Scientists have blood on their hands.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Stop it Sjc! The crusades are ancient history. While you and everyone here proclain the tool of religion the greatest evil of man, the tool of Science is slippling through the back door un-noticed and will be used against humanity the same way the religous crusades were used but with far more sinister goals and objectives.

Religons worst abuses are in the past. Sciences are yet to come.

Again I am not advocating any other path but science, but why is their such a blind belief that only good things will come from science. This attitude may well be are undoing.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

Again I am not advocating any other path but science, but why is their such a blind belief that only good things will come from science.

There isn't such blind belief. All thinking people know that the technologies that come out of scientific findings can be used for good or for ill. Everyone knows this. That's not how you're couching the question, though. Science is not in itself a cause of ill, while religion is. Science is neutral. If technology is used to do bad things, it won't be because of science, but because of dogma. Religion and Science are not analogous. That's the problem with your argument.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:15 pm

Let's assume that science is evil, for the sake of argument. Is the implication, then, that we should deny truth because it's evil?

Just about any knoweldge can be used to cause death and destruction. Are we supposed to abandon all search for knowledge because it can be twisted to dangerous ends in favor of stupidifying ourselves with happy fantasies?

Anyone who would answer "yes" to these questions is a hater of truth (even potential truth).

***

Why are religion's worst abuses in the past? (...if they are. I doubt they are. All it would take is a handshake between theism and science and a terrorist to set off a nuclear weapon in a large city.)

Because secularism, reason, science have marginalized the nutcases. And anywhere that secularism, reason and science do not dominate, the abuses of religion are NOW. In a sense, radical jihadists are a sort of travelling inquisition.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Quote:

Why are religion's worst abuses in the past?

Ok Kmisho I am only refering to westerm history's religous past.

JFAgnostic wrote:

madoba wrote:

Again I am not advocating any other path but science, but why is their such a blind belief that only good things will come from science.

There isn't such blind belief. All thinking people know that the technologies that come out of scientific findings can be used for good or for ill. Everyone knows this. That's not how you're couching the question, though. Science is not in itself a cause of ill, while religion is. Science is neutral. If technology is used to do bad things, it won't be because of science, but because of dogma. Religion and Science are not analogous. That's the problem with your argument.

It's analagous in this way. They are both tools created and used by humanity that are neither good nor bad, but by their application by man can become good or evil.

Now remember I am forward looking. My question is which tool will be the greater danger to man in 100 years from now? The dark side of religion (the crusades) is in the past. We are on the path of science. God is dead. There is no turning back. The dark side of science although we know it's there, is yet to come. It is inevitable. It is the nature of man. It will rear it's ugly head. If we are not careful, which is no guarantee, science will be used by the authorites in the same way religious crusades were used in the dark ages and it will make the crusades look like a picnic at the beach.

Someone answer my question? Which tool will become the greater danger to the common man used by those in power. As religion loses it influence (which it has) to control the populace, the authorities will slowly replace it with science.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

It's analagous in this way. They are both tools created and used by humanity that are neither good nor bad, but by their application by man can become good or evil.

I don't agree with your analogy, I guess. Religion isn't merely a tool, it is very much a part of the identity of religious people. There are bad aspects in religion which, when they meld with people's personalities, make people bad! E.g., kill witches, women should be subordinate, slavery is okay, etc., etc., ad infinitum . Science is not like this. Science is a tool, and insofar as it helps create people's personalities, it does so only to make them curious, desiring of the truth, rigorous, logical, rational etc. Not bad, though. Religion and Science are not analogous in the way you suggest.

Because of my point of view on your analogy, it follows that I don't agree with the rest of your argument. I doubt religion is dead. It seems that fundamentalism is thriving more than ever in the U.S.

Science won't bring darkness. It will still be dogma. If islamic terrorists use a nuke on a major city, is that science bringing darkness or religion bringing darkness?? It's religion bringing the darkness. That's the whole point. Religion isn't the tool being used--religion is an evil specter using tools for ill.

GW Bush isn't using religion; he's religious. And he's a force for darkness because of it. He's using weapons to destroy innocent lives. Weapons that are the product of scientific research. In this example, religion is the problem, not science.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 12, 2005 Posts: 502

madoba wrote:

Now remember I am forward looking. My question is which tool will be the greater danger to man in 100 years from now? The dark side of religion (the crusades) is in the past. We are on the path of science. God is dead. There is no turning back. The dark side of science although we know it's there, is yet to come. It is inevitable. It is the nature of man. It will rear it's ugly head. If we are not careful, which is no guarantee, science will be used by the authorites in the same way religious crusades were used in the dark ages and it will make the crusades look like a picnic at the beach.

Someone answer my question? Which tool will become the greater danger to the common man used by those in power. As religion loses it influence (which it has) to control the populace, the authorities will slowly replace it with science.

Well...

I think it's obvious that religion is ultimately more harmful than science, precisely because of its bloodier past. The reason the western world is much more liberal with it's religious belief is because of the rise of science and secularism all the way from the time of the renaissance through the enlightenment. We live longer, healthier, and happier lives than the generations that preceded us and we have nothing to thank but science for it.

