...fair enough, but I haven't asked you to empty your head.
"Well, more precisely, science is about discovering
the sense; religion merely fabricates it
wholesale, then says "shaddap kid" to any remaining
questions."
Unfortunately that does happen a lot. Religion at its best,
should offer meaning, inspiration, and hope. That could be why
the church still has a good public image in spite of all those
scandals in the news.
"It reminds me of the Mysterious Stranger's line from
Neil Gaiman's The
Books of Magic:'Science is a way of talking
about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality.
Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it
cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible.'"
There are similarities and differences. The amusing thing
about it is when I browse through Slashdot threads, I find
mis-guided souls who really should know better, trying to apply
scientific answers to questions of faith and religion. I think
they are different answers to different questions, and there is a
place and purpose for both.
"I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not
possible for faith and reason to coexist, both within a single
person's mind, and within a large population."
I've seen that mindset on Slashdot....and more than once. Read some of the other messages.
"The problem is when faith overpowers reasons--that
never turns out well."
In my country (the USA), some of the best schools and hospitals are
owned and operated by religious organizations. Then again,
religious organizations have an easier time of funding
themselves.
If you see the same mistake being made over and over again by
people who really are smart enough to know better, you might
raise your voice too.
"No, there isn't."
Again, there are differences and there are similarities. They
really are meant to be different solutions to different problems.
They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life,
the world, and everything in it.
...and they can both be mis-used to abuse and hurt people. There have already been too many psychos hiding behind their religion using science to kill their fellow non-psychotic human beings.
"Yes, religion and science are diametric
opposites."
No they are not. There are differences and there are
similarities. They are both endeavors of humanity to make sense
out of life, the world, and everything in it.
...and they can both be mis-used to abuse and hurt people. All in all, I think both have done more good than harm.
I agree with you that we should not demean others, but in
the same time we can not close our eyes to the revelations of
science that are in direct opposition with religion.
The revelations of science are subject to change. Discovery is one of the really cool things about science.
Gandhi was not a scientist.
I don't think I said that he was. I think I claimed that he
was a man of faith and reason.
I think mentioning his name on Slashdot incurs a reverse Godwin violation. Perhaps Maimonides would have been a stronger example, especially in this thread.
"...but at the time of Pythagoras, religion was not a
taken as seriously as today."
...before my time, but I think the line between science and religion wasn't quite as clearly defined in those days.
"The Dodekatheon religion was more of a theatrical
play between people, a philosophical movement and not a
totalitarian proposition. "
Apparently, it also involved animal sacrifice, because
Pythagoras sacrificed a bull to the gods after he proved the
existence of irrational numbers.
BTW, the laws in the Old Testament required animal sacrifices
in the form of burnt offerings, sin offerings, you get the idea. Those laws are still there in contemporary editions of the Holy Bible.
"Ancient Greeks knew that, and in many ancient texts
you will find the reference to the 'one true god', especially by
Socrates (as referred to by Plato)...because they realized that
their Gods were anthropomorphic, they invented a better god
without the weaknesses of the previous gods. Much like Israelites
did."
Monotheism in that part of the world really began with Aten and his earthly
prohet Akhenaten.
The Middle East can get really incredibly hot. If you baked
your brain in the sun for too long, you might
start inventing "better gods" too.
"Naturally, there were and are great scientists that
believe in a god, but that does not mean that since they are top
in their science, they are top in everything."
I cited a few names for purpose of example only. But they are
fairly strong examples, aren't they?
"A great scientific mind that has not yet applied the
scientific thought process to the problem of God can not be held
up as an example of religion and science being compatible."
I don't think I tried to do that. I suggested that there is
more than one path to truth.
I would also add that it's not very logical or reasonable to
apply scientific solutions to religious problems or vice-versa. A
chainsaw can be used as a nail-clipper, but not well.
There are differences and there are similarities. Faith and reason really
are meant to be different solutions to different problems. The same applies to science and religion. Do you think they always go in opposite directions?
There are times and places for both ways to the truth.
"The people you site are rationalists in some areas and faithful in others."
The people I cited by example were indeed wise enough to know
the differences, yes.
They are not rational AND faithful in the same
areas."
