Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
What would our forebears have made of test-tube babies, microwave ovens, organ transplants, CCTV and iPhones? Could they have believed that one day people might jet to another continent for a weekend break, meet their future spouse on the internet, have their genome sequenced and live to a private soundtrack from an MP3 player? Science and technology have changed our world dramatically, and, for the most part, we take them in our stride. Nevertheless, there are certain innovations that many people find unpalatable.
Leaving aside special-interest attitudes such as the fundamentalist Christian denial of evolution, many controversies over scientific advances are based on ethical concerns. In the past, the main areas of contention have included nuclear weapons, eugenics and experiments on animals, but in recent years the list of “immoral” research areas has grown exponentially. In particular, reproductive biology and medicine have become ripe for moral outrage: think cloning, designer babies, stem-cell research, human-animal hybrids, and so on. Other troublesome areas include nanotechnology, synthetic biology, genomics and genetically modified organisms or so-called “Frankenfoods”.
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy. That, however, is an abdication of responsibility. Some moral reactions are irrational, but if scientists are serious about tackling them – and the bad decisions, harm, suffering and barriers to progress that flow from them – they need to understand a little more and condemn a little less…
I left Jones’ Headline alone. It’s could be construed as opportunism, deliberately leading discussion to the sensational and uninformed – excused as “inviting comment”.
As societies become more scientifically literate, scientific developments may well be judged more from a position of knowledge and less on the basis of intuitive responses driven by moral heuristics. However, there is another serious obstacle to the rational approach: our emotions, and especially the most morally loaded of emotions, disgust. In the wake of the creation of Dolly the cloned sheep, bioethicist Leon Kass of the University of Chicago argued that the visceral feeling which many people have in response to the most contentious scientific advances embodies a kind of wisdom that is beyond the power of reason to articulate. Many people are guided by this supposed “wisdom of repugnance”.
Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, is not one of them. He has coined the more disparaging term “yuk response” to describe this reaction, and believes we should challenge the idea that repugnance is a reliable moral guide and the ultimate arbiter. “You begin the process by questioning the validity of the yuk response, calling it into doubt and pointing out that the yuk meter may be untrustworthy,” says Caplan. Then it becomes possible to start exploring the reasons and justifications for people’s initial intuitions of right or wrong, and see how they stand up to scrutiny.
Most of what Jones describes is cultural and parochial, of course. How shall I oversimplify? If I included an illustrative photo at this point of a nubile, bare-breasted young woman, our religious brethren would reel back, aghast. Slightly less hypocritical Western males would leer – and hope ther wives and fellow workers didn’t see them looking. Much of the rest of the world – from Euro sophisticates to Oceania – would admire her beauty. In Japan there wouldn’t be a peep even if she was barely into puberty.
Found by KD Martin at Cage Match
#76 – Scottie
>>All possibilities equally?
Of course. I find it a very limited life for those who dismiss ideas out of hand because they don’t like them, or they’re afraid of them, or their elders in The Church have dismissed them.
That doesn’t mean that I continue to believe every proposition that has been put forth, for all eternity.
>>Wicca worships a god and goddess.
The pre-eminent diety of Wicca is the Goddess, earth. Some forms of Wicca (Dianic Wicca), do not worship a god at all. Only the Goddess. In any case, I stand by my statement to Bobo that we have already formed a religion “that worships mother earth”. Whether or not the planet meets your “must fuck to qualify” criterion is somewhat iirrelevant.
#80 – Scottie
>>Unlike the religious who assert that the
>>bible contains the full knowledge of
>>everything and are unwilling to ask even the
>>most fundamental questions
Master Logician Bobbo would tell you that this is what’s known as a “straw man argument”, in his trade.
Life is about doubt. Religion suckers us into the belief of certainty.
#66, Shubee
What “Creator?” Your philosophical babbling about large rocks is so impressive. Perhaps you should learn some science, but since you obviously believe in fairy tales, I doubt that will ever happen.
Misanthropic Scott has it correct in his post #57. The universe itself, by definition, may indeed be a black hole, since there is nothing detectable beyond or before it.
#75
> Personally, I actually
> do think humans lived
> better as hunters and gatherers.
Certainly quality of life was worse. Infant mortality was high. Death by a host of causes was high including famine and disease. On top of that, war was far more common. I think you are counting the hits and not the misses.
#90
You obviously fell for Misanthropic Scott’s trap. You cannot treat all possibilities equally and then dismiss certain deities such as Zeus over the Judeo-Christian deity. The moment you decide to discriminate against certain ideas presumably because of lack of evidence, you must make consistent your means to determine what is is evidence and further what is sufficient evidence to warrant acceptance. There is no combination of solutions for these that supports the Judeo-Christian mythology that does not create an obvious bias or incongruity in your logic against the other possibilities.
