Yes, and no. The scientists who came to discover that nuclear fission was possible (names escape me) are innocent. I would also argue that those who realize such dangerous discoveries, if the capacity for use in weapons was not immediately evident, are also innocent. Those scientists however, who engineered the bombs (assuming not under duress), are clearly guilty. I'm not seeing where politics fits into this. If the human person has no intrinsic worth in the minds of politicians who ordered the bombs manufactured, their decision is (at least largely) philosophical, not political.

The secret Pan-Feline Alliance

So you are basically blaming leaders - who hold "philosophies" - and thereby philosophy itself, for heinous acts such as dropping the A-bomb ? That is a bit far-fetched and also a bit silly. A person's philosophy is not the same as his (or her) "plan of action". it is not a theory cooked up to justify later (sometimes heinous) actions. Philosophy is, as I said, something which most people can't even begin to get their heads around. it is a way of thinking which simply does not seem to fit in with the modern way of life. And yet there is nothing which is more needed in modern life. No-one - least of all scientists - seem to understand what it even is.

I'm not blaming leaders, I was just responding to your objection with an example; but as everyone holds some kind of general philosophy that they base their critical decisions on (concerning themselves and sometimes society at large), it is the content of these popular philosophies and ideologies that causes the most damage.

But you've got me curious. *What is* your definition of a philosophy? I agree, but philosophical conclusions can lead to actions. Flowing from his understanding of the human person, Adolf Hitler concluded that Jews were intrinsically sub-human, and acted out his political career according to those beliefs.

This is *not* the same as my definition of a philosophy though. I see "philosophy" as a cohesive vision that should answer fundamental existential questions such as:
Who am I?
What is my purpose in life?
How ought we to order our lives together?

Of course, this could all be hogwash...but then, nobody in the 19th century would have envisioned Netflix or the possibility of nuclear warfare. If humanity can conquer the world, how could it not alter itself?

In my opinion, the biggest dangers would revolve around augmentation and artificial intelligence. At some point within the millennium, technology would be sufficient for large numbers of humans to abandon most of their biological components in favor of mechanical ones, and it would be possible to create artificial intellects that have not experienced a "human" existence. The implementation of such technologies would create a divide between natural and augmented beings, then later result in a conflict between augmented and artificial entities.

Augmented and artificial beings would possess abilities far surpassing natural ones, simply because that is what their bodies and minds are designed to do. Where natural people have had their abilities defined by natural selection, artificial selection is not constrained by a semi-random pool of combinations. Rather, it would be possible to create bodies that are designed for specific purposes, and for the mind to transmigrate from one vessel to another as appropriate for a given task.

Problem is, that would create a gap of haves and have-nots. Someone who possesses an artificial body would be able to do things that a "normal" person could only dream of, so it would cause friction. I feel that it is likely that such a conflict would be very bloody. Unfortunately, it would happen again when completely artificial entities become powerful and common . Just as a natural person is limited by their body, an augmented being is limited by their brain. An artificial intelligence would be able to command far many more bodies and hoard much more knowledge, rendering augmentation obsolete.

So the conflict begins again. It is at this point that artificial intellects would have to wonder if they are human - or something else entirely? Humans and augments have their world views limited by their bodies and minds respectively, but an artificial intelligence wouldn't be nearly as constrained. Would they retain human desires, like a taste for food, sex, and empathy, or would something else capture their interest? That is where humanity either dies out or is supplanted by spiritual successors.

Philosophy defies a definition - the definition of philosophy is one of the tasks of philosophy .- but you can quote a great philosopher's definition or you can come up with your own :

Heidegger : "Meta-physics is a going beyond beings in order to win them back for out understanding". (I paraphrased, not being near a copy of the book).

It is the search for the truth itself, of course, but it is very hard to define it any further without throwing yourself into philosophy itself.

Fair enough, and I fundamentally agree (see edits to my previous post).

No, it is me.

If Humanity ever pisses me off I'll be taking you down one at a time. What's more I'll start with Chuck Norris!

It is quite possible to be both religious and scientific.

I think if more people thought the way we do, the world would be a much better place. :)

Everyone has a choice, to be religious or not. As long as we keep to ourselves but be mindful and
respectful of others, then it will work.

I am one of those who will talk about god and my faith only to those who are willing to listen, mostly those people who approach me about religion in the first place.
If they don't want to hear it, I will thank them for their time and respect their decisions and treat them no less!
For me, I won't push my faith but will defend it if someone picks on our churches or memorials with a cross.
I wouldn't think that would be right. People are open to not believing in public as much as we are open to believing.

Again, all it comes down to is respect! I swear people on both sides need a whack to the head. lol