On the other hand, if we would have kept denying secular thought, scientific reasoning, and rationalism we would have never left a medieval mentality. The Radical Islamic world is a prime example of this. Their society is quintessentially medieval in its structure and values.

Religious Abuse, even by Christians, is not strictly in the past. Consider the efforts of the Catholic church whose followers in Africa preach against condom use and contraception in a country which is going through one of the worst plagues (AIDS) in history. A plague that could be minimized, if not outright prevented, by the use of condoms! In any other context, the churches actions would be unconscionable, but since they appeal to a "higher power" their actions are sanctioned by a non-existent, irrational, god. That's a horrendous abuse!

Let's not forget the Christians in our country that continually go out of their way to try and take control of our secular (by design) government. Gay rights, womens rights, sex education, proper science education, are all under attack by the followers of an unproven sky-man. The fact that we have second class citizens due to sexual orientation in this country is absurd.

Now, I will agree that the Churches grossest violations are largely in the past, the fact that it no longer holds the power to commit such violent atrocities as it once did does not lie in its own hands, but rather is a direct consequence of the rise of secularism and scientific thinking in the western world.

In conclusion, humans will do bad things. But dumb, ignorant, dogmatized humans will do even worse things.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:15 pm

meh. the vast majority of scientists never create something for the express purpose of harming other people.

Science and technology are tools. All tools, even the simple hammer, can be used for evil or good, depending on whoever is wielding it at the time. You can build a house or beat someone's brains in.

I see many more zealots and fundamentalists using weapons and many more scientists using tools.

hammer to beat someone's brains in - build a house
Nuclear weapons - nuclear power
internal combustion engine for car - for tanks
a sickle to harvest grain - to lop off the heads of your enemies

the list can go on forever.

the vast majority of scientists do NOT have blood on their hands... the theists that use science's creations for evil have FAR more to answer for.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Yaro I will agree with this.

Quote:

In conclusion, humans will do bad things.

But here is our disagreement.

Quote:

But dumb, ignorant, dogmatized humans will do even worse things

My question is What would ever keep the authorities from using science in the horrendous way the crusades were used? This has not been answered. Yaro you got it right the first time when you described religion and science as tools for humanity. I think We would both agree science is a better tool, but it's dark side is also more effective. It's not about being ignorant or dogmatized. Just assuming scientists are good guys is not sufficient, after all they are human, and we agree humans do bad things. Consider the Russian defector who was poisoned with polonium 210. Science discovered it but it was those in power that used it for murder to silence a critic. I read that his death was a slow long painful poisonous death. Kinda makes you long to be burnt at the stake (via crusades) just to get death over with. Most likely it would be those in power that would abuse science in such a way to make the crusades look like peace march. In the future what other painful ways of dying will science stumble on, only to be used by men who do bad things.

Use the force luke! lol.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

madoba wrote:

Yaro you got it right the first time when you described religion and science as tools for humanity. I think We would both agree science is a better tool, but it's dark side is also more effective, and will be more so than the crusades.
Use the force luke! lol.

Though some use religion as a tool, for most people, it isn't a tool--it is part of them as humans; they identify themselves by it. Science is not like this. Science doesn't have a dark or light side. Religion does! Religion does bad and good things. Science doesn't do things, it is used to do things by good and bad (and typically somewhat neutral) people. It's a false analogy. When science is used to do the darkest of thinks, it will be by dogmatic people--thus, it will still be religion that is doing the bad.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 713

The main assertion in this topic is spurious. One needs to only recognize that people are at times callous aggressive creatures with no care for whether damage is done on another. In fact, sometimes people invite such actions as a way of expressing anger for whatever reason. Science is only another tool used, much as Moloth correctly mentioned a hammer. It's not science, or scientists that are to blame for the destruction caused through use of their offered technology, but rather our own ignorance, or lack of care as people. Science can be used to do good things, as it can also be used toward destructive ends. The problem is not only that much of the time new technologies have unforseen destructive side-effects, but also that people who use such technologies aren't educated enough to be incentivized to use technologies at hand solely for the betterment of all people. Like all things it's a learning process, but use of tools for harmful ends started the moment the first primordial humanoid picked up a rock to pummel in the skull of another creature of similar kind. Ever since it's been a matter of discovering, and encouraging ourselves to practice a certain sort of nonharmful temperance with the tools we use.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:16 pm

Religion and Science are both tools, used by man, to either, "control" or to "destruct"...

Now, off course Science has done some wonderful things for the human race and I'm all for it.

But, I think Madoba makes some good points. Where will science take us in the long run?

Sure, we may go to Mars one day, sure we will live longer one day, but look when the Atom bomb was discovered, by physicists working with radioactive substances, for the "good of mankind"... (I am not an expert on these matters), but you get my point. It was meant for the good, but look how quickly it got to be used for a bomb?

So, having read all the arguments so far, I have to agree with Madoba, that there is an element in science, (although probably all good and ethical men, who do discover various good things), will end up in the wrong hands, not only the religious, but also atheists, especially those who are slightly demented? and so on?