If by that, you mean that they knew the differences between matters of reason and those of faith, then I concur.
There have always been more problems than solutions....more questions than answers. Such is life. Aren't more options are better than fewer options?
"Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with
each other and the reason boils down to 'believe without evidence' or 'faith.'"
Religion and science are both endeavors to make sense out of the world.
Religion was easier to access by the masses and was also easier to mis-use to
exploit ignorance. But it also fostered values and understanding that
allowed cultures to thrive, not merely survive. The involvement of
religious organizations in schools and hospitals is not new.
"Science" isn't always right but it's not about being right... it's about
the continual pursuit of learning and understanding reality as we know it based
on available evidence and the ability to prove through testing."
Neither science nor religion are good or evil by themselves. Let's
leave the part about so many government science jobs involving weapons research
by the door...alongside the memories of bloodthirsty idiots killing in the name
of God.
"Religion is simply the opposite. It is based on the idea that what you
were told is the truth."
Religion is supposed to be based on faith. At its best, it's supposed
to inspire people, offer them meaning, and help them deal with questions that
don't have easy, satisfying answers. In those respects, science is not a
surrogate replacement for religion and really shouldn't be treated as such.
"'Rumor' fits this description... as does 'myth' and 'gossip.'"
There are times when even scientists work with what they have at hand.
Meteorologists come to mind.
"But the fact is, religious belief cannot be admissible in a court of law
with any reasonable rules for evidence and discovery."
Because religion is not a substitute for science, nor is faith for reason and
vice versa.
"I'm probably wrong, but I believe things like advanced mathematics were
developed in the "Islamic" part of the world, but predates Islam itself. It's
more likely that Islam itself is responsible for the intellectual decline in
that area just as it's often responsible for intellectual decline elsewhere."
...kind of off-topic, but Pythagoras sacrificed a bull to the gods after he
proved the existence of irrational numbers.
Imagine that....a man of reason AND faith.
Do you think it's possible to be intellectually honest without sinking into
intellectual snobbery by demeaning folks who seek other paths to truth?
"One can only imagine what civilizsation would be
like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled
scientific progress since man first walked upright."
Religion and science are NOT diametric opposites!...nor are faith and reason.
Forget the fact that some of this nations best schools and
hospitals are run by religious organizations. Never mind that
Gandhi, Dr. King and even Pythagoras were men of faith AND
reason.
There is room for more than one way to make sense out of the
world around us. By now we should have reached the point where we
can accept diverse paths to truth and the idea that not all
questions have satisfying, simple answers that one and all can
understand....at least not right away.
...and if we can't agree with each other about the questions
and answers, we shouldn't have to be so disagreeable in that
regard. We shouldn't need to demean others who don't believe what
we believe or think the way we think.
No matter what they end up paying for the system, the guy
wearing it is going to be killed by someone eating rice or
falafel who cost all of $200 to train and equip.
War itself is a simplistic solution to complex problems it was
never really meant to solve.
Simplistic premises and analogies don't help much either.
What kind of kill ratio do you need for an even trade-off,
1000:1?
There's more to it than numbers. Minds must be changed,
specifically those who have the power to wage war which includes
leaders, but also terror cells as small as one wacko with a bomb.
In the end it's the willingness to fight that must be
neutralized.
I think that was the real difference between the
"missions accomplished" 62 years ago and the current
unpleasantness.
What happens, then, if there comes a day in 2012 or whenever when Russia just says "no, we are not going to fly any Americans to the space station." Then we can call the space station the Russian Space Station and maybe NASA doesn't need those new astronauts.
By then all of those Cantonese-speaking Engineering majors we have over here will have mastered enough Mandarin and some flight hours to bum rides on the next generation of Shenzhous going up. - TIMTOWDI
Well, you can call it that if it makes you feel better, but the rest of us just call that "wishful thinking".
*condescension*
1. The act of condescending; voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in intercourse with an inferior; courtesy toward inferiors.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condescension
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
...which suggests you might be speaking/writing from experience.
Of course, assuming TFA is valid, my denying the entire notion of your "faith" will probably re-enforce it. So you're welcome. Enjoy it in good health.
