Is it reasonable to infer then that the other two options are not necessary for your well-being?
i will say that while i chose science as the most beneficial, i don't believe that that somehow means the other 2 are not necessary.
@atheist sorry, I didn't have time 2 explain my position earlier. although I do think that science is the most reliable choice, I won't dismiss that for a lot of people, not all, but a lot, the other 2 carry some weight as well. there have been cases where a person has chosen an option that, while it may not, according strictly 2 science, be the best option, it was the best for them... one example is when a person runs in2 a burning building 2 save someone. it was not in their best interest 2 go in, but due 2 possibly philosophy or perhaps their religious beliefs, they went in anyway. they weighed the options, thought about the different outcomes, and decided that although it wasn't in their best interest, if they did not, that would be something they would have 2 deal with mentally and emotionally for the rest of their life. I'm not saying it is this way for all of us, but many people I know or have read about, have chosen 2 use things like philosophy or religious beliefs over what science says is best. so while I do still think science is the best choice, I don't think it automatically makes the other 2 moot
@atheist i can see your point, I just think that for some people the philosophy and religion still play a part even if its not the main part. and it all depends on the individual, one person may walk away from that burning building just fine and sleep soundly with no regrets where as another person, if they walked away, they may be so eaten up over it that they kill themselves or something. I guess I don't really think it would be unreasonable 2 infer that philosophy and religion are unnecessary, I just don't think it would be unreasonable 2 see it differently either. its pretty much how I look at a lot of things, like religion, I personally don't get in2 it, I don't worship anyone, but I can understand some peoples need for it. its not how I feel, but I can see how they ended up feeling that way
The facts please
As Sergeant Friday said, "just the facts," then I can make an inteligent decision based on truth, not some imaginary thing in the sky (or wherever).
A mix of instinct and reason. Since there are just those 3 choices then I guess I would choose scientific knowledge. Don't all 3 mix though? How can all of those be discerned in a life or death decision?
@atheist Well that's just one situation. I would want a doctor. What if you had a possibility of just saving 1 out of 3 people in a certain situation in 10 seconds? How is science going to help you then? Unless you're McGyver.
@atheist You can say science is the solution to everything if you look at it like that. What about killing some to save others? There can definitely be a mix of all 3 for that.
@atheist Isn't rationalization required for finding the valid choice? Can you prove that the other two choices aren't valid in the situation I proposed?
@atheist That doesn't mean they aren't valid for the practical purposes of that situation though. People make decisions regardless of religion being based on fiction, or philosophy being based on fact or not. Philosophy is also based on rationalization and logic. Philosophy isn't woo woo. I would even say that philosophy is the basis of science. Besides, like I said, people make decisions based off of both...even life and death decisions. There are many examples of this throughout history.
@atheist Lol whatever
Talking from personal experience, both the first two optoions are important. I'm not talking mild personal experience - I'm talking situations when a betting man would have placed a heavy bet against me. One such occasion was when, late at night, I discovered I had become a "person of imterest" to an organisation known as State Research. (the secret police of Uganda during the time of Idi Amin) Ther was an all night curfew in force, and it was philosophic wisdom that kept me sane whilst I plotted how to lay a false trail and evade them. I then became the leading car in a chase to the border. Obviously, I won!
Another time, a policeman in Kenya was trying to kill me to get rid of the evidence that he had been sleeping on duty. I was unarmed, but I managed to wrest the pistol off him, despite being badly wounded. I would have been fully justified in shooting him with his own weapon, but chose not to do so.
I have Lympoplasmacytic Lymphoma (bloody mouthful to say!). It is incurable, but slow acting. Philosophic wisdom helps me accept it, but scientific knowledge keeps me alive and obnoxious.
Option 3 is not needed, although for some people it might help them accept death.
I prefer to fight death!
By the way, while recovering in hospital from a deadly incident, (I smacked a car into a train) I managed to get outside into the hospital garden. It was wonderful to see the plants, the sunshine, the sky, and experience the breeze. However, I did not feel that God had saved me - merely joy at still being around to appreciate nature. If anyone had asked me if I had thanked God, I would have asked "For what? For screwing me up, for putting me in pain, for making it that only will power and bloody-mindedness ensured that I would walk again and for putting that bloody unlit train on the road at night?"
I think science has it. Scientific method gives you the best chance of analising whatever is placing you at risk, understanding the cause, and devising a strategy to counter that effect.
Bottom of the three comes religion. The sky fairy will do exactly what the sky fairy always does. Nothing.
Deuteronomy 30:19 MOSES
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
Good advice...always choose life.
Medical emergencies definitely scientific and medical knowlege.