented.
But Carl then used one to get rid of the other! :party: :party: :party:

I think you just enjoy taking any contrary viewpoint you can muster Vera, just for the fun of stoking the embers. — universeness

To what is this statement contrary? If science is not a methodology whereby humans achieve desired ends, what is it?

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." — universeness

Do you not see evidence that human scientific endeavour has been put to the service of of human goals? If so, why do you keep citing the successes humans have achieved with the aid of science? You yourself supplied the evidence.

The theistic imperative is far more pernicious to me than the concerns I have regarding those who use science for nefarious reasons. — universeness

That's as valid a preference as anyone else's.

Some 'well intentioned' delusional theists, even suggest you can find contentment, if you just accept god the totalitarian dictator, without question. — universeness

They have similarly pejorative descriptions of non-believers. Flinging more sand.

If you don't want to plant your flag and champion science or theism, then where do you want to place your flag? — universeness

I don't carry a flag. I find a flask far better company, and it doesn't make me as large a target.

A back to basics epicurean / bohemian, low tech society, who might eventually create a nice wee existence for all, here on Earth, but will never leave this pale blue dot? — universeness

Yup, that'd be by preference - except it doesn't need to be low tech, just smart tech.
But I'm pessimistic.

I think that 95% is now under continuing pressure from an ever growing, well organised alternative. — universeness

Some. And they're pushing back, big time.

I think that change for the better will continue. — universeness

You're an optimist... and maybe not quite current on world affairs.
It's dark out there, baby!

To what is this statement contrary? If science is not a methodology whereby humans achieve desired ends, what is it? — Vera Mont

You know fine well that you are employing a loaded description of human intentionality when employing science. For me, your use of 'achieving desired ends' invokes a careless, thoughtless, selfish image of scientific advancement that lands somewhere around 'the end justifies the means,' impression for all scientific endeavours so far made. I think your invocations are harsh and inaccurate. For many, if not the vast majority of scientists, their reason for pursuing a particular field of science, is due to an overwhelming fascination with the field. Most are true seekers of new knowledge that allows our species to see further. They use terms like 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
When they are in full flow about their subject, they seem more content and joyous about life and living the human experience, than any theist I have even seen on TV, in full preacher mode or any audience member in full religious mob hysteria mode, or even those 'messed up' folks 'fitting' on the ground whilst 'speaking in tongues.'
I find the 'wonder and awe,' I see in the eyes of the scientist, far more compelling than the 'servile, slave like, deferential conformity,' I see in the eyes of dedicated theists, who have no convincing explanation for their beliefs other than their own insistence, that there god is real.
You seem content to leave theists like that and not even find out if they are like that because its been poured into them from childhood. I think it's important to give them the freedom of alternative choices.

I am not suggesting that every scientist is immune from becoming a jaded tech creator, who just works for some capitalist individual or group and creates products for the mass market.
Perhaps that image is more akin to your 'achieving desired ends' description of the main intentionality of the main body of scientists. Scientific research, is for me, far more laudable than any theocratic or theosophical endeavour. I am surprised you don't agree but I still love to read your very interesting posts.
You are a force!

I find a flask far better company, and it doesn't make me as large a target. — Vera Mont

:lol: What tasty liquid do you have in that flask Vera? Do you really feel targeted? Tell them bam's to take their best shot and spit in their direction if they do. Then duck and cover, if you have to, but come back and rejoin the efforts to defeat them, if you can.

Yup, that'd be by preference - except it doesn't need to be low tech, just smart tech. — Vera Mont

The wheel is smart tech but it's just not enough for transhumanism or space exploration and development. For me, any future you might envisage is a humdrum prospect without those.

Some. And they're pushing back, big time. — Vera Mont

Let them keep trying. They base the fundamentals of their lives on fables, some of which are as ancient as the Sumerians. Time our species grew up and stopped believing in fables. Perhaps the USA is still a stronghold for them but globally, they are losing imo.

