I search for truth in our shared experiences, our disagreements, the good that humankind promotes and the evil that we enact. We are artists and poets, writers and musicians, but destroyers of life. The one thing we never are is boring. It matters not one whit as to whether you believe or don't believe in God, for me it's about examining all of the possibilities. Science offers many answers but not all. Science is continually changing because valid science is born of a hypothesis and proof (See the scientific method). Sometimes the hypothesis cannot be proven. Sometimes the proof reveals a totally unexpected truth.
However, science without contemplation, without moral considerations can lead us into dark places. The medical experiments of Josef Mengele and others were clearly a search for scientific proof gone wrong. The whole science of eugenics was a perversion of science, yet for a time, those who believed in eugenics boldly cited scientific proof to support their beliefs. Is science bad and responsible for the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the United States' own little foray into forced sterilization of some of its citizens, mostly poor and black? Of course not, but such events are an indication that science can be perverted just as any other belief system.
Just as many of the Christian faiths in the U.S. sought to justify slavery, so did science. Negroes were judged inferior. Skulls were measured, brains were studied and the conclusion was that black people were intellectually inferior to whites, an idea that continued to be presented as having a scientific basis in 20th century works such as The Bell Curve. From the early 1920s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing. Then there were the scientific experiments known as the Tuskegee syphilis study. The clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, studied the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.
The current worship of nuclear power is a perversion of science. We have the science to create nuclear power plants but it seems highly irrational to play with a substance that creates radioactive waste that is toxic to all life in some misbegotten belief that we can keep it under control. Depending on the half-life of the radiation, it could stay in a person for much longer than a lifetime. The half- life is the amount of time it takes for a radioactive material to decay to one half of its original amount. Some materials have half-lives of more than 1,000 years. I find this no more rational than the religious sects that deny medical treatment to their children because they believe that if they pray hard enough God will heal them.
What is inherent in our nature that makes us need to believe in something so strongly that we exclude reason and compassion from our thought processes? Our belief in science created the first atomic weapon, a weapon capable of wreaking havoc and devastation, a weapon capable of leaving behind lethal radioactive waste with an indefinite shelf life, when reason should have perhaps suggested that just because we could didn't mean that we should. Science has helped us create more efficient ways of killing; we can now kill humans and leave the buildings standing. What an accomplishment!
Am I opposed to science? No. Science has also been used to promote the greater good and I would not condemn all of science for its missteps. However, a belief in science is just as potentially dangerous as an unwavering belief in a man with a beard who lives in the clouds. Looking inwardly isn't about justifying our worst impulses; it's about studying what makes us who we are in order to find our way to being better than we are. Most people act without ever considering why they act. This is why mobs form so easily and get so out of control. Individually, most would not engage in the type of vicious and sadistic behaviors that they will as a group. How do we move beyond this mob instinct?
I think that it is far more complex than simply declaring that all people need to embrace science and reason. Either can be perverted as much as any religious belief because the issue lies within ourselves not the stars (Thanks Will). Certainly there have been magnificent advancements in science that have benefited us all; however, humankind has also used science to develop even more efficient ways of killing one another. Hanging the solution to today's problems solely on science or reason is no more rational than announcing that it's all in God's hands.
For me this is where psychology and philosophy must be added to the mix. Science is a type of knowing, based on proposing a hypothesis and designed experiments test and hopefully prove that theory. But that which makes us human goes beyond the concrete, factual answers that science can provide. What we do with that science is based on a complex working of human nature and science hasn't designed an experiment to take the full measure of what makes us tick. Perhaps psychology and philosophy lack the straightforward factuality of science but it is their study that continues to reveal the human psyche, bit by bit.
I doubt that I will persuade anyone who finds all of this to be some esoteric discussion based on belief that cannot be proven to consider this seriously but at least let's respect that we have differing perspectives.
Great assessment of the human condition. Lots to consider, Sheria, and after reflection will comment further.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like the line: "We are artists and poets, writers and musicians, but destroyers of life." The ancient religions-philosophies deal with this perhaps better than the moderns (wheel of life myths, etc.).
ReplyDeleteSheria - You just blow me away with your organized progression and intelligently presented concepts.