Anthrax for instance. It's a tool that was used to scare people, and kill them. So, what was anthrax for? what do we use it for? I have no idea....

I just want to stress that, tools from science have the means by which we can destroy man, and this is due to the wonderful discoveries by scientists.

Religion itself, being cruel, at times, like in the past, was a belief, and just as cruel off course, but, science has helped us to develop more destructive tools, nuclear, missiles etc... which was no where near that kind of cruelty while religion, which could also wipe out thousands upon thousands, by the "sword", thanks to science can now do by the millions, and possibly global.... So, what does science hold in store for the future? it does make one wonder...

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 713

sunamiren wrote:

Religion itself, being cruel, at times, like in the past, was a belief, and just as cruel off course, but, science has helped us to develop more destructive tools, nuclear, missiles etc... which was no where near that kind of cruelty while religion, which could also wipe out thousands upon thousands, by the "sword", thanks to science can now do by the millions, and possibly global.... So, what does science hold in store for the future? it does make one wonder...

The point being that science can be used as a force for whatever means people want. So it is up to the people who use it to take responsibility for their actions as they relate to the techniques developed. Science holds for people's future whatever their imaginations devise for its uses. Thinking altogether distopian on a matter doesn't really deal with the issue. I could just as easily say that if it weren't for science we wouldn't be able to work on someday preventing an asteroid from crashing into earth, thus entailing what could be the complete extinction of all earth life known to us. In such a scenario, science tools are being used to save humanity rather than destroy it. This isn't even yet taking into account all of the plagues which have been dealt with thanks again to scientific discovery.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:25 pm

Friend wrote:

sunamiren wrote:

Religion itself, being cruel, at times, like in the past, was a belief, and just as cruel off course, but, science has helped us to develop more destructive tools, nuclear, missiles etc... which was no where near that kind of cruelty while religion, which could also wipe out thousands upon thousands, by the "sword", thanks to science can now do by the millions, and possibly global.... So, what does science hold in store for the future? it does make one wonder...

The point being that science can be used as a force for whatever means people want. So it is up to the people who use it to take responsibility for their actions as they relate to the techniques developed. Science holds for people's future whatever their imaginations devise for its uses. Thinking altogether distopian on a matter doesn't really deal with the issue. I could just as easily say that if it weren't for science we wouldn't be able to work on someday preventing an asteroid from crashing into earth, thus entailing what could be the complete extinction of all earth life known to us. In such a scenario, science tools are being used to save humanity rather than destroy it. This isn't even yet taking into account all of the plagues which have been dealt with thanks again to scientific discovery.

Yes, and I agree with you too... but just as you say, science may stop an asteroid from totally annihilating our planet, but it's the "means by which we have discovered the use of stopping an asteroid from annihilating our planet, is the "same means by which we can use for war, or other distructing purposes"...

Man will never just invent for the sake of "the human race and to save us all".....

As long as there are rotten apples on this planet, science's amazing discoveries can and will be used and abused by those who are criminals and not rational peace loving people. They have always existed, and they won't go away.

Science can save us, it can also destroy us... then we get back to saying, it's not the gun that kills, it's man using the gun. Well, we are responsible for our own actions. Invent something fantastic to enhance the human race, and you will find another who will use it to destroy us.

There are two sides to this argument, and both seem valid to me. That's not saying that science is a bad thing. Far from it. I would just like to emphasize the fact that man, (may I say especially men) seem to like making war, playing war games, every computer game encompasses some kind of killing to get to the "next stage" of the game.

I guess this leads to another subject of debate. But lets face it, we are destroying the planet already with our wonderful scientific knowledge, of how to extract anything and everything faster than ever from this earth... till there's nothing left and we face going back to the dark ages where we will find ourselves fighting for food and water.

All our recourses are depleting, and I ask you, will science save us then? Well, yes off course it will... long before any God will anyway... LOL

I'm really being a devil's advocate here... I think along these lines occasionally, but don't loose any sleep over it.. not yet anyhow.. hehe

Science itself is not the problem, religion itself is not the problem it's always MAN and how he uses it.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

sunamiren wrote:

But lets face it, we are destroying the planet already with our wonderful scientific knowledge, of how to extract anything and everything faster than ever from this earth... till there's nothing left and we face going back to the dark ages where we will find ourselves fighting for food and water.

This is just as reasonable, like I said before, as saying that fossil fuels are destroying the planet! No, they aren't.

sunamiren wrote:

Science itself is not the problem, religion itself is not the problem it's always MAN and how he uses it.

Actually, while science is not the problem, religion is a problem. Just read Dawkins and Harris for recent explanations of the problem of religion

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Quote:

Actually, while science is not the problem, religion is a problem. Just read Dawkins and Harris for recent explanations of the problem of religion

Man is the problem. As religion loses it's power to control people, man will turn to science and accomplish the same thing only with more cynical and diabolical results. Example, former russian spy Alexander Litvinenko was recently poisoned to death by Polonium-210 because for what is speculated to be his outspokeness against the russian government. His death was excruciating painful with the posion attacking his immune system and then shutting down his internal organs.

Dawkins and Harris are wrong. It's not Religion but man who is the problem.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore