Science and Religion - The Ethical Dilemma
79Further Reading
 | Amazon Price: $22.00 List Price: $24.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.58 List Price: $17.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $68.86 List Price: $95.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $17.57 List Price: $29.75 |
“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer
THE AFTERMATH OF THE SCHISM
The schism between science and religion, in the 17th century, was a necessary step in the advancement of human knowledge, because rigid adherence and dogma were undoubtedly halting progress. Science has continued, over the centuries, to uncover vast areas of knowledge and answer pressing questions, for the undoubted benefit of humanity. There is little doubt that science has improved the quality of human life, but the focus is now shifting to whether this progress needs a counterweight. Technological advances are unrecognisably and irreversibly changing human culture. The question is now about whether humanity, and its moral code, is lying forgotten on the road of discovery.
Many scientists, whilst brilliant in their field, are often guilty of not looking at the wider implications of their research, and become fixated on the result. They become caught up in their elegant theories and innovative experiments, without asking whether they should be pursuing the line of research. Ethical questions are an integral part of the scientific method, and should always be built into the steps of the scientific research process. Currently, there is little consensus on who or what determines these ethics, and self-regulation is not working. Politicians make laws, but their judgment is suspect and subject to ulterior motives. For example, the environmental mess is due to politicians cynically selecting research that gives them the answers they want, not what is beneficial for humanity. The strategies of politicians are built around the election cycle, and are not conducive to laying down solid foundations for future generations.
THE ETHICAL CODES REGULATING SCIENCE
Science has always faced questions about ethics and morality, during the experimental design process, and also when determining how the results are used. To this day, Oppenheimer regrets the results of his nuclear research, but it cannot be undone. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, where sufferers of the disease were denied treatment, in order to provide a control group, was very unethical and bordered upon murder. The exposure of servicemen to the unknown health effects of radiation was extremely immoral, but was dwarfed by the tragedies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were unnecessary crimes against humanity. One of the many reasons for this attack was to allow the US military to study the effects of radiation sickness over a period of time.
Modern science does display a better sense of internal morality. Mental suffering is now regarded as unethical. The Milgram Experiment, where subjects were subjected to intense emotional effects, would not be permitted in modern science. Science is now governed by strict protocol, and layers of legislation, dictate procedure and protect the rights of the individual. For example, in a medical test where a placebo control group is used, if the medicine appears to be helping, the experiment is terminated and all patients are given the drug. These protocols are admirable, but are rarely used in a wider, external sense. The problems arise when we look at wider ethical concerns, governing the whole of humanity. Here we appear to be stuck in a mentality of ‘Scientists know best.’
Whether an individual subscribes to concerns about stem cell research, Hadron particle colliders, or genetic manipulation, these are areas that affect the whole of humanity. They should be governed by collective responsibility. In the same way that philosophy underlies the basic reasoning processes governing the structure and validity of scientific research, religion should play a greater part in ethics. When using, lazily, the term religion, this should also encompass humanists and atheist. They can, and often do, express valid opinions based around a strong moral code.
RELIGIOUS AND SCIENTIFIC EXTREMISM
This is not about fear of the unknown, but an insurmountable barrier across which there is little discussion. The lack of room for compromise is a breeding ground for extremism and intolerance, at both sides of the spectrum. If scientists were more willing to address the genuinely ethical concerns, would the Intelligent Design argument have been allowed to fester for so long?
Religious fanatics spouting off narrow-minded and distorted views of the world are extremely dangerous, but so are scientists refusing to accept the possibility of a creator. Atheism is perfectly acceptable, but it is important not to fall into the same trap of believing that it is the only viable belief. Ethical concerns are not solely the province of religion and those with or without faith have the right to express their views upon the subject. These views must be reasoned, and well thought out.
Esteemed scientists stating that people who believe in God are idiots, are as intolerant as extremist religious leaders. They are little better than hate-filled preachers, ranting that those who do not subscribe to their restricted view of the world are evil, and deserve death and eternal damnation.
THE POWER OF COMPROMISE
For too long, there has been little overlap between the two fields, and this contributes to extremism. The path surely lies somewhere in the middle, where religious bodies are able to question ethics, without being shouted down. Scientists must be allowed to establish their theories without attacks from those who believe in the literal truth of ancient texts.