Faith also applies at times when you can't conclusively prove certain beliefs. For example, you might "take it on faith" that someone loved you enough to feed you and buy you expensive toys which you can use to connect to the web and demean people who don't think the same way you do.
Of course! Why didn't anybody think of this before? All we have to do is get everybody on the face of the earth to agree with each other and be nice to each other and then we won't have to worry about defending ourselves ever again.
Come to think of it, someone did.
There's still a lot of debate as to whether he really said and did the things that the scriptures claim that he said and did, or whether he was the son of God or not.
I also heard some terrble stories about bloodthirsty maniacs killing and doing other unspeakable things in his name too. Back then, debates over faith and reason, religion and science, and confusing all four of them didn't have the benefit of message boards, texting, chat rooms, etc.
Did message boards and texting begin with any sort of military research? It was a little before my time....then again so was Jesus.
...sorry. This thread was about armed drones, wasn't it? Technology in itself is neither good nor evil...
As an American, I have noticed we don't tend to talk about our more embarrassing military times (1812, Korea, Vietnam)...
You probably should have left that last war off your list. How often do you bring up your own embarassments in public conversation?
Granted that WWII is more the subject of books, games and TV these days, partly because the generation that fought in it is leaving us and this is our last chance to recognize their deeds and sacrifice.
But the Vietnam War did get it's fair share of coverage, especially in the mid to late 1980's. One major difference is that the folks who wanted to end that war gave up school, their jobs and more than that to bring the troops home. Nowadays we can't even pull people away from their keyboards.
...not even on a weekend when the weather's nice....no wonder Cindy Sheehan went home.
BTW, the TFA was about Senator McCain's take on Net Neutrality. He's a vet, right?
How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages? Slaughtering whole nations? Round up the rest and put them in concentration camps (called reservations)?
The history has been toned down A LOT in most US schools, to the extent that if it is mentioned at all, it's just Custer's last stand.
Compare the above with the treatment (mis-treatment) of Britons and Picts by the Romans and later by the English when they occupied a portion of Britain.
...or that of the English et al when the Normans took over after Hastings.
...insert your own comments regarding the Battle of The Boyne here.
History really does repeat itself in rhythm.
As for US schools in my own experience, they didn't get to the part about slaughtering nations or burning villages until after high school....too busy taking all those test prep courses.
"...between the social conservatives who want it..."
...should read "...between the social conservatives who say they want it..."
If they actually wanted the hard line that badly, it really would be more difficult for illegals to get in to the country....especially if Lou Dobbs' 2,000,000 newcomers per year figure is truthish.
That was my view for my first 25 years of life, the next
15 have been quite a bit different. If we have a genetic
disposition to need God, why is atheism more common among the
young people that I have known and still know?
You may have partially answered your own question .
Younger people seek out truth, answers, and meaning
differently than older folks. It has to do with inexperience, but
also with our need to set ourselves apart from mom and dad.
Identity is so important to us when we're that young that we
reject as much as we can that we associate with our parents
including ideas about God and religion, politics, relationships
(but not allowance money and food of course).
A young man wants to known for more than being his father's
son....nothing wrong with that if he doesn't harm anyone.
They also make the mistake of lumping everything they
disagree with under the name "evolution".
...kinda the same way you're "lumping" the folks you
disagree with together as "...the Church..." in the
very first line of your post.
"The Church" is not a unified monolithic body that
you made them out to be. Also keep in mind that some people of
faith are capable of reasoning as well as rational people are
capable of having faith.
Slashdot Mirror
"An open mind is distinct from an empty head"
...fair enough, but I haven't asked you to empty your head.
"Well, more precisely, science is about discovering the sense; religion merely fabricates it wholesale, then says "shaddap kid" to any remaining questions."
Unfortunately that does happen a lot. Religion at its best, should offer meaning, inspiration, and hope. That could be why the church still has a good public image in spite of all those scandals in the news.
"It reminds me of the Mysterious Stranger's line from Neil Gaiman's The Books of Magic : 'Science is a way of talking
about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality.
Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it
cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible.'"
