Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,501-2,550 of 12,463

[cHriS]

Suhani wrote: "Religion and science are the two sides of a same coin.They tell same story in perhaps different language.Both of them are vital for the survival of society.
Science makes us question and tries to ..."

You are right about science being a tool. But the relationship between religion and culture is not always a good thing.

Also not everyone who is religious has an interest in science. Many people, especially the older generation are happy to quietly get on with life knowing that their religion is there in the background and is not in their eyes in conflict with science.

[cerebus]

Suhani wrote: "A world without religon would be wild,orderless and innocent people would suffer. "
So what you are saying is if you did not have religion then you would be wild and orderless and the cause of suffering in innocents? So the only reason you are none of these things is fear of punishment by god? Or because you want the reward of heaven? Neither make you sound like a moral person. As someone without faith I am neither wild nor orderless, nor do I cause suffering in innocents.
As hazel has pointed out this misconception that without religion anything goes is both demonstrably false and has been dealt with many times in this discussion....I would suggest reading the earlier posts.

[Amy]

Doh no brainer. You couldn't have a world without science because science is real and actually exists.

[Fabrizia]

I definitely could live in a world without religion. As far as ethics is concerned, it is successfully substituted by Philosophy.

[Matt]

Science does need to be balanced by something that tells us what we shouldn't do.

But religion does a really bad job of that, and once we figure out that we can do a thing nobody wants to hear that we shouldn't do it anyway.

[Hazel]

Matt, science is self balancing, as it has rules of ethics that have to be followed. These rules alter as science advances, ensuring that new discoveries are taken into account by the rules of ethics. Any experiment being carried out is subject to approval by an ethics board.

You're right though, religion doesn't provide that balance, the people involved in scientific research do. As always, it is the scientists who police each other.

[Matt]

Matt wrote: "Science does need to be balanced by something that tells us what we shouldn't do.

But religion does a really bad job of that, and once we figure out that we can do a thing nobody wants to hear th..."

Most of science is dictated by the people writing the checks at this point. So the ethics governing science are not the ethics of science, but the ethics of commerce. And the ethics of war. And the ethics of politics. Which is to say, there are no ethics governing science any more.

[Hazel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6...

The people who advise the ethics boards are scientists, not army generals, not commercial leaders, and not politicians. Science regulates itself, by scientists applying humanity and humane ideas to the tool.

I'd like to see some evidence for pretty much everything you claim, Matt, as you make sweeping statements, that frustrate me, because you don't provide evidence of what you're saying.

[Matt]

Only point 6 of that code deals with how science interacts with the rest of the world. And it doesn't really deal with it at all. The rest is internal to the scientific community. It's great that they have this, but it's not exactly a check on the use of science.

As the questions about whether we can do a thing become fewer and fewer (we can do most things we think of now), the questions about whether we should do it become more and more important. What we should do is decided by corporations, generals, and politicians, because scientists do what they are paid to do.

I'm not trying to say that scientists are bad people. But they work within a system that was radically changed after the Manhattan Project, because the powers that be realized they couldn't allow scientists to have any type of control anymore.

[Hazel]

sigh, those will be the headings in a much larger document, that then lays down the ethics within that heading.

I have just demonstrated that scientists set the ethics. yet you have counter claimed and provided no evidence. So far, the evidence is on my side.

Powers that be? What powers that be? Again, a sweeping statement, and no evidence.

[Matt]

Matt wrote: "Only point 6 of that code deals with how science interacts with the rest of the world. And it doesn't really deal with it at all. The rest is internal to the scientific community. It's great that t..."

Are you trying to claim that all science is either self funding or without financial cost?

I doubt you are. And so I think you know exactly who the powers that be are.

[Hazel]

No, I'm making no claims about the funding at all. I'm stating, with evidence that the ethics that control science are created by scientists, in order to prevent those who provide the funding from making scientists carry out unethical work.

The powers that be is a meaningless term, which powers do you mean? Which specific bodies holding power are you referring to?

[Matt]

Hazel wrote: "No, I'm making no claims about the funding at all. I'm stating, with evidence that the ethics that control science are created by scientists, in order to prevent those who provide the funding from ..."

Going back a bit, those aren't the headings for Doctor King's code of ethics. They are the entire code.

It obligates scientists to discuss the impact of their work on society, and consider the aspirations of others. Not exactly what you could call clear and specific guidance. And although he claims the goal is a Hippocratic Oath type document, it never actually says not to do harm. Just to consider the harm that might be done.