You're an optimist... and maybe not quite current on world affairs.
It's dark out there, baby! — Vera Mont

I am! I am also very current on world affairs. There is plenty of light on offer where I am. You just have to know what switches to turn on.

For me, your use of 'achieving desired ends' invokes a careless, thoughtless, selfish image of scientific advancement that lands somewhere around 'the end justifies the means,' impression for all scientific endeavours so far made. — universeness

I'm not responsible for the impression you form. I said

Humans use tools for good and for evil, wisely and stupidly, constructively and destructively.

and, yes, also carelessly, short-sightedly and selfishly.

For many, if not the vast majority of scientists, their reason for pursuing a particular field of science, is due to an overwhelming fascination with the field. — universeness

I never claimed otherwise. But they're not the ones who have the final decision over how their innovations will be applies and deployed. The ones cleverly devising a new and even more deadly missile do know what its purpose is; the ones fiddling with bacteria and circuitry probably don't. I say probably... but I'm not sure of the percent probability.

Scientific research, is for me, far more laudable than any theocratic or theosophical endeavour. — universeness

Yup, you've made that clear.

I am surprised you don't agree — universeness

I do agree. I just refuse to deny or condemn the other half of human nature.

Do you really feel targeted? — universeness

Not mad keen on target as verb or a department store. The number of projectile weapons on the surface of this rock, anyone can be in a kill-zone any time, without the shooter/bomber/launcher even knowing they're there. Anyone can be individually hunted, for all kinds of reasons. Waving a bloody great rag with some political or military -- or, hell, even sport-related -- significance just renders one more shootable.

Perhaps the USA is still a stronghold for them but globally, they are losing imo. — universeness

iyd
Militant Religious Movements: Rise and Impact

You just have to know what switches to turn on. — universeness

I do. It's on a shiny silver keg.

Religion was once fluid changing with the times and the spoken word which is in keeping with the nature of the world, for the only thing assured in life is change. With the concretization of the word, ignorance became sacred, and unchanging ignorance is thus alien to life itself. Keeping in mind that mythology literally believed is religion. or. Mythology is the other man's religion. Thus, where science swims, religion treads water struggling to keep its head above water.

I'm not responsible for the impression you form. I said
Humans use tools for good and for evil, wisely and stupidly, constructively and destructively.
and, yes, also carelessly, short-sightedly and selfishly. — Vera Mont

We are both responsible to type what we mean and mean what we type. Clarity/misinterpretation, it's up to both of us to achieve as much of the first and as little of the other as possible. My position is that science is our best chance to increase our:
1. Lifespan and robustess.

ability to
2. Survive and thrive as a population of over 8 billion on a single planet.
3. Move off planet, and explore and develop alternate human habitation.
4. Remove money from our existence and start to create a resource based global economy
5. Unite our species globally.

I could add to this list but I think my direction is clear. I think science and new tech has a massive influence on what human beings can do 'next.' At the beginning of your life Vera. Telephone, Television, Electronic computing were in their infancy. Currency format had hardly changed in centuries.
In your lifetime, this has now changed to the incredible situation that you and I, who dont know each other and live very far apart are in very fast communication about the current state of our species and our planet and how we each think the human experience might be improved. We are also debating who and what is to blame for the current state of human global affairs.
Money is now dispensed using plastic cards and contactless beeps. Paper money is on the way out! Its just numbers that rise and fall in our bank accounts. What an enormous change!
Science is the reason for our current communication exchange. Theism has contributed nothing at all! Plenty of theists have contributed to science, but their theism contributed nothing, apart from not disallowing them to contribute to real science. So yes, I firmly plant my flag of approval in the science camp and I see the theism camp as a pernicious and backwards influence on all human attempts to create a fair, equal, universally benevolent, human global society.
You choose not to champion science and this is the basis of our disagreement, on this thread, about why science has succeeded and religion has failed.