The saddest part of the whole affair is that science and religion have not always occupied mutually exclusive fields. The Age of Islam, from the 8th century to the 13th century, saw a period of great scientific advancement, sponsored by the controlling Theocracy. Unfortunately, the aftermath of the schism, and the accusations of blasphemy caused by the theory of evolution and natural selection left scars, which need to be healed. This worked both ways, and great scientists such as George Carver Washington were mocked by the scientific community for holding to their religious beliefs.
The Intelligent Design debate is widening this rift, and religious extremists are striving to maintain distance between science and religion. Despite the view belonging to a vocal minority, the debate is capturing the public consciousness. This masks any constructive dialogue and discussion.
Despite the fringes of science and religion causing difficulties, there are signs that the uneasy co-existence is thawing. Many scientists are happy to proclaim their religious beliefs, and many religious organizations support real science. This is refreshing and will help to plot the course of human progress. Once the course of debate switches, and religions are allowed to air ethical concerns, humanity will be able to improve and develop at an even greater rate.
CommentsLoading...
It can be such a great coming together - why is it seen to be mutually exclusive? Even if there are a few who do not believe in the 'other side', can't we let mutual respect be our guiding light? I think the schism comes from not being able to accept what is different. If only ......
Fair point Tony - the Humanist/Atheist, I must admit, was a bit of a 'cobbled on' afterthought. I was trying to make clear that 'ethics' is not the sole preserve of religion or spirituality.
I always wondered how to describe my beliefs - Whilst researching Benjamin Franklin, I stumbled across a site claiming that he was a deist. Sounds good to me! Fascinating man, worthy of a Hub.
http://www.mrrena.com/2002/savages.shtml
Shalini - Thanks for the insightful comments. Unfortunately, extremists cannot compromise. The rise of the Nazi party came about because of extremist political views, at both ends of the scale. Hopefully, things will not get as bad as that, but it does worry me.
Thank you both for taking the time to comment!
Jeff Goldblum / Jurassic Park
""Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should".
Hi Sufidreamer! Fabulous read!
Compromises around ethical concerns would probably nip in the bud a lot of the rejection that religious and scientific folks have for each other. As you said, however, reaching compromises implies respect for the "opposition", which in the case of extremists –in both ends of the spectrum, is as inexistent as flying pigs.
You touch on stem cell research and genetic manipulation –I think those are good examples of "doing before thinking through" the ethical issues presented by these two fields. Likely, any scientist will defend that a lot of thought was put into both before proceeding, and that's probably true when it comes to the "practical" applications, but I question whether anyone really sat down and contemplated the EXTENT to which these two fields could have an impact for the world. While I support both, for the foreseeable benefits to cure up-to-now incurable diseases, I also shudder a little to think of the wrong doing they can facilitate –unnatural selection of species for example, or, ultimately, a "Gattaca", or a "Brave New World". I'm not saying this is how it'll end up, but I'm saying, science ought to stop and think about the ethical implications, at least.
As I said, excellent read!
You are so right about the existence of religion and science coming together in earlier times. In ancient vedic texts their are numerous references to ayurveda (which is scientific treaty about medicine written by spiritually inclined people). And also as you mentioned the Arabic geographer's and others may have been deeply spiritual but that didn't stop them from expanding the scientific boundaries. But in recent times it has become like a mutually exclusive territory. For example their are some things like reincarnation(which are medically documented and past life regression therapy) which has some possibility but at the same time unable to recreate it on a consistent basis but which have been explained in religious texts. I have met some open religious persons who are open to scientific questions. And I also have seen some scientists who dismiss all para normal behaviors like ghosts, spiritual healing or beliefs like reincarnation existence. I guess it depends on the individual to question their own thinking/assumptions all the time. It also depends how open minded a person is. Not everyone can have all the answers but that shouldn't stop us from asking the right questions all the time.
Thanks for stopping by, Folks!
CWB - I have met many scientists who are brilliant at what they do, but can barely tie their own shoelaces. Common sense can be lacking!
Elena - Thanks for the wonderful response. There are some areas where a wider view needs to be sought. The problem is that scientists perform research, but they are usually not political animals, and can be manipulated by the system. I was taught how to perform experiments and research, but Ethics never came into the equation. It should be part of every science undergraduate degree. I am with you on the stem cell and genetic manipulation - there is no doubt that they can help a lot of people, but somebody is bound to misuse the technology. It is only a matter of time before a billionaire attempts to create a clone - what happens to the 'failed' versions?
Countrywoman - thanks for visiting. As always, your insight is appreciated.
