Thursday, January 15, 2009
Skepticism Does Not Constitute War
I am continually amazed that much that used to be in the realm of science fiction continues to come into reality. And by that I do not mean the purely technological. Technology will always advance. I am more interested in the cartoonish characters that seem so fictional, yet continue to pop up.
One of the classics of the genre is the "mad scientist" bent on science for science sake, without thought to ethical or human consequence. I could not help but conjure up that image when I read this BBC article:
Which raises the question that always seems to arise in these religion/science discussion, who is picking a fight with whom? Skepticism about technology and its consequences does not amount to a war between religion and science, what it amounts to is a simple desire to ask if some technologies are worth it.
I cannot help but analogize this with the culture war on religion that has erupted with regards to most recently, same-sex marriage. In both cases, some scientists and some in the LGBT community, wish to do things that traditional religious teaching says has negative moral consequences, or as I like to call them "wrong." So, rather than struggle with those consequences they choose instead to delegitimate the other side of the discussion rather than simply engage in it. That is usually how war starts.
They claim "reason" and reason and tolerance are supposed to go hand-in-hand, and yet they are the ones that act intolerantly.
I keep thinking - it's not about the technology or the behavior, it's about the person. Now that is what the gospel is all about.
Technorati Tags:science, religion
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
One of the classics of the genre is the "mad scientist" bent on science for science sake, without thought to ethical or human consequence. I could not help but conjure up that image when I read this BBC article:
The researchers compared attitudes to nanotechnology in 12 European countries and the US.And although it does not appear in the story, one feels almost compelled to conclude that speech with "'And thus the religious must be crushed lest they stand in the way of real progress! Bwah-ha-ha-ha,' laughed the man in the sparkling white coat with just a hint of evil intent in his voice." Actually, this is how the piece concludes:
They then rated each country on a scale of what they called "religiosity" - a measure of how religious each country was.
They found that countries where religious belief was strong, such as Ireland and Italy, tended to be the least accepting of nanotechnology, whereas those where religion was less significant such as Belgium or the Netherlands were more accepting of the technology.
Professor Dietram Scheufele from the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin, who led the research, said religious belief exerted a strong influence on how people viewed nanotechnology.
"Religion provides a perceptual filter, highly religious people look at information differently, it follows from the way religion provides guidance in people's everyday lives," he said.
The US was found to be the most religious country in the survey, and also the least accepting of nanotechnology.
The researchers say their finding support the idea that underlying cultural beliefs have a stronger influence on opinions formed about nanotechnology than science based information about its potential and pitfalls.Now let's break that down just a little. Technology has moral and ethical consequence. Well, all human action has moral and ethical consequence. And so, as society struggles to deal with and control the consequences of, in this case, nanotechnology, it would seem only natural to call on the experts in morality and ethics. I always thought that was religious people. And yet, what this study attempts to do is paint religion as purely divisive in such matters and hence take it off the table in the discussion. While certainly more gentile than our manically laughing evil scientist, pretty much the same thing.
Professor Scheufele says the findings have implications for policymakers trying to regulate nanotechnology.
Which raises the question that always seems to arise in these religion/science discussion, who is picking a fight with whom? Skepticism about technology and its consequences does not amount to a war between religion and science, what it amounts to is a simple desire to ask if some technologies are worth it.
I cannot help but analogize this with the culture war on religion that has erupted with regards to most recently, same-sex marriage. In both cases, some scientists and some in the LGBT community, wish to do things that traditional religious teaching says has negative moral consequences, or as I like to call them "wrong." So, rather than struggle with those consequences they choose instead to delegitimate the other side of the discussion rather than simply engage in it. That is usually how war starts.
They claim "reason" and reason and tolerance are supposed to go hand-in-hand, and yet they are the ones that act intolerantly.
I keep thinking - it's not about the technology or the behavior, it's about the person. Now that is what the gospel is all about.
Technorati Tags:science, religion
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