There are similarities and differences. The amusing thing about it is when I browse through Slashdot threads, I find mis-guided souls who really should know better, trying to apply scientific answers to questions of faith and religion. I think they are different answers to different questions, and there is a place and purpose for both.
"I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not possible for faith and reason to coexist, both within a single person's mind, and within a large population."
I've seen that mindset on Slashdot. ...and more than once. Read some of the other messages.
"The problem is when faith overpowers reasons--that never turns out well."
In my country (the USA), some of the best schools and hospitals are owned and operated by religious organizations. Then again, religious organizations have an easier time of funding themselves.
"Excessive capitals"
If you see the same mistake being made over and over again by people who really are smart enough to know better, you might raise your voice too.
"No, there isn't."
Again, there are differences and there are similarities. They really are meant to be different solutions to different problems.
They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
...and they can both be mis-used to abuse and hurt people. There have already been too many psychos hiding behind their religion using science to kill their fellow non-psychotic human beings.
"Yes, religion and science are diametric opposites."
No they are not. There are differences and there are similarities. They are both endeavors of humanity to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
...and they can both be mis-used to abuse and hurt people. All in all, I think both have done more good than harm.
I agree with you that we should not demean others, but in the same time we can not close our eyes to the revelations of science that are in direct opposition with religion.
The revelations of science are subject to change. Discovery is one of the really cool things about science.
Gandhi was not a scientist.
I don't think I said that he was. I think I claimed that he was a man of faith and reason.
"I don't know who is dr King,..."
He's no saint, but I think you'd like him.
Martin Luther King.
I think mentioning his name on Slashdot incurs a reverse Godwin violation. Perhaps Maimonides would have been a stronger example, especially in this thread.
Maimonides
"...but at the time of Pythagoras, religion was not a taken as seriously as today."
...before my time, but I think the line between science and religion wasn't quite as clearly defined in those days.
"The Dodekatheon religion was more of a theatrical play between people, a philosophical movement and not a totalitarian proposition. "
Apparently, it also involved animal sacrifice, because Pythagoras sacrificed a bull to the gods after he proved the existence of irrational numbers.
BTW, the laws in the Old Testament required animal sacrifices in the form of burnt offerings, sin offerings, you get the idea. Those laws are still there in contemporary editions of the Holy Bible.
"Ancient Greeks knew that, and in many ancient texts you will find the reference to the 'one true god', especially by Socrates (as referred to by Plato)...because they realized that their Gods were anthropomorphic, they invented a better god without the weaknesses of the previous gods. Much like Israelites did."
Monotheism in that part of the world really began with Aten and his earthly prohet Akhenaten.
The Middle East can get really incredibly hot. If you baked your brain in the sun for too long, you might start inventing "better gods" too.
"Naturally, there were and are great scientists that believe in a god, but that does not mean that since they are top in their science, they are top in everything."
I cited a few names for purpose of example only. But they are fairly strong examples, aren't they?
"A great scientific mind that has not yet applied the scientific thought process to the problem of God can not be held up as an example of religion and science being compatible."
I don't think I tried to do that. I suggested that there is more than one path to truth.
I would also add that it's not very logical or reasonable to apply scientific solutions to religious problems or vice-versa. A chainsaw can be used as a nail-clipper, but not well.
"Not diametrically, no. But they are opposed. "
There are differences and there are similarities. Faith and reason really are meant to be different solutions to different problems. The same applies to science and religion. Do you think they always go in opposite directions?
There are times and places for both ways to the truth.
"The people you site are rationalists in some areas and faithful in others."
The people I cited by example were indeed wise enough to know the differences, yes.
They are not rational AND faithful in the same areas."
If by that, you mean that they knew the differences between matters of reason and those of faith, then I concur.
There have always been more problems than solutions. ...more questions than answers. Such is life. Aren't more options are better than fewer options?
"Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with each other and the reason boils down to 'believe without evidence' or 'faith.'"
Religion and science are both endeavors to make sense out of the world. Religion was easier to access by the masses and was also easier to mis-use to exploit ignorance. But it also fostered values and understanding that allowed cultures to thrive, not merely survive. The involvement of religious organizations in schools and hospitals is not new.