We can be very arrogant in the modern world, and often forget that Ancient People had some brilliant minds in their midst. The universe is a lot stranger than we imagine, and science does not know everything. I have never seen convincing evidence of ghosts, so I do not believe in them. However, I accept that there is a possibility that ghosts may exist, so I keep an open mind!
If there were no mysteries in life, it would be a dull universe.
Well there are many places which if are bold enough then you can visit to find out for yourself..hehe
But seriously their are devices that track these energy fields in those haunted places which indicate the possibility. That's true life wouldn't be the same if we had all the answers Or maybe sometimes even questions....I just wish I knew the question to the answer 42 (Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy)...LOL
Sufidreamer;
Off topic, but I wanted you to know Allshookup is back and thanked you for the well wishes. I know you wanted to be kept up to date. Have a great one!
Sufi, I was looking for you, but VP did a better job! I posted to you on VPs hub. Thanks for everything!! I really appreciate your concern.
Countrywomen - I tried staying in haunted places, but everything was peaceful - perhaps I scared the ghosts away. I am not convinced by the devices, but I know a few reliable people who have seen ghosts, so my mind is open. One of my friends believes he has seen fairies, so there is a whole universe of strangeness out there.
VP - Thanks for stopping by. Even more thanks for bringing good news!
ASU - It sounds like the doctor gave you some dietary advice - I hope that it helps you feel a little better. :)
Thanks Sufi. Much obliged.
Sufi- That's funny if you could scare the ghosts away. Probably you could have a part time gig scaring ghosts from so many haunted places...LOL
Well I guess it also depends on individual experiences. I once had a brief experience when my grandfather who passed away in the morning and in the night I felt him kiss on my forehead as he usually does to me. It is still one of the unexplainable mysteries which before hubpages I have only told to my father who is also a little skeptical of such things.
I wish I could meet a fairy like Cinderala or better still I become "I dream of Genie" myself (now who would be the charming Mr.Nelson for me)..hehe
Hi Sufi was talikng to Countrywomen and thought I would share this Ghost story with you...Great to meet you...Mike :0)
OK, i`m 19 and have decided to go to a town called Kinsale in the south of Ireland for the weekend with some friends...ZZZZZIIIIPPPPP we get there and book into a youth hostel on the outskirts of the town. The youth hostel is about 200 yards from an old English fort built around the 1700 hundreds and the scene of many famous Irish battles with the british.
Well we spent saturday exploring the fort which is located on a cliff over looking the sea. The fort is supposed to be haunted by a white lady who fell from the wall of the fort on the night of her wedding after hearing of the death of her husband,but thats another story and is supposed to be seen walking the ramparts looking for her lost lover.
So sat night we sort of went in over the wall at closing time ( back then life revolved around PUB Closing time) to view the white lady, well it must have been her night off and so disappointed and slightly relieved we went back to the hostel around 12.30 am and retired to the men's dorm and i to the top bunk and the land of nod ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Sometime in the early am 2 0r 3 I woke up and sensed somthing in the dorm . I rubbed my eyes and there standing next to my bunk on my left side was a figure dressed in a British army officers uniform.He looked like he was from the WW1 era . He had dirty white blood stained bandage over his left eye.
I was scared to death and I froze , he did not move just stood there staring right through me like i was not there.Then I did the only thing I could do, stuck my head under the pillow and covered myself with my sleeping bag praying he would go away. And there I stayed until morning and welcome day light.
As I was helping to cook breakfast that morning I asked the Hostel warden if she had ever seen anything unusual in the dorms or building. She told me that she and many others had seen the ghost of a British army officer and described what I had seen. She informed me that the hostel used to be belong to "Charles fort" the fort we had visited and was used to billet officers. For the life of me know I can`t remember if she told me how he died only that we had both seen the same image....
Well there you have it...I thought i was going to see the Ghost of the white lady at the "Charles Fort" and instead had my own personal visitation and I did not forget that in a hurry . I guess you could say it was an Historical weekend to remember!
Ps Great hub!!!
Thanks Michael for sharing that story. I still believe there are many things which science is yet to come up with answers but as long as we are open minded then sooner or later their would be some way we could analyse these things better. I guess it is high time science devoted more time/efforts/resources to paranormal or metaphysical issues instead of focusing on better vehicles or houses for material comforts.
Hi CW - Thanks for dropping by.
Agreed. Science does not know everything, and life would be dull if it did! I have seen many strange and unexplainable things. In the words of Arthur Eddington:
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
I would love to see science directed towards important issues, but the military and corporations have the money. Science is always at the whim of the paymaster, as the Global Warming debate shows. :(
Thanks for the interesting story, Mike.
