Posts by seattleniceguy

43

The Dangers and Morality of Science

by Big Dog in

with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.

now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .

"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.

seattleniceguy

Sorry to take so long to reply, BD.

You're right, there are certain technologies that are dangerous in the hands of the wrong people, and those should be controlled. But this isn't really something new. For example, humans have known how to create missiles for some time. But we generally agree that citizens should not be able to purchase missiles. So the technology is controlled.

Every technology is going to have "good" and "bad" uses (as before, "good" and "bad" depend on the circumstances). If we want to solve diseases, we're going to learn how it all works, which will involve experimentation on genes of viruses and bacteria. Certainly, that opens up the possibility that someone could use this information for destructive purposes, and we will need to be on the watch for that. But it also helps millions of people who suffer from all manner of disease on a daily basis.

In regard to your question about whether it is worth it, I would unhesitatingly answer yes. The vast majority of people in advanced countries live lives that people 100 years ago wouldn't even dare to dream. Most of us work 40 hours a week, enjoying weekends and vacations to ourselves. We are far healthier, our infant mortality rate is far lower, and for the most part we are warm and well-fed. The parts of the world still afflicted by poverty are actually shrinking, even though their population continues to grow. (See the September 2005 special issue of Scientific American ("Crossroads for Planet Earth") for a great overview of where we stand on the big problems - things are getting better in a big way.)

So yes, scientific advancement brings its own set of ethical questions, and technology sometimes needs to be controlled for the good of the society (although this is a political question). But scientific knowledge is helping us all live richer and better lives.

SNG

Addendum: Here's a sidebar from the issue of SciAm I mentioned:

alt

43

The Dangers and Morality of Science

by Big Dog in

with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.

now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .

"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.

seattleniceguy

But do you think there are places we shouldn't go with science? Things that don't need to be tampered with or are too dangerous or raise too many ethical questions?

My basic answer to whether there are things that we should not discover is, no. We should not be afraid of knowledge. And trying to prevent something from being discovered by someone else is a futile endeavor.

However, that being said, there are many things that we would like to know but presently there is no ethical way to discover them. There are all sorts of questions that could be easily answered at the cost of a few human lives in an experiment. For example, in linguistics there is the question of whether a totally language-less group of humans would spontaneously create language without any other input. There is some evidence that suggests they would, but in order to find out for sure, we would have to raise a group of children in a totally language-less environment and then leave them there to reproduce for a few generations and see how the population was doing in 50 or 100 years. Clearly, this is ethically totally unacceptable. So we'll have to be content not knowing the answer for sure. Therefore, scientists must adhere to a strong code of ethics when determining how they will perform experiments. Critically, note that we are limiting the methods of learning, not the subject matter.

Generally speaking, I think that the pursuit of knowledge should not - and in most cases cannot - be limited. However, ethics are required in deteriming the methodology of the science, and in the application of the new knowledge.

SNG

43

The Dangers and Morality of Science

by Big Dog in

with all the discussion here about the dangers of religion, its morality issues, and so on i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion (especially given the large population of science oriented folks on this board) where we discuss the same issues with respect to science.

now this is not meant to be some i want to go back to the dark ages thread, but more so that recognition that there are moral, ethical, and hell survival issues with science that need to be addressed.. michael crichton as most know is both a famous author and an extremely bright individual who attended harvard medical school, in his novel jurrassic park he raised some issues with science and its dangers: .

"jurassic park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also science in general.

seattleniceguy

Hello Big Dog,

Science does not have morality. Humans have morality.

To understand this, consider that the word "science" is interchangeable with the word "knowledge." Science is merely a method for increasing our knowledge of the natural world.

Increased knowledge always necessitates increased responsibility, whether that knowledge is scientific or otherwise.

For every new discovery, there are immediately new applications both "bad" and "good" available. I enclose those in quotation marks because they are subjective decisions made by humans. For example, when humans learned to create fire on demand, they had new knowledge, a new technology, at their disposal. Was this knowledge inherently "good" or "bad"? No, of course not. Could it be used for both constructive and destructive purposes? Sure. You could warm your family with it or burn down the neighboring village. The knowledge does nothing of its own accord. Humans must consider the new knowledge and carefully decide how they will use it.