"Science" isn't always right but it's not about being right... it's about the continual pursuit of learning and understanding reality as we know it based on available evidence and the ability to prove through testing."
Neither science nor religion are good or evil by themselves. Let's leave the part about so many government science jobs involving weapons research by the door ...alongside the memories of bloodthirsty idiots killing in the name
of God.
"Religion is simply the opposite. It is based on the idea that what you were told is the truth."
Religion is supposed to be based on faith. At its best, it's supposed to inspire people, offer them meaning, and help them deal with questions that don't have easy, satisfying answers. In those respects, science is not a surrogate replacement for religion and really shouldn't be treated as such.
"'Rumor' fits this description... as does 'myth' and 'gossip.'"
There are times when even scientists work with what they have at hand. Meteorologists come to mind.
"But the fact is, religious belief cannot be admissible in a court of law with any reasonable rules for evidence and discovery."
Because religion is not a substitute for science, nor is faith for reason and vice versa.
"I'm probably wrong, but I believe things like advanced mathematics were developed in the "Islamic" part of the world, but predates Islam itself. It's more likely that Islam itself is responsible for the intellectual decline in that area just as it's often responsible for intellectual decline elsewhere."
...kind of off-topic, but Pythagoras sacrificed a bull to the gods after he proved the existence of irrational numbers.
Imagine that. ...a man of reason AND faith.
Do you think it's possible to be intellectually honest without sinking into intellectual snobbery by demeaning folks who seek other paths to truth?
"One can only imagine what civilizsation would be like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled scientific progress since man first walked upright."
Religion and science are NOT diametric opposites! ...nor are faith and reason.
Forget the fact that some of this nations best schools and hospitals are run by religious organizations. Never mind that Gandhi, Dr. King and even Pythagoras were men of faith AND reason.
There is room for more than one way to make sense out of the world around us. By now we should have reached the point where we can accept diverse paths to truth and the idea that not all questions have satisfying, simple answers that one and all can understand. ...at least not right away.
...and if we can't agree with each other about the questions and answers, we shouldn't have to be so disagreeable in that regard. We shouldn't need to demean others who don't believe what we believe or think the way we think.
I didn't need all that excess karma anyway.
"What? Muslims, Christians, and Jews are all children of Abraham. They all worship the same deity."
Monotheism in that part of the planet really began with "Aton", and his earthly prophet Akhenaton.
If you spent enough enough time in that sun-scorched part of the world, you might be able to see the "same deity" too.
Proving that they are all blood descendants of Abraham is rather more complicated.
...the sort of thing we kindasorta take on faith
No matter what they end up paying for the system, the guy wearing it is going to be killed by someone eating rice or falafel who cost all of $200 to train and equip.
War itself is a simplistic solution to complex problems it was never really meant to solve.
Simplistic premises and analogies don't help much either.
What kind of kill ratio do you need for an even trade-off, 1000:1?
There's more to it than numbers. Minds must be changed, specifically those who have the power to wage war which includes leaders, but also terror cells as small as one wacko with a bomb. In the end it's the willingness to fight that must be neutralized.
I think that was the real difference between the "missions accomplished" 62 years ago and the current unpleasantness.
What happens, then, if there comes a day in 2012 or whenever when Russia just says "no, we are not going to fly any Americans to the space station." Then we can call the space station the Russian Space Station and maybe NASA doesn't need those new astronauts.
By then all of those Cantonese-speaking Engineering majors we have over here will have mastered enough Mandarin and some flight hours to bum rides on the next generation of Shenzhous going up. - TIMTOWDI
Ding dong the witch is dead!
"Bitch" is correctly spelled "B-I-T-C-H".
Well, you can call it that if it makes you feel better, but the rest of us just call that "wishful thinking".
*condescension*
1. The act of condescending; voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in intercourse with an inferior; courtesy toward inferiors.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condescension
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
Of course, assuming TFA is valid, my denying the entire notion of your "faith" will probably re-enforce it. So you're welcome. Enjoy it in good health.
Faith also applies at times when you can't conclusively prove certain beliefs. For example, you might "take it on faith" that someone loved you enough to feed you and buy you expensive toys which you can use to connect to the web and demean people who don't think the same way you do.