What we research, and the ways in which what we learn are used, is dictated by the people who are paying the bills. Corporations, the military, government. The powers that be. Scientists may have ethical guidelines telling them not to lie (though we know that there are those who lie anyway), and they may have ethical guidelines teling them not to shortcut the scientific process (and again, that is not universally followed), but what they actually work on is generally decided by whoever has money to pay them for their work.

[Hazel]

OK, I agree, those are the entirety of the code, but they're better than nothing, and work in harmony with the ethical practice codes of individual research establishments.

Those who lie, or who use shortcuts are caught by scientists who do, as shown by my earlier example of Schon. So, we're still back to it being a self correcting system.

The ethics are written by scientists, who tell the companies what can and cannot be done ethically. You're correct that that doesn't mean there aren't unethical scientists out there, but as pointed out before, they're almost always caught by ethical scientists, and ultimately, they lose out for being unethical.

A quote from the article I linked to:

Professor King conceded that the code could create conflicts between employers and individuals, but suggested it could also help resolve them.

"Place yourself in the position of a scientist who works for a tobacco company, and the company asks you to counter evidence about the health impacts of tobacco.

"That scientist would be able to look at the code and say, 'I can't do that'."

The code is designed to give scientists the tool to turn round and say "thats unethical, we will not carry out that research" or "we will not lie about the results".

Ultimately though, your claim that corporations decide on the ethics is still unsubstantiated, whereas mine that the scientists write and dictate the ethics, and the corporations have to bow to them, has evidence, and is thus the stronger position. And we both agree that unscrupulous indiviiduals are unlikely to pay attention to the ethics, and thus I put to you, that its our duty, and the duty of everyone interested in the results of research, to be skeptical about what we read, and to check the background of the research, including, as you point out, who's funding it, and compare it to other research in the same area, and to trust those done by independent bodies more than those carried out by corporations etc.

[Matt]

I'm not arguing that the code doesn't provide any kind of ethical framework for scientists. And I'm definitely not trying to say it's a bad thing - I think it's great. Seriously.

But it doesn't provide anything to help with a decision on whether or not to clone humans. Or whether to use billions in research money on a drug that helps rich people get erections, when almost nothing is spent on helping poor people live beyond the age of 40. Or whether to work on a weapon that will potentially save the lives of thousands of white Christians at the cost of the lives of millions of brown Muslims.

These are questions science itself can't answer, and the system makes it difficult for the scientists themselves to answer them. Because they want to work, and they obviously see the value in what they do.

The people with money are doing their damnedest to make sure there are no more Einsteins or Oppenheimers. And science needs something, I think it's philosophy, to provide it with some guidance. But philosophical arguments don't make any money, and they don't win any wars.

[Hazel]

I see your point, and I'm glad we're both on the same page about the ethical guidelines being a good thing.

I can't comment much on cloning humans, but the fact that cloning research means we can grow organs instead of relying on donors is a good thing (and I mean grow individual organs, not grow people and harvest them as someone claimed much much earlier in this thread).

Poor people living over 40? thats not about the lack of research, as many poor people live over the age of 40. Theres really no issue with that here in the UK, where (at the moment at least) our health care is free. So, thats actually a political ethical point, in which providing free health care as a right for everyone would vastly improve the quality, and quantity, of life of those in lower socio-economic brackets. We have the science, we have the medicines, we have the treatments, making it available is a political issue, not a scientific one, as it is available here in the UK, and it is available in other countries with free healthcare, such as Cuba.

As for the last one. the weapon, I'm not sure what you're talking about, can you elucidate please?

[Matt]

Hazel wrote: "I see your point, and I'm glad we're both on the same page about the ethical guidelines being a good thing.

I can't comment much on cloning humans, but the fact that cloning research means we can ..."

But the decision whether to clone organs or whole humans would likely be made by the company funding the work, not the scientists doing the work. And the "If I don't do it, someone else will" form of rationalization definitely comes in to play - scientists are only human, after all.

I guess my point (finally!) is that scientists are, and have been, forced to divorce themselves from considerations of how the results of their work will be used. Immediately after the development of the atom bomb, there was a definite trend for scientists (at least those at the top of their field) to become more involved in the political and financial motivations for research, but that seems to have ended. Even those with seemingly great power and influence (Google as an example, information science is still science) have their goals dictated to them by existing financial and political considerations, rather than using their work to change the financial and political status quo.

As to the weapon, if a scientist knows that what he's working on will be used by the US to kill a great number of people in Afghanistan, who may or may not pose a legitimate (but much smaller) threat to us, should that be a consideration for him? Can it be?