In an example of HubPage serendipity, I know Kinsale. I worked in Cork for a couple of years, and we used to make weekly deliveries there! Beautiful place.
I am open minded about the existence of ghosts, but have seen nothing to convince me yet. I would like to, though!
HEy all! on the ghost issue..it is my understanding that some see ghosts and such because they are at a particular level of soul understanding in life. It has been said that seeing/sensing other planes of existence is a rung on the ladder toward higher understanding, but that there are various levels of these inner planes. Some more "nice" than others. It is important to know that there are higher planes of existence than others and not to get stuck in any one particualr level...especially the unpleasant ones!
Our physical plane of existence is just one rung of the ladder. recognizing these other levels of "existence" is part of life. If you don't see them, it could mean you have already passed that level; if you do it could mean you have lessons to learn about that level of consciousness.
I have experienced many of these levels in this life; a mystical path has shown me the way to go positively "heavenward" :D
Hi SparklingJewel
Thanks for stopping by.
Interesting idea about the ghosts and soul understanding. There are many things in the universe that we cannot sense. Maybe the various holy people who secrete themselves in the most remote places are somewhere else too.
As you can tell from the name, I do like exploring the mystical fringes of religion.
HI Sufi :0)
Glad you like Kinsale and Cork..Lived there for 15 years..
I am like you that I have to see ,experience and feel to believe without it we would not have a testimony :0)
Later Mike:0)
Hi Mike.
I lived just outside Fermoy for a couple of years. Drinking bucketloads of Murphys and playing Gaelic Football were my two main hobbies!
HI Sufi :O)
In that case you recieved your Masters in Irish Education!!!!!. and now you will be accepted any where :0)
I drank Murphys but could never see the Ball let a lone figure out which side I was on :)
Did you Kiss the Blarney stone?
My Brother Niall went to Greece and true to his Irish nature came back as pale as when he left and drank in all the Irish and English pubs and his diet?? Fish and chips....Boy I would have gone for all the local cusine and come back Black Irish :)))) with lots of greek friends and stories to tell..
Later !!!
Well done, Sufidreamer! I share your stance on the importance of ethical considerations in religion and science and I'm impressed at how eloquently you stated your position. Like TonyMac, I hope for a just and equitable global society, and it angers me when science or religion are used to bring about destruction and divisiveness. I recognize that both can be used as forces for good, if not for their apparent devotion to the almighty dollar rather than the common good.
So how do we bring about a greater focus on ethics and morality? In school, I remember learning about morality as a facet of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but self-actualization and self-transcendence seem to be out of reach for most people on this planet, whose basic needs have not been met, and even those who live a life of comfort are not always inclined to act in ethical ways. If we can learn to truly love ourselves, I think we will develop a natural inclination to treat others with dignity and respect.
Hopefully that's the direction in which we're evolving.
Melissa G - Thanks for dropping by. Your insightful comments are always appreciated. You hit the nail on the head - the dollar seems to be at the root of much of the debate, and my personal hatred is the media. Everything is now so black and white, and that can only lead to polarisation of opinion. If there is no room for compromise, then there is no room for progress. 40% of scientists are religious, and have no problem with that, but nobody cares about the 'middle way.' It does not sell books and newspapers.
I like your second point, too. Most scientists are never taught any ethics, and it can lead to a certain 'over-detachedness.' Psychology is the only notable exception, but that is part of their job. On the other hand, religions teach strict morals, but they rarely teach anybody how to develop their own personal moral code. I am Christian, but I detest dogma, and I do not believe that we are all born sinners.
The world has room for many beliefs - we just need to learn tolerance. I am with you on that one.
Mike - The Gaelic Football was not too bad. I am tall, so my only job was to catch the ball and kick it at the big, white upright thing. Even I could manage that.
Lets us know if you come to Greece - they will get you drunk and you will dance!
Hi Sufi, the comments on here on ghosts etc were as interesting as your hub! And totally in line with the mysteriousness of the universe. And this compromise you mention -even religion will benefit from greater tolerance I mean religious texts are deeper than we imagine and don't necessarily mean they conflict with science even though they may *seem* too sometimes.
Thanks for stopping by, Lifebydesign.
The comments are always half of the fun! Wandering off topic often leads to many interesting places.