It amazes me how an article (and quite a good one) on science being out of control can disintegrate into a discussion of religion and whether or not the universe has morals. But Hey! This IS jcdvorak dot org slash blog (spelling intentional to thwart orange tag).
As a professional astronomer for some 30 years, the universe never ceases to provide new questions for me.
M. Scott, Mr. Mustard, Mr. Fusion and bobbo, thanks for sharing the excitement. Shameless plug: There’s usually some good astronomy stuff at the Cage Match.
#96 – Thomas
So, sue me.
If I should ever take it into mind to force the teaching of Creationism to schoolchildren, or criminalize stem cell research, or interfere with women’s reproductive rights, you may rest assured that I will bring all required consistency to the table.
Until that time, I’m free to do as I choose. And although I may not have a God-given right to do so, it would be most excellent if I could exercise my religious freedoms WITHOUT constant badgering from the self-appointed prelates of the Church of Atheism. I don’t force my religious beliefs on them; if they would return the favor, it would be mighty Christian of them.
#97 – Mr. Ray
>>spelling intentional to thwart orange tag
Haw! Good one! As ‘dro would say “mataste dos pájaros con una sola piedra”.
You astronomers are so creative!
It looks like this article confirms the obvious: I’m not the God, just a god.
# 94 BubbaRay wrote:
What “Creator?”
The One you hypothesized to exist in a pathetic attempt at a proof by contradiction in post #65.
Perhaps you should learn some science, but since you obviously believe in fairy tales, I doubt that will ever happen.
Grow up. You remind me of the time an upperclassman tried to demonstrate his intellectual superiority over me by asking, “What’s A + B”? I was in the first grade and this older kid obviously thought that he was smarter because someone gave him a superficial explanation of algebra. I thought, ‘what a stupid question.’ “A + B = A + B.” He said “No.” “A + B = C”. I thought, “What an idiot!”
The universe itself, by definition, may indeed be a black hole, since there is nothing detectable beyond or before it.
You obviously don’t know the first thing about general relativity.
#102
Been there. Done that. Keep that imagination, you’ll need it.
I understand general and special relativity. Show me your PhD in math, we’ll talk about it. Jeez, I was even crazy enough to write 5 actuarial exams, so we’ll discuss probability and statistics, too. Don’t screw with a math major or astronomer, little boy.
Sorry BubbaRay. You obviously don’t understand general relativity. You gave that away by your ridiculous comparison of the universe with black holes.
#90 Mustard
Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.
#104, BubbaRay is correct, the Universe can be or IS a black hole. There is nothing beyond the horizon, no information, energy (including light) or matter can escape, thus by definition, the Universe is a black hole.
Thanks, M. Scott for reminding me.
Hey genius, go argue with Stephen Hawking.
#105 – Cubie
>>Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.
You consider me to be an evangelistic theist? I guess you haven’t been reading anything I’ve posted, hm? Otherwise, you would never utter such an absurdity.
Gosh, seems like to stop a thread now, that famous German Hereditary Scientific Theorist’s name need not be posted. All thats needed is for Scott to free up some time and find the right thread–meaning well done Scott. I thought your posts were dispositive on every issue you addressed.
Yet as when calling our the Fuhrer’s name, the discussion continues.
Shubee–the problem with your nonsense that you might take some time to recognize and correct is that your comments are devoid of meaning. They are slogans, not analysis. In everything you say, you can substitute atheist with religious and vice versa to the same invalid/nonsensical conclusions. Not clever at all.
Scott: First I have heard of our universe being a black hole. Its definitional isn’t it? I’m not a physicist or any kind of scientist, but it seems to me you caught some part of the event horizon issue. I guess we will never know what is “inside” a black hole, but I thought it was highly compressed matter–not a bunch of retards arguing about religion? Only god knows I guess.
Mustard, you’re evangelical, opinionated, and belligerent. If you want to be religious, that’s your own business. 😉
Being ashamed as I am to be one of Mustards antagonists over too many threads, he is NOT EVANGELICAL.
Opinionated, belligerent, vulgar, dismissive, repetitive (who with more than 5 posts is not?)==but not evangelical.
No doubt he is saving that one remaining step into insanity for his swan song.
# 108 bobbo said,
Shubee–the problem with your nonsense that you might take some time to recognize and correct is that your comments are devoid of meaning. They are slogans, not analysis. In everything you say, you can substitute atheist with religious and vice versa to the same invalid/nonsensical conclusions.
What you don’t realize is that atheism is a religion.
“If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one.” — Bertrand Russell.
“Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which may be present. [Atheism], for example, would be a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified.” — H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1969.