ReplyDeleteScience is amazingly revealing and wonderfully life-enhancing -- when it is used in an ethical and positive manner. But as you pointed out, when science is applied without conscience or compassion it can be horribly torturous.
For me it is all about balance. Science tells me that a red head who is an orphan cannot cure thrush by blowing in a baby's mouth but it isn't science that makes me delight in finding a moth hummingbird in my flowers or stop to marvel at the delicate colorings of a butterfly.
Albert Einstein, a great man of science once said,"There are only two ways to live . . . one is as though nothing is a miracle. . . the other is as if everything is."
Sometimes science gives us astounding images and information, but something inside us gives us that sense of wonder at it all.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteWhen your comment disappeared from under God Control, I foresaw the Second Coming of the Second Comment resurrected in this fine post, and I thank you for it.
In this post, you cite the most notorious examples of ethical violations in science and, by extension, the most egregious examples of reason run amuck. One would think humanity would have learned bitter lessons by now. Sadly, the beggars have changed places but the lash goes on.
In the pharmaceutical industry, every test subject is required to sign an “Informed Consent” before participating in a clinical trial study, and there are ‘ethical committees’ that monitor these protocols. In the age of globalization, however, where it is cheaper to outsource in Asia than procure the same goods or services domestically, the drug industry has followed suit. These days, it is cheaper to conduct clinical trial studies abroad where MDs, PhDs, statisticians and monitors cost a tenth of their American counterparts, and standards are more easily compromised.
The age of globalization has freed corporations from the responsibilities of citizenship. When global players are no longer accountable to their countries or their citizens, ethical conduct is the first casualty. Inevitably, I foresee more Tuskegee atrocities looming on the horizon.
Sheria:
ReplyDelete"I doubt that I will persuade anyone who finds all of this to be some esoteric discussion based on belief that cannot be proven to consider this seriously but at least let's respect that we have differing perspectives."
You don't need to convince or persuade me, of all people, nor have I actually written anything to suggest I need convincing of that. But you know, science doesn't commit these crimes. People do. That's why we try to impose ethical standards on science and we have imposed ethical standards on religious entities. People decide what is or is not acceptable and they reference various sources according to their whims. Sometimes they refer to divine authority, sometimes they invent divine authority, sometimes they bend science to their will, sometimes they ignore it or deny it and there's often no way to tell what's gonna happen.
Someone looking for trouble might suggest that belief in the rule of Law is responsible for racism since the law supported it for so long, but I'm not looking for trouble. I rarely have to, nor am I looking for scapegoats. I'm only looking to transcending our traditional ignorance in the best way possible.
Science doesn't really talk about crimes or sins any more than mathematics or chemistry does. People do -- all the time. That does not invalidate chemistry of calculus or relegate them to a status below the authority of the Quir'an or the Zend Avesta; to be mocked or blamed for our animal nature. Einstein also let us see more of reality than anyone before him. Worthy of more Halelujahs than anything I ever heard in Sunday School, if you ask me. Don't forget that Mssrs. Schockely, Brittain and Bardeen made this conversation possible and I have no idea whether they believed in YHWH or Zog or the emptiness of all things, nor does it matter.
"Our belief in science created the first atomic weapon,"
I don't think so. Belief in math and physics suggested that it would explode, a great deal of experimentation was needed to confirm it. Had it not worked, we would have had to kill a few more million people to prevent the killing of far more people the old fashioned way and Einstein would have been embarrassed.
As far as I know there is little embarrassment when prayers and prophecies don't pan out. Has anyone seen the Mahdi recently - not that I'm looking for trouble.
But people who try to derive ethics from observation of the stars aren't scientists, they're just no better than people looking to derive morality from prehistoric tribal tradition. If they try, they're no more successful than prophets and you can tell because prophets never agree with what other prophets come up with from the same data.
None the less, as long as you aren't going to blame Shakespeare for dropping his collected works on Canadian feet, for instance, I'm not going to suggest that you're suggesting that science is the cause of human aggression.
Eugenics and all that racist crap was a failure of science, driven by racism which was a pre-existing condition. Science moved away from that, just as some religions have moved away from racism to a degree. All I've ever suggested is that we need to move further into the light and out of the shadows of traditional ways.