Of course! Why didn't anybody think of this before? All we have to do is get everybody on the face of the earth to agree with each other and be nice to each other and then we won't have to worry about defending ourselves ever again.
Come to think of it, someone did.
There's still a lot of debate as to whether he really said and did the things that the scriptures claim that he said and did, or whether he was the son of God or not.
I also heard some terrble stories about bloodthirsty maniacs killing and doing other unspeakable things in his name too. Back then, debates over faith and reason, religion and science, and confusing all four of them didn't have the benefit of message boards, texting, chat rooms, etc.
Did message boards and texting begin with any sort of military research? It was a little before my time. ...then again so was Jesus.
...but the paper rendered from hemp has a lower acid content than the stuff we print our TPS reports on.
Consider the extensive network of cameras in England. Can anyone see their contents? Nope. Just the government...
...and when they implement such a system in this country, possibly GEICO, State Farm, Progressive, you get the idea.
As an American, I have noticed we don't tend to talk about our more embarrassing military times (1812, Korea, Vietnam)...
You probably should have left that last war off your list. How often do you bring up your own embarassments in public conversation?
Granted that WWII is more the subject of books, games and TV these days, partly because the generation that fought in it is leaving us and this is our last chance to recognize their deeds and sacrifice.
But the Vietnam War did get it's fair share of coverage, especially in the mid to late 1980's. One major difference is that the folks who wanted to end that war gave up school, their jobs and more than that to bring the troops home. Nowadays we can't even pull people away from their keyboards.
...not even on a weekend when the weather's nice. ...no wonder Cindy Sheehan went home.
BTW, the TFA was about Senator McCain's take on Net Neutrality. He's a vet, right?
How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages? Slaughtering whole nations? Round up the rest and put them in concentration camps (called reservations)? The history has been toned down A LOT in most US schools, to the extent that if it is mentioned at all, it's just Custer's last stand.
Compare the above with the treatment (mis-treatment) of Britons and Picts by the Romans and later by the English when they occupied a portion of Britain.
...or that of the English et al when the Normans took over after Hastings.
...insert your own comments regarding the Battle of The Boyne here.
History really does repeat itself in rhythm.
As for US schools in my own experience, they didn't get to the part about slaughtering nations or burning villages until after high school. ...too busy taking all those test prep courses.
Can we get along...? - Rodney King
It's just that in this country, it works so well with guns, so...
"...between the social conservatives who want it..."
...should read "...between the social conservatives who say they want it..."
If they actually wanted the hard line that badly, it really would be more difficult for illegals to get in to the country. ...especially if Lou Dobbs' 2,000,000 newcomers per year figure is truthish.
That was my view for my first 25 years of life, the next 15 have been quite a bit different. If we have a genetic disposition to need God, why is atheism more common among the young people that I have known and still know?
You may have partially answered your own question .
Younger people seek out truth, answers, and meaning differently than older folks. It has to do with inexperience, but also with our need to set ourselves apart from mom and dad. Identity is so important to us when we're that young that we reject as much as we can that we associate with our parents including ideas about God and religion, politics, relationships (but not allowance money and food of course).
A young man wants to known for more than being his father's son. ...nothing wrong with that if he doesn't harm anyone.
All the major organised religions seem to want is lots of uneducated children who think they are going to go to 'heaven' when they die.
...probably a good thing all those major organised religions don't build any schools or hospitals.
They also make the mistake of lumping everything they disagree with under the name "evolution".
...kinda the same way you're "lumping" the folks you disagree with together as "...the Church..." in the very first line of your post.
"The Church" is not a unified monolithic body that you made them out to be. Also keep in mind that some people of faith are capable of reasoning as well as rational people are capable of having faith.
Science and religion are not diametric opposites.
The more technical they make their schemes, the more people they get buying their product instead of stealing it.
Please stop that.
Sharing, whether un-authorized or otherwise ought not to be mis-characterized as stealing. It is not stealing anymore than murder or rape.
...or consumption of forbidden fruit - which seems to be closer to the MPAA's worldview these days.
My karma and my firstborn are now forfeited, aren't they?
Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
Algae don't grow on land....it might lead to dancing!