#111 – Shubee
>>What you don’t realize is that atheism
>>is a religion.
Haw! Now you’ve gone and done it! Stirred up the hornet’s nest of the militant believers in non-belief!!
#111–Shubee==well done. Now just resist the impulse to return to easy, old, shabby ways of thinking.
What you don’t realize is that everything is definitional. As will be true 99.99etc% of the time, better minds than all of us here have already explored this terrain. Atheism is already bifurcated into “Hard” and “Soft”. Atheism as a religion is the Hard kind. Soft kind does not have enough attributes to make it a religion.
What you, Mustard, and most other zealots of all sorts, religious/political/diet etc fall into is thinking simplistic in either/or, all or none, polar thinking without any contemplation of the greater middle ground.
Whats especially amusing on “atheism as religion” is that it is usually irrelevant to the topic actually being discussed. Instead, the vacuous minded, those that use slogans instead of a dialectic for thought, issue that statement and assume they have “won” whatever argument is ongoing. In fact, they (you/Mustard) have only shown themselves to be completely irrelevant==like god in a physical universe of cause and effect.
#104, Shubee,
Sorry BubbaRay. You obviously don’t understand general relativity. You gave that away by your ridiculous comparison of the universe with black holes.
Mr. Bubba Ray is a very genial man. I concede he is miles more intelligent than I and almost everyone else here. When you decide to accuse someone that is a professional in his field he doesn’t know what he is talking about, you only show your ignorance.
I grant BubbaRay’s opinions with the same light I give anyone with a thought out opinion. But I do stop when it gets to the science part.Shubee, do yourself a favor and don’t try telling someone that they don’t know their business.
#114–Fusion==I disagree. There are no gods==celestial or professionals within their core expertise. Everyone benefits when anyone/idea is challenged.
I think your criticism would be valid if you would simply highlight that Shubee made no challenge at all. He just mindlessly shit in the punchbowl and walked away proudly.
No–criticism, distinct from mindless negativity, has to state an opposing view and the logic behind it, or show the error in logic offered as opposed to mere disagreement with nothing more.
No one deserves (or benefits) from a free pass.
#113 – Bobbolina
>>What you, Mustard, and most other zealots
>>of all sorts
Tee hee! You take yourself waaaaaaaay too seriously. I was only fuckin’ wid ya, and you jumped right on the bait, jaws a-snappin’. “What?? Me?? Religious because I’m an Atheist?? Why, that’s simply absurd!! I believe in Atheism, and I will never yield until you believe in it as fervently as I do!!“.
Tee hee, giggle giggle.
#116–Mustard==not even close to what I said. Better stick to jabbing loser and Paddy.
#117 – Bobo
>>==not even close to what I said.
No, of course not. Your fetish for Atheism is the love that dare not speak its name.
It’s what you THOUGHT, though. Deep in your heart of hearts.
#118—hahahah Musty==you post only to demonstrate just what I criticized you for. No. I meant just what I posted. When I read you and shubee thinking you are making some important point by posting that “Atheism is a Religion” I do have a cascade of thoughts from
1. Stupid
2. Read a Dictionary
3. Religious Dogma/Non Think in Action
and then usually conclude with:
irrelevant.
If you want to learn about the universe around you, do you use science or religion? God is irrelevant to the natural universe. If Atheism was my religion, how would that affect the pragmatism of what I posted?
#119 – Bobo
>>hahahah Musty
I’m glad you can laugh about it, Bobo. Perhaps you’re learning to take yourself less seriously, emitting a bittersweet giggle when you’re embarrassed. Good for you!
Stop getting so upset by people posting the self-evident truism that Atheist evangelism, just like Pentacostal evangelism, is a religion through and through. It will be good for your sense of self-worth.
As to what I turn to, when, it depends. If I want my car fixed, I turn to a mechanic. If I have a toothache, I turn to a dentist. If I have an currently incurable disease, perhaps I turn to stem cell research. If I want to know about the magic of the heavens (secular sense), I turn to Mr. Ray.
When I seek answers to questions that cannot be punched up on the pocket calculator, I must go deeper than that.
You take your “everything is definitional” mantra a little bit too far, I think. You define “religion” as Ted Haggard taking it up the ass from a male prostitute after smoking a pipeful of crystal meth, and then seek to belittle it. Not even close – nevermind about the cigar.
Mustard==you can’t “go deeper” into anything using religion. It may give you comfort but so could closing your eyes and deep breathing.
Its definitional==as all things are. What does anything “mean?” Things mean what meaning we hoomans give them–ie, their definition.
Completely a tautology as all formal proofs are. “If”/”Then”. Talking to god can give you comfort as can reading goat entrails. One is as deep as the other, and just as valid.