I do agree. I just refuse to deny or condemn the other half of human nature. — Vera Mont

I don't think you can take that position and still be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I remain very reluctant to try to rip theism away from unstable/psychologically compromised/hopeless/terrified/lonely individuals. I have no problem struggling with strong/confident/self assured theists or nefarious theists (or even nefarious scientists/politicians for that matter).
There are many many good people who are theists, BUT, I feel strongly, that I do them no favours, if I just apply a blanket rule for all, that I leave all of them alone and don't probe enough, to at least find out why they believe what they do. If they say something like 'well that's what I was brought up to believe,' then it's 'game on!' as far as I'm concerned. But, if they start to show genuine fear and discomfort, as they cant cope with any attempt to crumble the theistic pillars they so rely on to support their life and who they are, then I for one, will back off.

Within the American atheist movement, they have set up groups that offer support for theists who are trying to breakaway from their theistic family/community. A theist trying to turn atheist can have their entire world destroyed. The responsibility for such suffering, must be laid fully at the door of the theists who impose it on those who no longer wish to comply with their doctrine.
Do you not feel a responsibility to be a source of help, encouragement etc for anyone who you think is a theist due to historical indoctrinatIon alone?

Militant Religious Movements: Rise and Impact — Vera Mont

But:
https://www.atheists.org/
https://www.atheismuk.com/
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/top-atheists-in-the-world-today/
also exist and are growing!

Thus, where science swims, religion treads water struggling to keep its head above water. — boagie

:clap:

Clarity/misinterpretation, it's up to both of us to achieve as much of the first and as little of the other as possible. — universeness

Which part of "humans use use tools... etc" is unclear?

My position is that science is our best chance to increase our: — universeness

Your hope is shared by many; I never disputed your 'position' and I believe that you are correct in some of those assumptions. But they have no effect on the fact that every tool can be used, and has been used for constructive and destructive purposes.

I don't think you can take that position and still be part of the solution and not part of the problem. — universeness

Fine. I'm part of the problem - we all are. There, for example, far too many of us for the planet to support. Both scientists and religionists have contributed to that problem. Both scientists and religionists have contributed to the means of carrying on conflict among people.
Pretending that half of our nature doesn't exist, or declaring that half of our nature shouldn't exist, leads to no solution... if it had, the problem would already be solved. But the 'problem' is humans, and that's insoluble - except, of course, for the Osterhagen Key.

I have no problem struggling with strong/confident/self assured theists or nefarious theists (or even nefarious scientists/politicians for that matter). — universeness

Nor have I. I've made as many enemies in that camp as in this, because the militants on both sides desire to win a war, and I believe the only win is peace.

Do you not feel a responsibility to be a source of help, encouragement etc for anyone who you think is a theist due to historical indoctrinatIon alone? — universeness

Responsibility, no: I didn't indoctrinate them. Sympathy, understanding and forbearance, yes. But then, I have those feelings also for theists who choose to remain in their faith, so long as they do no harm.

Which part of "humans use use tools... etc" is unclear? — Vera Mont

:lol: 'Humans use tools,' is very clear Vera. Calm yer jets! But its a very minimalist description of what Science via scientists does and achieves and what potential it holds for the future of the human species.
You seem a bit pessimistic and might I be so bold as to suggest, slightly jaded at times and disappointed in your own species. I think this colours your viewpoints a little. I assume my attempt at psychoanalysis is not welcome but I think my suggestion is relevant if true.

Pretending that half of our nature doesn't exist, or declaring that half of our nature shouldn't exist, leads to no solution. — Vera Mont

I don't think I am ignoring that a part of human nature is attracted to the numinous or god posits or pretending that such does not exist but I would argue against your 50% estimate and your position, as it seems to be. I mean, you seem to be suggesting that we cannot challenge that aspect of our nature. I think we certainly can and indeed must and in doing so, help towards solving the many problems we face.

Nor have I. — Vera Mont

I know that and that increases my hopes for a better future.