With regard to tools such as the atomic bomb or genetic engineering, it is not "science" that uses or misuses these things. Science is the method that discovered what would happen if we split atoms, but science did not dictate that knowledge being implemented into destructive technology. That was a political decision. It could never have happened without a nation standing behind the decision, pouring money and effort into it. Science did not accomplish this - the United States of America did (and several other countries since).

Similarly, as we enter the new frontier of genetic engineering, science presents us with new possibilities, new knowledge. Going forward, it will be our responsibility as ever more knowledgeable humans to make decisions about how to use what we know. Rather than stand back helplessly and decry the march of science, we must become actively involved citizens who are a part of the discussion about how to proceed with the new knowledge. Morality and ethics are necessarily human - not scientific - concepts.

SNG

38

Name one thing.....................................

by defd in

jw
friends

.

you like about one person here.

d.

seattleniceguy

Aw geez, I also have to give kudos to a few others of my favorite folks:

Leolaia: For blowing my away with the level of her research on a topic (the Bible) that I normally have no interest in whatsoever. For some reason it's interesting when she writes about it. I have definitely gleaned more relevant info about the Bible in the tens of posts of hers I have read than in the years of attending the KH.

peacefulpete: For posts that give me serious cause for contemplation and insight. Awesome.

funkyderek and rem (shared award): For mind-altering clarity of thought and illustration. When I first came to this board, my mind felt like a rusty tool compared to these guys. I hope I've learned a few things since then.

Midget-Sasquatch and tetrapod.sapien (shared award - and please forgive the many others I have missed in this category): For their contributions and support to me during my evolution series, and their generally interesting posts on matters scientific.

Of course, there are many illustrious others that should appear here, but I guess these are some of my personal heroes on the board.

SNG

38

Name one thing.....................................

by defd in

jw
friends

.

you like about one person here.

d.

seattleniceguy

At the risk of sounding totally reciprocal with AlmostAtheist, I think he brings to the table an awesome ability to be gracious and accomodating, yet sharp and logical, in his posts.

Also, I really like billygoat's avatar.

SNG

105

How do you defend your god's inaction?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

this is a question for those that believe in a god or gods, particularly those described as "all knowing" or "almighty".. how do you defend to yourself that your god has not in any modern situation saved his people from anything?.

people of all faiths are regularly killed by various natural elements.

of course, if you knew such a thing was going to befall a person and you could do something to protect them, you would.

seattleniceguy

exjdub,

The only roadblock that I have that prevents me from being a dyed in the wool athiest is that I see intelligent design in the human body, the animal kingdom, etc. I have not been able to work that out yet and the evolution theory just does not answer many of the questions I have. So the quandary continues...

Keep studying! Evolution is a rich subject, and there are new insights around every corner. I'm writing a book based on my evolution series here, so maybe when it's done I'll send ya a copy? :-)

OS,

Sounds like we've wrapped up the discussion pretty well. On a very-much-side-note, regarding what you said about evolution:

In evolutionary theory, I am sure you are aware of the impacts of cost/benefit on species development. Is it true that sometimes a short term cost ends up having an effect of benefit to a species?

Alas, if only that's the way biology worked. Unfortunately, creatures cannot pay a temporary short-term cost to get a long-term benefit. Every single solitary change must be for the creature's immediate benefit. This has had some interesting effects. Notably, it often paints creatures into evolutionary corners which it will be virtually impossible for them to ever escape. For example, eye evolution in the insect world took the unfortunate path of compound eyes. This has produced a physical limitation on the resolution at which insects can see. For reasons of physics, it will be impossible for their visual accuity to improve without a drastic overhaul (e.g., getting rid of the compound eye system entirely and starting afresh), but it is difficult to imagine any circumstances which would allow this to happen, since getting rid of a functional system would have immediately detrimental effects compared to the members of the species that can still see. So unfortunately our friend the fly is stuck with vision that is functional but not nearly as clear as, say, a rat's.