Nothing against religious texts - there is great wisdom contained within, and they often serve as a great moral guide. I believe that science needs to realise that there are things that it cannot answer. There are also certain things that religion cannot answer. If they stick to what they know, then they can concentrate upon working together in areas where there is a common interest.
Sure, I agree. I only pointed out religion as most of what you mentioned seemed geared more towards the science side - but that might have been the way I read it.
lol - You read it right. I studied science, and am co-writing a site about scientific methods, so do come from that angle a lot more. Whilst I love reading about religion and spirituality, I am far from being a theologist, so can only make general observations about religion.
The fact that many of the texts are so deep is probably why I tend to skirt around the issue a little!
Very insightful hub, Sufi, including the added bonus of a true ghost story! But back to the main subject. It makes no sense that religiosos and scientists can't/won't openly acknowledge that on many levels we're all in this together and behave accordingly. As you pointed out, not so long ago theologians supported and advanced the cause of science. A return to that attitude would be a refreshing change!
Hi JamaGenee.
It is a sad state of affairs - I think that the main problem is that philosophy is woefully neglected in most educational systems. If a theologian insists upon using nothing but scripture to back up an argument, then there is little chance of a scientist understanding. Likewise, a scientist using jargon and equations is just as incomprehensible to most. Philosophy used to be the common language, spoken by all, but very few modern people study even the basics.
Maybe I am being overly cynical, but it seems that the establishment does not want people to develop independent thought - free thinking is dangerous to governments.
Great hub Sufi! It's always best to be informed scientifically about matters to enable substantive reasoning.
Thanks for visiting, WR - always a pleasure.
Like you, I am a great believer in science, as a way of investingating 'how' things work. Spirituality and religion have always sought to question 'Why.' I hate it when a reasonable debate becomes muddied by scripture, adding nothing. Equally, and I have worked with many, scientists can be a little arrogant and assume that they can answer anything.
After reading your Hubs, you appear to be of a philosophical persuasion, all too rare nowadays, and the key to bridging the divide. I studied science for many years, and received about three hours of lessons about the philosophy of science - that is not good enough.
Hi Surfi, great Hub. Very informative and to the point! Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for dropping by, jxb7076
Happy that you enjoyed the Hub - I enjoyed writing it!.
Sufi, yes, I'm pretty philosophical because I have an inquiring mind and I want all the answers, though I'm certain I'll never receive them. It's always good to be well-rounded and harness in all points of view which is why I believe in having a lot of prerequisite classes in college. It's so easy to get stuck in one point of view without being exposed to different points of view. I guess philosophy bridges the divide because it contains theoretical elements like religion and scientiful elements like science. So it recognizes both points of view.
Looks like science has become the new religion. Maybe ethics will supplant science as the new religion...? Who knows? I'm all for The Middle Path of Balance to keep our heads straightened on tight. Great hub perfect for the blogging hall of goodies so you can reach new readers, thanks!
Oh, not to worry, you will never be out of a job. You can add to your resume: Ghost Buster! :)
Hi Denny - thanks for dropping in!
Feel free to add links to any blogs you have - I know that you are not a spammer!
I tend to take the middle path myself - extremism of any type is dangerous, and prevents compromise. There have always been religious extremists, but the new breed of scientific extremist is just as dangerous. As for politicians.....
Ghost Busting sounds great - I loved that movie!
This point you make, (and very nicely, I might add) shows up couple pf things.
!) Man cannot be trusted to do (ultimate good), because of the wickedness of the "heart", (and I generalize--all mankind is stained by sin, and imperfect), therefore moral relativism will assure that some will be unhappy with whatever course is taken,
2) ID, is not so far fetched, when a "real, viable" alternative is not any better. IE, theory of origins. I see no conflict with ID, and science because, the One who "created" the known ( and unknown) universe, and all it's contents, ALSO, "created", or set in place, all the laws that science is investigating, and ultimately explaining. And as you said, these developments have changed the course of humanity.
3) Science, originally was started with the approaching premise that God made everything, so let's have a look at it (creation) and see what we can learn about Him, and His nature, and character. It was in the course of time that this approach changed to what has become antagonistic to the original intent.
Thanks for dropping by, aka-dj - always a pleasure. Off to bed now (the joys of different timezones), but will reply to your excellent points in the morning.
Writer Rider - Just realised that I did not reply to your last coment. Sorry about that oversight, and I will strive to correct my error in the morning!
Hi aka-dj - Thanks for the kind words. Once again, it shows that there is a lot of common ground between two people on oposite sides of the 'fence.'