I've made as many enemies in that camp as in this — Vera Mont

Some new friends as well.

because the militants on both sides desire to win a war, and I believe the only win is peace. — Vera Mont

Hard to make peace whist you are actually under attack, socially, politically, economically, racially, culturally etc etc. I am still willing to try your way, if you have a cunning plan.

Responsibility, no: I didn't indoctrinate them. Sympathy, understanding and forbearance, yes. But then, I have those feelings also for theists who choose to remain in their faith, so long as they do no harm. — Vera Mont

I disagree and I think we do have a responsibility beyond tea and sympathy.
All that evil requires to thrive is for good people to do nothing.
But how do you know that they do have 'choice?' Unless you try to find out, on a theist by theist basis, when you encounter them.

But its a very minimalist description of what Science via scientists does and achieves and what potential it holds for the future of the human species. — universeness

I wasn't trying to describe anything. I was pointing out that
1. Humans use tools
2. Technology (the spawn of scientific discovery) and Religion (the spawn of spiritual yearning) both create tools for the use of humans.
3. All tools can be used for constructive and destructive purposes.

I have no faith in the potential and the future.

I mean, you seem to be suggesting that we cannot challenge that aspect of our nature. — universeness

We can challenge any aspect of our nature - individually. Affecting change in oneself is harder than just challenging, but we can all do it to some extent. Collectively, we can't do anything about human nature. In fact, we cannot do anything collectively. We can negotiate and compromise about external matters, or we can fight over them, and we can certainly affect one another's psyche with the clever tools made possible by science and religion.

I think we certainly can and indeed must and in doing so, help towards solving the many problems we face. — universeness

We created the problems. Whenever we solve one, we invariably create a new one. There is no end to the problems we make and solve and make and solve and make worldwithoutend... except that we now have the capability to end it ourselves rather than wait for the last judgment.

Hard to make peace whist you are actually under attack, socially, politically, economically, racially, culturally etc etc. I am still willing to try your way, if you have a cunning plan. — universeness

I don't. We came close to detente for a couple of decades of the 20th century, but there were then, as there always are, too many interests at stake: both reason and emotion are always monetized and weaponized (hateful modern vocabulary!) by somebody before most people come to their senses.

All that evil requires to thrive is for good people to do nothing. — universeness

Pious BS! Evil always wins, because it's not hampered by principles, scruples or shame. Its victories can be mitigated by good people, its teeth blunted a little, but good will never score a decisive victory.

You seem a bit pessimistic and might I be so bold as to suggest, slightly jaded at times and disappointed in your own species. — universeness

Just change 'a bit' to 'utterly' and you're right on the money. If I enjoyed being wet, I would go with the dolphins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfuU6uLwF8

Pious BS! Evil always wins, because it's not hampered by principles, scruples or shame. Its victories can be mitigated by good people, its teeth blunted a little, but good will never score a decisive victory. — Vera Mont

I suppose this marks a boundary line between defeatist pessimism and determined optimism.
I remain with the determined optimists.

Just change 'a bit' to 'utterly' and you're right on the money. If I enjoyed being wet, — Vera Mont

It's unfortunate your species has disappointed you to such an extent Vera. But, I have to accept, that you do hold the opinon, that the power of the nefarious, will always have the upper hand over the powers of good. But, I think you are totally wrong in that assessment.
The nefarious have been slaughtering good people in their millions for centuries, but we are still here, and we are still many many millions, and a secular, humanist, socialist, united, global society, is inevitable, as is our transhuman, interstellar future.

I wish you well.

Religion was once fluid changing with the times and the spoken word which is in keeping with the nature of the world, for the only thing assured in life is change. — boagie

Exactly. Even if we disregard the truth of our beliefs, it is clear that science is far more likely to survive from a rational perspective. Science acknowledges both our ignorance and our growing knowledge. It knows where its boundaries are, where it can confidently assert the truth. Religion, on the other hand, is fundamentally based on tradition. It asserts that thousand-year-old doctrines are unequivocably true. Thus, it cannot adapt to changes in our environment or knowledge without contradiction. If yesterday the minister completely altered "God's Creed" because they were outdated, whose to say that won't happen tomorrow? (interestingly, this seems to make folk religions more compatible with science due to their decentralized nature). It should be an inherently unstable system, but why hasn't it collapsed yet? Every day religion is forced to yield more and more territory to science; eventually, it will pass a point of no return.

I wish you well. — Vera Mont

I wish you peace in your mind and reconciliation with your species.

Every day religion is forced to yield more and more territory to science; eventually, it will pass a point of no return. — finarfin

:100: :up:

It's unfortunate your species has disappointed you to such an extent Vera. But, I have to accept, that you do hold the opinon, that the power of the nefarious, will always have the upper hand over the powers of good. But, I think you are totally wrong in that assessment. — universeness

That is odd. It seems quite undeniable that the power of the good is reduced by moral scruples and the nefarious have more options available; if it were not so, there would be no difference between them. One can point to the cyber wars where security is always playing catch-up to hackers, for example. Or if you want to be mathematical about things, game theory demonstrates that in many cases of the "prisoner's dilemma" sort, virtue (as cooperation) cannot succeed against vice.

I would say that science has great value, and can study values as human attributes. But it cannot produce values of itself, but relies on values of truth and honesty and openness, and so on, that people have as social beings, in order to function. These values are not demonstrated by science, but presumed. The 'success' of science might recommend these values to pragmatists, but that is also not part of the scientific project; such recommendations might equally come from pop-stars or monks or successful psychopaths.

Faith: a belief held in the absence of evidence.

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest.
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.”

― Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

That is odd. It seems quite undeniable that the power of the good is reduced by moral scruples and the nefarious have more options available; if it were not so, there would be no difference between them. — unenlightened

How come fascism was so soundly smashed then, when those who supported it tried to take over the planet? Good people can use nefarious people against nefarious people. The 'good' people are perfectly capable of being as devious as the nefarious, if they have to. They will still champion the good, after they have did what they had to do, to smash the nefarious. I have had the 'were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs better than a mainland invasion of Japan' debate, many times.

One can point to the cyber wars where security is always playing catch-up to hackers, for example. — unenlightened

The coming 256 bit encryption available with quantum computing will reduce cyber crime and may even wipe it out!

These values are not demonstrated by science, but presumed. The 'success' of science might recommend these values to pragmatists, but that is also not part of the scientific project; such recommendations might equally come from pop-stars or monks or successful psychopaths. — unenlightened

The only values we truly know and understand, are human values, yes that's true. So, It's up to all humans to decide if they want to base their personal values on the inputs, processes and outputs of theism (Including monks), pop-stars, psychopaths or science. I have already made my choices to base my values on. I assume you have too. I further assume we are both well cooked by now. But, how we advise the next generation ........ now that does really matter.

How come fascism was so soundly smashed then, when those who supported it tried to take over the planet? — universeness

Fascism is alive and well. The only thing that was smashed was a nascent empire, like all the empires before that tried to take over the planet. Some win small, some win big; they eventually flounder; some lose before they get any traction. But the aspiring German empire was smashed not by good people doing good things; it was defeated in a bloody, brutal, wasteful, horrible war, by other nations using the very same method as the aggressor.

Good people can use nefarious people against nefarious people. — universeness

And then they themselves become nefarious.

I have had the 'were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs better than a mainland invasion of Japan' debate, many times. — universeness

Did you side with the scientifically elegant bombs?

So, It's up to all humans to decide if they want to base their personal values on the inputs, processes and outputs of theism (Including monks), pop-stars, psychopaths or science. — universeness

That's not the choice for values. That's a simplistic depiction of a long and complex moral development.

The 'good' people are perfectly capable of being as devious as the nefarious, if they have to. — universeness

Then they are no different from bad people. If there is no difference in behaviour, what is the difference? Is it a matter of belief? Innate superiority? Or are you just saying that good people are people who don't oppose me and my team?