{ end of side note }

SNG

105

How do you defend your god's inaction?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

this is a question for those that believe in a god or gods, particularly those described as "all knowing" or "almighty".. how do you defend to yourself that your god has not in any modern situation saved his people from anything?.

people of all faiths are regularly killed by various natural elements.

of course, if you knew such a thing was going to befall a person and you could do something to protect them, you would.

seattleniceguy

OS,

You pose as a possible way of describing: "if you were to explicitly define God to be all-loving but also all-slaughtering." I do not understand, unless you first suppose that God caused the tsunami/earthquake/etc., how anyone could arrive at an "all-slaughtering" aspect.

I was trying to use an example of a position that few people would actually take to illustrate the issue without invoking the emotional responses that usually accompany more close-hitting examples. If a person came up to me and said that they believed in a god who, as a part of their definition, was "all-loving" and simultaneously "all-slaughtering," obviously we would demand an explanation for how that could be. That's all.

How about this one: "If I were to explicitly define God as love." Now, is there any compelling reason to expect love to prevent a tsunami, even if love can do so? At what point would you say love should draw the line when it comes to keeping people alive/keeping people from suffering. Let's call God "gravity" and ask the same question. I still see no compelling reason for God to act.

Saying that God is love or gravity does indeed solve the problem since those are not individuals. And if it is actually your position that God is not an sentient individual, then case closed, end of story. God doesn't intervene because that doesn't even make sense according to your view of God. How could a faceless, body-less force like gravity perform any kind of intervention? That's a completely coherent answer. (And again, notice that it does not differ very much from a non-theist's point of view.)

However, I believe that this thread was aimed at people who view God as an individual who deeply cares about the pain and suffering of humans, which are said to be his direct creations. If that is part of the picture in your head about God (not yours specifically, but a person's), then that is part of your "definition" of God, and an observer might reasonably ask questions or make logical connections based on this definition.

Again, I don't "define" God that way, because as I have said I don't define God. God doesn't fit into my definitions. Nor do I believe God can be reduced to an equation. I understand your desire to do so, and I know what motivates that desire (everything needs to fit the structure of a paradigm, even if it isn't the one you favor) but in my experience this falls outside paradigms and refuses to fit into any. That is why I don't even pretend to be able to prove or justify my belief in God to someone else.

If you make any statements about the nature of God whatsoever, you are defining him/her/it/they/blob/force. If you (for example) describe God as "a force that we cannot understand," then that is part of your basic definition of your view of this God problem. The only way not to define God would be to say, "There may or may not be a God-thing-force-person-nonperson whose form or lack thereof is completely unknown to me. I have no further views on the topic." But otherwise, the simple fact that you have a concept of God means that you are defining him in some manner.

Furthermore, if you say that it is not possible to describe or have any opinions about God, then there can be no fruitful conversation about him/her/it/they/blob/force. After all, what good could possibly come from talking about something about which we can make no statements except to say it is impossible to make any statements about it?

Regarding fitting things into paradigms, I thank you for understanding my point of view, but I wish to take it a bit further. I wouldn't say that I'm trying to find a paradigm to fit God into. Rather, I'm trying to understand your position. Understanding necessarily means describing the position as a series of related statements. Paradigm or no, any idea has to at least be coherent. Non-coherent ideas simply don't make sense under any paradigm.

Anyway, I hope you understand where I have come from as I have tried to understand the position of the believers on this thread. I am prepared to accept any coherent explanation (without personally believing it unless it is compelling, of course), but I cannot accept non-coherent concepts because it is not even possible to express them clearly. Hope that makes sense.

SNG

(Edited to correct two poor word choices.)

1

Organic molecules (building blocks for life) abundant in the universe

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

turns out the ingredients for life might not be so hard to come by after all.

a nasa team has found that "a class of compounds that is critical to biochemistry is prevalent throughout the universe.

another quote: much of the chemistry of life, including dna, requires organic molecules that contain nitrogen," said team member louis allamandola, an astrochemist at ames.

seattleniceguy

Turns out the ingredients for life might not be so hard to come by after all. A NASA team has found that "a class of compounds that is critical to biochemistry is prevalent throughout the universe."

Another quote:

Much of the chemistry of life, including DNA, requires organic molecules that contain nitrogen," said team member Louis Allamandola, an astrochemist at Ames. "Chlorophyll, the substance that enables photosynthesis in plants, is a good example of this class of compounds, called polycyclic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles, or PANHs. Ironically, PANHs are formed in abundance around dying stars. So even in death, the seeds of life are sewn," Allamandola said.

Article: http://www.physorg.com/news7159.html

SNG

37

leaving

by Lo-ru-hamah in

jw
friends

to those of you that have been jw's for many years... i would like to know how it is that you have transferred to your new life.

my family and i are in the process, actually, we have left because of many of the issues brought up on this forum.

this, being jw's, is all that we have ever known.

seattleniceguy

I just wanted to second what AA said:

It will help if you immediately get your head around the fact that "worldly" people are actually just people, and are in the vast majority of cases decent, reasonable folks. Your neighbors, your coworkers, church members -- they're all good people. Go see for yourself.

The Witness way of life is so laden with judgement that without even noticing it, you find yourself constantly looking for reasons that "worldly people" are bad. For me, the fact that so many of my workmates were genuinely great people was a source of extreme cognitive dissonance for me when I was a Witness. And yet, when I left, I found that for a while, I still had these ideas of how "worldly people" thought or acted. Fortunately, this was short-lived.

The reality, and it may take time to really understand this, but the reality is:

There is no such thing as "the world." There are no such people as "worldly people."

It's like Romans calling all non-Romans "barbarians," as if you could make any kind of generalized comments about how non-Romans think or act. "The world" actually means the six billion people that are not Witnesses, and that's it! They span the full spectrum of habits, thoughts, behavior, and so on. So reach out, get to know them. Most people on our little planet are pretty darn nice.

Anyway, sorry to preach, but this one can be a biggy for exiting JWs, so I had to put in my two cents. :-)

SNG

37

leaving

by Lo-ru-hamah in

jw
friends

to those of you that have been jw's for many years... i would like to know how it is that you have transferred to your new life.

my family and i are in the process, actually, we have left because of many of the issues brought up on this forum.

this, being jw's, is all that we have ever known.

seattleniceguy

Hi Lo-ru-hamah,

A big welcome to the board!

I know how you feel with regard to the uncertainty of leaving the Witnesses. I went through it a little over two years ago, and let me assure you, the experience is something I will never forget. Everyone deals with things differently, but I'll tell you what helped me, and you can take these suggestions with a grain of salt, and perhaps they'll help you too.

First and foremost, read. The universe is so vastly different than the Witnesses make it out to be, I was blown away when I began seeing it for myself. Read about art, science, philosophy, religion, politics, nature - anything that interests you.

Second, and this is a biggy, specifically read about religion and high-control groups. Many people leave the Witnesses without truly understanding the organization or their own decision to leave it. To borrow a phrase from a movie, "We can never see past the decisions we don't understand." To this end, it is so, so, so important to read books and essays that will give you insight into religion in general, but about high-control groups and the Witnesses specifically.

Here's my list of must-read/see material for exiting Witnesses:

Crisis of Conscience, by Ray Franz
Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses (http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/), by Timothy Campbell
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
Combatting Cult Mind Control, by Steve Hassan
Movie: The Truman Show, screenplay by Andrew Niccol (If you've already seen it, trust me, it will have new meaning for you now.)
Watchtower Quotes (http://quotes.watchtower.ca) by our friend Quotes. :-)

That's probably a good start. Another good thing to do is to get to know your neighbors. They're probably much nicer people than the Watchtower led you to believe. Start to reach out and form relationships with the people in your community. This is an important part of recovery.

Best wishes to you and your family as you move ahead! Hope to see you around the board.

SNG