This is something of a conspiracy theory, but I can't help thinking that the fact that there is a lot more money to be made by making a condition chronic than there is by curing that condition is a big part of the reason why we rarely cure anything any more. Better to commit someone to a lifetime drug and treatment regimen than to offer them a one time fix. Addiction marketing, really.

[Hazel]

I see many of your points, but also caution heading into conspiracy theory territory

on a side note, how do you consider the threat from the middle east to be smaller than that coming from the USA?

[cHriS]

Amy wrote: "Doh no brainer. You couldn't have a world without science because science is real and actually exists."

Much the same as history exists?

[Matt]

The Middle East has less ability to do massive military damage to the US. Less ability to damage us at all, really.

They certainly can't occupy our country and launch regular drone strikes against places they think their enemies may be hiding for years on end, and they lack the political power to get the world to stand by while they simply decide who gets to live and die.

[Hazel]

conceded, the Middle east probably would have a problem trying to do massive military damage to the US, the world trade centre etc apart, obviously.

However, the world does stand by as massive amounts of damage and death is inflicted upon it withint the middle east, and across asia into oceania:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek...

Be sure to read all three pages

[Matt]

Hazel wrote: "conceded, the Middle east probably would have a problem trying to do massive military damage to the US, the world trade centre etc apart, obviously.

However, the world does stand by as massive am..."

Fair point, we do stand by. But I don't think that would be the case if one of the "great nations" came under sustained attack by a nation state. As long as it stays local, and decentralized, we consider it to be not our problem.

I also wonder how much of the increase in attacks upon Christians is a result of how our foreign policy is presented. Many of the wrongs we committed in the Middle East since the middle of the 20th Century weren't motivated by religion. But we categorize any retaliation as religiously motivated. Which may lead others do do the same, so instead of energy consuming nations vs energy producing nations, the battle becomes Christian against Islamic.

[[deleted user]]

Matt wrote: "So the ethics governing science are not the ethics of science, but the ethics of commerce. And the ethics of war. And the ethics of politics. Which is to say, there are no ethics governing science any more. "

This is an overgeneralization; however, this and talk of the "powers that be" is not necessarily a conspiracy theory.

http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/...

[[deleted user]]

One wonders if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Hopefully not. Evidence of medical/scientific testing on minorities and prisoners ...

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

Could this type of testing still be happening in the world today?

When things like this were done in order to "help" the majority, I wonder if companies or governments would resort to pressuring scientists or, in the case of some governments, "enslaving" some scientists by threatening them and their families in order to "help" their cause? Would a code help them or us then?

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I always wonder about the back story all those Nazi scientists who after WWII were hired by the USA and many other countries. They were not prosecuted, mostly.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Soviet scientists also were known to defect to America after escaping from secret militarized CITIES - entire cities where secret science was carried out.

[[deleted user]]

ATCM, no, I don't believe they were prosecuted. And, I've not read about militarized cities, but I do have more information regarding the Russian scientist who defected in '89.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obitu...

What follows is a general comment, not a response to ATCM.

By sharing this information, to be clear, I am NOT making a judgment about science and/or scientists. My point is to say, well, there are "powers that be" and they can be quite nasty. Further, those powers did, do and can bend people and science to their own ends, as proven, sadly, repeatedly through history.

[Barry]

*peeks around corner to see if dispute between science and religion has been resolved yet*

*backs away slowly*

[Hazel]

we're back to confusing the tool of science with the people who have used it in the past, and who are the reasons we now have the level of ethics in science that exist today.

What people have done in the past does not effect that science is simply a tool, open to use and misuse, and that we have systems in place for preventing the misuse that have come about because we learned from the past.

*waves at Barry as he ducks back out*

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

@Barry. : )

@Hazel and @Matt. I think you are both right. There are codes and procedures in place to check out Investigators (official term for scientists for the USA) and their submitted papers to the various official organs of science, government, journals and university committees. Also, private commercial groups read the journals, find out work that could encourage sales of their product, approach the scientist and offer contracts. The scientist can choose to become a tool, or not. Some countries (Iran) are holding scientists' families hostage for good behavior and some (North Korea) are suspected of kidnapping scientists. I too think there are powers that be, for the record. But I also think they are not omniscient or omnipresent or all knowing.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

@shannon, thanks for the links.

[Shaun]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I always wonder about the back story all those Nazi scientists who after WWII were hired by the USA and many other countries. They were not prosecuted, mostly."

Because they were researching rocketry, which has many useful civilian applications. The decision to load said rockets with explosives and drop them randomly on civilian cities was a political choice, not a scientific one.