1) Good point - I do not believe in sin, preferring the idea that 'evil is the absence of good,' but I cannot argue with the rest of the idea . There are so many grey areas that sometimes a consensus is the only way. Extremism is always the danger, and that certainly cuts both ways - GM crops, cloning, stem cell research are a few of the areas where dialogue is needed. Scientists have to listen to other points of view.
2) No worries - it depends upon the definition of ID. I do not subscribe to the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago. I firmly believe that life evolved from simple organisms (note, I did say believe!).
'How' life was created (abiogenesis) is a different matter, and there is no convincing theory - ID stating that a 'creator' set the wheels in motion is a perfectly valid idea. Maybe an 'Intelligent Programmer' rather than 'Intelligent Designer' - make the rules and see what happens.
3) No argument here - most of the great scientists and philosophers were also religious, believing that they were uncovering the rules of the divine. I know a particle physicist, and he freely admits that he has no idea what happened before the Big Bang! If you have a chance, look up Leibniz's Monad theory - very interesting, although it relies upon pre-destination. Mathematics and philosophy are the two universal languages, and he spoke both.
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leib
Writer Rider - That is an admirable belief. The education system, in England (Scotland is better), narrows down past the age of 16, and you become a scientist, linguist or economist etc too quickly. There should always be room for a 'hobby' subject or two alongside your speciality - I would have loved to study ancient history alongside science. Going back to your other thread, that is where the flexibility ends.
I read that link. Found it fascinating! He actually arrives at similar conclusions that I hold, as coming from the teachings of the Bible. The Eternal God, Who is perfection beyond perfection. The One Who is ULTIMATE Good. Etc.
I particularly like the conclusion, where he states that "no good act misses out on reward, and no sin goes unpunished"! I love that!. That's the "good news" (or Gospel). Sin is punishable by death, (BUT Jesus took that punishment) so we can receive (God's) reward instead!! :)
I thought that you might like Leibniz - a great mathematician as well as a superb philosopher. Whilst I have trouble following advanced maths, I love the history of how it developed, and it was intertwined with theology for a long time.
I see science in the same way, as uncovering the laws of the universe. Whether there is a creator or not is a philosophical debate, and makes life interesting. Ethics cannot be answered by science either, so theology and philosophy must provide the roadmap.
This is a field I'm interested in (and have written a fair bit about). If you take the view that Science is pursuit of knowledge by the Scientific method of falsifiable hypotheses, then can you say that some knowledge should not be sought? I agree that some experiments and tests should not be carried out (for ethical reasons) but the knowledge itself is neutral. I suspect that Ethics applies to Scientifiic work (experimentation) and to Applied Science (Technology). but not to Science itself.
Thanks for stopping by, Paraglider.
I see what you are saying - that science is merely a tool, and unable to be defined by abstract ideas of good and evil. I agree totally - every area of knowledge should be explored - it is the method used to get there that is the problem.
Topically enough, I watched the news story about Aribert Heim today - I remember a debate, at school, about whether the knowledge gained from Nazi medical experiments should be used by doctors or not. As you pointed out, the knowledge itself was not evil, but the methods used were.
For a short hub, it is difficult to find any other term to describe the entire field of scientific endeavour, so I used the term 'science', in the populist sense. I am slowly growing more Feyerabendian in outlook, as you may have guessed already.
Thanks for the input and for clearing that up!
"The sole reason for this attack [those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII] was to allow the US military to study the effects of radiation sickness over a period of time."
While this was certainly an intended consequence, I think tere is a more direct military/political motive that better explains the why behind bombing an enemy already brought to its knees. The Soviets, freed of the necessity of pouring resources against Germany, were shifting gears toward a full invasion of China, in the name of ousting the Japanese there. The Soviets intended to do exactly as they did with the East European countries that came under their control after fighting Germany; make China a Soviet satellite. The Soviets, at the time of the bombing had already taken Manchuria. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the Japanese to unconditional surrender and undermined the Soviet justification for invading China, as well as freeing all of the Western Allies' militaries to respond if necessary to continued Soviet aggression in China.
Stalin knew from his spies that the US had the technology and the bomb; but after the US dropped the second one, Stalin could not be sure how many the US possessed. The Japanese experiment was also an exhibition, intended to dissuade the Soviets in Asia and it worked.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Iconoclast.
Guilty as charged - I have edited the sentence. You are correct - the whole incident was a lot more complex than a medical experiment, although that was part of the reason. Fear of communism was already rearing its head, and the whole chain of dominoes started to fall.
The speed that the German rocket scientists were taken to the US, Russia and Britain shows some of the paranoia of the time. This part of the world went through a very bitter civil war after WWII, and almost became part of the Eastern European Bloc. The aftermath of the war was as brutal as the war itself :(
Its was o.k hub
Thanks, hawkurus. Its was o.k comment
Having thought about this for a while, I've decided that there are three forces at work ... "Scientific Investigation", "Theology", and "Politics".
"Scientific Investigation" is using the scientific method to explore and discover "how things work". "Theology" is using philosophy and various spiritual means to explore and discover the nature of "God".
"Politics" is the art of getting other people to do what you want often to their own detriment.
"Religion" = "Theology + Politics".
"Science" = "Investigation + Politics".
Politicians use "Science" and "Religion" as weapons in their war to gain and/or maintain power.
Real scientists and real theologians are seeking truth. It's the politics that screw it all up.
Hey, BDazzler - always a pleasure when you drop by and share your wisdom.
I am pretty much in agreement, especially if you add 'Big Business' to politics (They certainly share the same bed!)
Looking at the shambles surrounding Cap and Trade, for example, shows how politics screws things up. I am a committed environmentalist, but I wash my hands of that sorry mess. Somebody is using science to make a buck, and it ain't us.
As a religious example, I read the forum thread today about religious tolerance. As I mentioned there, talking religion (as opposed to theology) in Greece is frowned upon. The fascist regime used 'Christian Morality' as their excuse for oppression, so Greeks are very touchy about religion, even though it is a Christian country.
From my experience, genuine scientists and genuine theologians get along famously. Sadly, entrenched dogma, on both sides, gets in the way - politics, big business, and the media just love to promote divisions, rather than build bridges. As you said, so succinctly, it is about maintaining power :(
Yeah, I think "Big Business" is just the "politics" painting on a different canvas.
The problem with both politics and big business is the bureaucracy.
Solomon observed this in his own kingdom (and he was the king!) in Ecclesiastes 5:8: If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be shocked at the sight; for one official watches over another official, and there are higher officials over them.
Wisest dude on earth couldn't fix it. Watcha gonna do?
I could go with that - bureaucracy does have a lot to answer for. Sadly, I worked for corporations, and they are just as top heavy and full of inertia as government. I can imagine that organised religions are much the same.
If Soloman couldn't fix it, not sure what we can do. Drink more Ouzo?
You drink Ouzo ... I'll have a shot of 18 year old Glenfidich and a cigar. We'll sit around next to the camp fire and bitch and moan about bureaucracy!
Speaking of science and religion, did you see that I wrote a follow up hub on the shroud? ( I promised you I would something like a year ago!)
I wouldn't say no to a bottle of 18 year old and a Cuban cigar :D I love a nice single malt - the legacy of living in Scotland for a few years.
I am pretty sure that the downfall of civilisation will be those automated phone menu things, the ones that just send you around in circles when all you want to do is pay a bill. I wonder if the Romans had such a system.
Just going to dash over to your shroud Hub - I love that stuff. :D
If you want to buy a gladius push I. If you want to report your toga missing push II. To speak with a prelate push III. To hear this menu again Push IV.
hehe - that sounds about right. What I don't understand is that whatever choice you press, you always end up speaking to the same person. They probably just hope that you will get bored and go away :(
I agree with your view that dogma was stumping progress which lead to the schism. It is as if religion, having held power all throughout the Dark Ages, refuses to give up its influence. One of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" situations. When Renaissance came along, one must have a "revolution" and as a result, the chokehold religion had on society was broken.
However, I disagree about evolution vs. God is actually an issue. It was INVENTED by atheists, who took the name "Darwinism", to further atheist views. Darwin himself was a religious man, and had his name hijacked for something he did not believe in.
Furthermore, it is possible to reconcile both Evolution and God's omnipresence, by simply accepting that God had set up the system to allow the process we call evolution. He had setup a system where the inhabitants can continue to adapt and "evolve" without his constant attention. God may have no hand in the process of evolution Himself, but He CREATED the process and system/environment.
Or for a modern analogy, it's the difference between the system administrator, and the operating system engineer. Who is more powerful: sysadmin, who manages everything, or OS engineer, who actually created the system that sysadmin works on? Creationists insist that God is sysadmin, while "Darwinists" insist that there is no sysadmin, and all users are just users. Why not accept that someone must have created the system to start with, and THAT may be God?
