Is Science Good Or Bad?

Post Reply New Topic

Oy! Less of this "we" and "they" all over the place - you'd better not be including me in that "we", or I'll be very cross!

Most of your arguments simply don't stand up to scrutiny. Your "we" and "they" are most likely a small minority of extremists, the kind of pro-science people who maybe take their every idea from self-important "fundamentalist atheist" humbugs, but you tar the rest of us with the same brush. My experience is that most scientists, and most people who believe in science, have no problem admitting that nasty people who lust for fame, power, or wealth will use scientific discoveries to create destructive tools or to justify immoral acts. For example, many scientists involved in the Manhatten project later became activists in the nuclear disarmament movement, and Orville Wright regretted that airplanes, which he had hoped would bring about world peace, got used for dropping bombs on people (it's worth noting, however, that the proportion of humans killed by other humans is actually at its lowest level in the entire existence of humanity, so far as historical and archaeological evidence can tell).

A great many scientists and believers in science also profess religious faith, and don't see any contradiction in having a foot in both camps. And the canon of most major world religions is not in conflict with science either. For example: most Christian denominations are officially cool with the idea of a billions-of-years old universe which began at the big bang - they reason that the big bang was God saying "let there be light", and the difference between days and billions of years is meaningless to such a powerful being, but the Bible had to use metaphors that mere humans would understand easily (taking every word of scripture literally is the strict meaning of the word "fundamentalist", and those tend to be the religious people whom even other religious people think are a bit dodgy).

It is also pretty hard to deny that religion has been used to justify many immoral acts and still is. For our entire lifetime, tensions between Christians, Jews, and Shia/Sunni Muslims have been exploited by powerful people to ensure a steady supply of people willing to kill others across the whole Middle East, and in isolated terrorist acts elsewhere. But, just as for science, this isn't because religion is inherently evil, it's because the same nasty, greedy people who use science unethically will also twist the words of religious texts so that they appear to support their perverted causes.

In fact, you are doing something similar yourself - your post seems to insist that people make a black-and-white choice between science or religion, and must choose to fight for one side and demean the other. That's exactly the kind of thing which politicians do to stoke up wars!* In reality, there is no reason to make any such stark choice, we can take the best from both and reject the worst from both, or at least hold to our own beliefs without having to devalue the lives of people who's beliefs are different but benign. We should condemn immoral acts, for sure, but to say that "science" is to blame for them makes no more sense than saying that "numbers", "words", or "atoms" are to blame - it is just a kind of knowledge, just as scripture is a kind of knowledge.

[*: Of course, I don't really think you're trying to start a fight, MG! - and it is a good idea to talk about these things that that "opposing" sides can understand each other better and we can work together to solve the world's problems.]


...God! He drowned all of the people and most of the animals, all except for Noah's family and menagerie, didn't He? (OK, I realise I'm being a bit cheeky now, and I'll shut up! )

Trog. You are missing a bit of information which I can't disclose on this thread

Aaah, saying different things in public than in private. My apologies, you must be a shrewder politician than I gave you credit for!

Trog. You are missing a bit of information which I can't disclose on this thread.

This attitude does not help create healthy, constructive debate

What have you been smoking?

How does "the White House" cause pollution?

The White House doesnt have smoke stacks.

Does that house at Number Ten Downing Street (where your prime ministers live) "cause pollution", and do so a bigger scale than does every other industry in Britain?

More likely the "White House" is used as a substitute for the "US Federal Government".

If so, it makes sense.

In fact, the US department of Defense alone (with its insatiable demand for oil to fuel its gadzillions of tanks, ships and air planes) is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/fil ... 0Final.pdf

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

~ Shakespeare

That's my philosophical ethos, having studied Ethics and Morality extensively.

I've thought that for decades, didn't know Shakespeare had beaten me to the punch. To me it was like an extension of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I've also thought for a long time that what a person calls "good" is what they personally happen to like or approve of, while what they call "bad" or "evil" is what they dislike, etc. For a time I was tempted to correct people who used the terms "good" and "bad," but it didn't go down well, so these days I usually just assume they're using it as shorthand for the more objective statements. Even so, I'd still prefer people to just say what they like and dislike, because otherwise I see a risk of their failing to own their preferences and fobbing off the responsibility for their reactions completely onto the object of those reactions. The same notion of ownership is seen by some thinkers as being useful in conflict resolution.

Anyway, I know what the OP means - does science benefit or harm the human race? Clearly it's been known to do both. Science and technology give "us" power and control, to a degree, over aspects of the world. You will probably hate some of the results and like others. Personally I don't regret studying science or becoming a scientist. I particularly liked the results of acquiring the skill of clear, critical thinking and the power I was able to wield over the things around me.

[...] try to identify any positives to your religion and highlight them.