So why prosecute them any more than you'd prosecute the guy that swept the streets of Berlin?

[Paul]

Is this the longest thread ever on GoodReads?

[Hazel]

no, but maybe if you don't include all the mindless games people play, like first and last, that keep us amused while waiting for the serious posts to come along, it may be a contender.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Shaun, why indeed prosecute rocketeers, I say, who cried when men walked on the moon, for sheer joy?

Paul, Hazel - personally, I'm afflicted by the changing face of the Moon Goddess every day (internal tides) so as the conversation carries on day after day after day, and I move on from reading Pratchett to Laurie King to Stephen King to Naomi Klein, I swing from amusement, to horror to upset to seriousness. I literally can't keep an emotional level where one emoticon works for me.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "we're back to confusing the tool of science with the people who have used it in the past, and who are the reasons we now have the level of ethics in science that exist today.

What people have don..."

Not sure if this will be considered a serious post or not, but ....

I remember the "Science as a Tool" argument that was made some time ago, to a certain extent.

Before I continue, I do want to make a point regarding science, hopefully an emphatic point. I wouldn't be alive without science. I had pneumonia when I was 2 and 14, strep throat in high school and college, and have asthma. For those reasons alone, I'm thankful for the advances we've made due to science and scientists. Truly. There are other reasons why I think science and the scientific method are a HUGE benefit to society. But, without the medicine and medical care I received at those times, gained through science, I'd not be typing this post.

Regarding science as a tool, I do find myself wondering. Can we truly separate science and the research and development of technology, tools, from the people who use them? For, without people, the tool would never be developed and would never be used. Yes, I get it. A tool is a tool. A hammer can pound a nail or a skull; the use is determined by the person wielding the hammer. Sometimes, though .... Let's just say, coming from a humanities mindset, it's not always that easy for me. (But, hey, despite the odds, I bought a MegaMillions ticket last night. After all, someone was going to win. Right? Who cared about the math!)

Regarding what was done in the past, 1989 was not that long ago. Does anyone reading this truly believe there aren't world leaders, Putin, perhaps, who would "force" scientists to develop new biological weapons? Do we truly believe that those scientists would say, "But, wait, we've learned from the past and have a code of ethics we can consult. We don't feel comfortable doing this research...." ?? Some might. I doubt, in certain circumstances and within certain governments, that it would be a healthy choice. Because ... there are some people who wield power who don't much care about lessons learned or ethical codes.

Hey, when I was researching human cloning after reading posts this morning, I found information on a doctor by the name of Zavos who claims he implanted cloned human embryos within women. He said he wasn't successful. Did he or didn't he? I don't know. But, I read several articles that stated scientists the world over, in response, said this should not be done for various reasons. I wonder if that will prevent Zavos or other rogue scientists/doctors from such attempts in the future.

So, we can say science and the results of scientific research are just tools. We can believe that the past is the past, and we've learn from mistakes made by those who came before us. We can hope that there are systems in place that will prevent misuse of the tools science offers.

Ultimately, though ....

It's just not that simple.

Some lack humanity and ethics, religious folk and atheists alike. And, given that, both religion AND science will be misused in the future, just as they have been misused in the past ... by individuals and by the powers that be.

[Hazel]

yes, but no-one who is non-religious can misuse either science or religion and claim that it was because it was what god wanted.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel, that was a definite two-pointer! (sports reference).

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "yes, but no-one who is non-religious can misuse either science or religion and claim that it was because it was what god wanted."


I'm not sure the people on the losing end of such misuse would care about the claim ... it was for the Motherland, it was for God, it was for oil, it was for ....

I'm not sure that would matter much. Would it?

[Hazel]

it does, people who claim that god gave them the right to do what they did are claiming a moral high ground based on things that they have no proof for, and think it makes them righteous and correct.

You're right of course, they can make the same claim for any ideology, but I also stand by the idea that any ideology designed to control how people think, and to give excuses to their actions is wrong. Religion is simply one form of ideology, and when looked at objectively, no more important or outstanding than any other ideology, but it is a form of ideology that is both popular and overarching in a way that, say cults of personality, or political ideologies are not. But they're all formed to create a paradigm of thought, and are used to excuse inexcusable actions. Religion is simply the biggest and most obvious example, because it is so widespread.

However, a rational, reasonable person who doesn't subscribe to these ideologies, and that include people like yourself who hold religious beliefs, without really subscribing to the ideologies of religion, can never use them as an excuse for their actions.

And people forced to do things, like produce weapons, by followers of ideologies (I'm not discounting that some scientists will subscribe to harmful ideologies, just addressing what you said about scientists being coerced) are victims of the ideologies as much as those harmed by the weapons etc are.

[[deleted user]]

Mmmm....

Possible questions ....

Is the ideology itself wrong, in and of itself? Possibly. It would depend upon the ideology, I suppose.

Would the thing that's wrong in these cases be, not the ideology, but the people who create it or twist it to suit their own selfish needs?

If it's the latter, those very same people will twist anything and use anything to suit their needs, religion, science or otherwise. And, ultimately, the end results will be the same.

[Hazel]

Yes, we can agree there are shit people in the world. But ideologies, and the biggest being religion, give them extra ammunition, as it were.

[C.C.]

I think the obvious answer is that it would be better to live in a world without science. If there were no science, then everything would be magic. If there is no religion, everything is explained only as natural, and the world is less fun.

[cerebus]

Matt wrote: "I'm not trying to say that scientists are bad people. But they work within a system that was radically changed after the Manhattan Project, because the powers that be realized they couldn't allow scientists to have any type of control anymore. "
The Manhattan Project was run by the military, it was not a case of scientists left to their own devices. Also at the time it was believed the Nazis were working on and were close to perfecting their own atomic weapon. The decision to drop the bomb was a political and military one, it was not made by scientists, many of whom felt a demonstration would have been sufficient.
Which bit do you feel demonstrates that scientists are unsuitable to judge ethics?

[cerebus]

Matt wrote: "I guess my point (finally!) is that scientists are, and have been, forced to divorce themselves from considerations of how the results of their work will be used. "
In many cases ethics panels include not only scientists, but members of the public as well. I know people who are on ethics panels to provide a 'public' view, without being experts in the field.

[cerebus]

C.C. wrote: "I think the obvious answer is that it would be better to live in a world without science. If there were no science, then everything would be magic. If there is no religion, everything is explaine..."
I'm assuming this is a joke? Right day for it.......

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

C.C. wrote: "I think the obvious answer is that it would be better to live in a world without science. If there were no science, then everything would be magic. If there is no religion, everything is explaine..."

Somebody must be really groking Terry Prachett .....

[Travis]

'if everything that is explained only as natural the world is less fun.'

Have you looked at the world? How does it being 'only natural' make it less fun?
If the man in the sky goes away, how does that change the ocean, the night sky, kids laughing, penguins, coffee, women ( or men, whatever sex you prefer to gaze at longingly) etc...?

I sometimes feel sad for religious people, as they seem handicapped when it comes to the ability to just see and enjoy the world.

[Matt]

Shannon wrote: "Mmmm....

Possible questions ....

Is the ideology itself wrong, in and of itself? Possibly. It would depend upon the ideology, I suppose.

Would the thing that's wrong in these cases be, not the..."

Hazel wrote: "it does, people who claim that god gave them the right to do what they did are claiming a moral high ground based on things that they have no proof for, and think it makes them righteous and correc..."

Ideologies become a problem when they veer towards absolutism, which they pretty much always do. Human nature again, plus a simplified ideology gathers more followers, and the simpler the ideology, the more absolutist it will be.

The example that's been staring us in the face and hitting us over the head for the last several years is capitalism. There are millions of Americans who can go on for hours about how lasse faire is the answer for everything. But this is an entire ideology based on a couple of chapters of Adam Smith's work, and it ignores the rest. Such as his assertion that all infrastructure should be nationalized, and any commodity essential to the well being of the citizens is infrastructure. Basically, Smith would argue that both health care and energy should have been nationalized by now, while his supposed disciples scream "socialism" at the first hint of something like that being done. Not because the ideology has grown and adapted to the times, but because most of it's followers have no true understanding of it.

Ideologies often prevent us from viewing problems within the context where they occur, and force us to view them within the context of the ideology. And when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Matt]

Cerebus wrote: "Matt wrote: "I'm not trying to say that scientists are bad people. But they work within a system that was radically changed after the Manhattan Project, because the powers that be realized they cou..."

I was talking about after the Manhattan Project, when scientists (notably Einstein and Oppenheimer) began to assert more control over the work they did and how it would be used. Yes, we stopped two great evils in WWII (and the Japanese had been incredibly evil off and on for centuries). But the box had been opened, and there were concerns about what would happen next time. The bomb had demonstrated the incredible destructive power science was capable of unleashing, and that was when the questions about whether we should do the things we are capable of started to become louder.

And since then, it has become very rare to see a preeminent scientist speak out against the people he or she works for, at least while they are still working. Because to do so means never working again - no more grants, no more access.