And by the way, I still don't think that God opposes net neutrality or that God was on the side of the Nazis, but it's hard to substantiate that without reference to that pesky objective reason thingy. It was reason I was talking about, you'll remember -- reason as a check on conflicting religious claims to divine authority. It was other people who brought science and technophobia into this, not me. I'm sorry I called it God control instead of "a check on conflicting religious claims to divine authority" but I was trying to keep it short and I was counting on that Liberal fondness for biting humor that seems to have been on vacation for a few days. I'm still hoping that we allow people to respect the first amendment here, right?
ReplyDeleteThe medium is the message, Fogg. Carry on regardless.
ReplyDeleteCaptain, I don't really feel that you get my point at all.
ReplyDeleteLet's say that you have an ax and you use it to chop down trees in order to clear land to build a home. Let's say that you take that same ax and use it to chop up your neighbor. The ax is merely a tool; it's neither good nor evil.
That's my point about science. It's a tool. How we use that tool is determined by our beliefs about self, life, ethics etc.
Reason is not objective. Our reason is informed by what we believe. Those who pervert science to yield destruction believe that they are exerting reason in their uses of science. White supremacist can lay out what they consider to be reasons why their racism is totally justified.
Reason is applied subjectively. It isn't a check on anything. Unless we all agree on what is reasonable, we have no common ground. What does reason mean? How do we define it? Does it mean that we all agree with your beliefs or mine?
I never said that science was responsible for any of the atrocities it was used to support any more than that ax is responsible for the murder of one's neighbor. The ax and science and religion are merely tools. What it boils down to is human nature and so far neither science nor religion has been able to adequately explain or determine what constitutes human nature. Ethics, morality, responsibility are all relative terms interpreted differently nationally, culturally and individually. The quest is for common meaning that will promote the common good.
Reason is the start of the quest, not the end. If all people declared that they no longer believed in any gods of any sort do you honestly believe that we suddenly have a world where there was no greed, strife or hate?
Rocky, I love the words from Einstein and your own summation "Sometimes science gives us astounding images and information, but something inside us gives us that sense of wonder at it all."
ReplyDeleteOcto, I like your phrase, "reason run amuck." It aptly sums up the problems with assuming that reason is always rational.
Edge, I agree. I think that we have lost some of the respect for the significance of the creative impulse as being an essential part of human development.
correction:
ReplyDeletewe would suddenly have a world where there was no greed, strife or hate?
"Reason is the start of the quest, not the end. If all people declared that they no longer believed in any gods of any sort do you honestly believe that we suddenly have a world where there was no greed, strife or hate? "
ReplyDeleteWhat have I said to contradict that? Why on earth would anyone extract such a bizarre thing from anything I've said? It's particularly funny when it's been suggested in response that we eliminate technology, it's handmaiden science and reason itself to make a better world.
I'm talking about religious mandates in the political scene - how did we get up this creek and who took the paddle? I'm talking about the idiocy of saying God does not support net neutrality, for god's sake. I'm having trouble with a oil pressure switch on my starboard engine - what would Jesus do? Can we suggest that Jesus would get out the service manual and an ohm meter without going off on a tangent and accusing him of denying God?
People are not rational, reason is, by definition. Science is short of being objective too but so are the proclamations of ecclesiastics. I'm not asking that we abandon all hope because we are not perfect, I've only asked that we temper belief as we temper all else. All of this discussion has been a fugue and I've no disagreement with you at all.
If you want to get back to the beginning, I will say it again: since all sides of all arguments by all people claim divine support, then we need more. Suggesting reason is not controversial nor is reason to be dismissed for our shortcomings in it's application.
Somehow I'm being accused of not understanding things I agree with and saying things I did not even imply. This has become a passion play with a life of its own and I'm not playing any more.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteHad been meaning to say I like this post of yours.
The root of the word science, as I just wrote in another comment, is "wisdom" (one meaning of scientia). It's been a tendency of the Baconian project (the modern scientific revolution) for even what he called experimenta lucifera, or pure science, to devolve into applied technology not necessarily directed to good ends.
We need wisdom in science to get out of some of the fixes we are in because of unwisely "applied" understanding. Science without wisdom is merely diabolical cunning; with wisdom, it should be able to open up new doors we didn't even know existed.