The problem with assuming the existence of God in "pure" science is it may skew the test results, as that is a prejudice. It creates mental blindspots. As long as one is aware of such blindspots things would work fine, but often one's prejudice may skew the research in unforeseen ways.
Good article and objectively written... thanks
Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict. People adhering to fundamentalist interpretations of ancient texts, however, will have a problem with some scientific conclusions. As a history professor, the main thing that I see is how little things have changed over the course of the last several decades. Fundamentalism is as alive and well today as it was during the time of The Scopes Trial. For whatever reason, American culture in general has a long tradition of anti-intellectualism, and therefore hostility toward science.
This is a great hub with a great message. The integration of ethics, from whatever source, and Science would benefit everyone. Now, if we could integrate ethics and politics.....
Thanks for writing this.
Virtue is grounded in reason. We don't live accordingly because we don't see the connection.
I agree with idea that we can reconcile sicence and religion,they're not necessarily and always in conflict. Some ethics should be good for everyone.All these rotten so-called "scientists" and "doctors" can go to HELL for "experiments" they usually do on animals and humans. No morality exists for such people. If anything is interesting and needs explanation, let's inquire, no matter what cost, we don't give #&*^ about anyone and anything, we have right to do this. All modern scientists and dostors act God and consider they're allowed to do everything what they want and make real all their twisted projects. And then, make fun of and look down upon everything that doesn't fit in their "knowledge" ,for example, traditional herbal medicine, natural childbirth, homeopathy and etc. I'm sick of all these constant new "studies" and blabla,,,new study says..., new study revealed...... Why don't we talk about evils and crimes of science???? modern society seems to have blind faith in science, and scienstists take too much responsibility on themselves, like medieval society was blinded by twisted and artificial religious dogmas. I'm a christian and I accept honest,that fanatical people have done numerous crimes too,(Crusades,witch burnings,Inquisition).. But science workers aren't angels either now!!!!!! I'm not against science,please understand.. not at all, but I just condemn and blame that selfish desire of growing one's knowledge by abusing others' bodies.I repeat,ethics should be introduced and some rules must exist to prevent researchers to harm any living creature.
kschang is wrong when he says Darwin was a religious man. Darwin was openly agnostic.
Most scientists do think a lot about the ethics of what they do. They have to make a cost/benefit analysis. One problem is that the media typically resorts to sensationalism when covering science, so it probably isn't surprising that many scientists aren't too enthusiatic about discussing their work publicly. The Hadron Collider is an example of this. The media focused mostly on the sensational and highly unlikely end of the world story and less on what the scientists were trying to achieve and any potential benefits of the research. It is hard to discuss science and ethics when we have so much irresponsible science reporting in the mainstream media. The media is the bridge between the scientists and the public. They need to take their job more seriously and stop all the sensationalism.
The most important thing is we have to believe. that the supernatural exists. Indonesia is a good place to learn about the divine and the supernatural. not a secret that in Indonesia have a source of knowledge. on national television every day they broadcast it. It's not a scary thing.
when you come to Indonesia. then it will open your minds. that the unseen world exists
its me. www.facebook.com/rokurobanne
Links
- The Eccentric Englishman - Life in the Taygetos Mountains
The area surrounding the Taygetos Mountains is one of the most beautiful places in Europe. Rich in historical and natural wonders, this fascinating corner of Greece is relatively unknown by the outside world. - Scientific Method - A Research Guide About Experiments and Science
A guide explaining different terms and concepts of the scientific method. Helping you understand what research is all about. - Amethyst Freelance Writing
Amethyst design offers a complete graphic design and freelance writing service. Our author is a native English speaker with many years of experience of writing in a variety of styles.
tonymac04 3 years ago
Thanks for a great Hub. I still have trouble with the concept of religion, and I'm not sure that it helpsto lump humanists and atheists together in the religion basket. I would see myself not as religious but as a searcher who acknowledges the reality of the spiritual. My searching is to do with ethics and understanding, and I guess I am humanist in seeing people and their well-being as the core of ethics - which means that anything which impinges on the well-being of people must be brought into the ethical debate. Anything which denies human dignity (and I'm glad you mentioned those despicable experiments in your Hub), is, in my humble view, unethical. So violence, war, racism, elitism, capitalism and any creed or philosophy which preaches exclusivism is unethical also.
Deep thoughts prompted by your excellent Hub. Thanks again.
Love and peace
Tony