Guilty God or Guilty Science?

[Confused]

Physicist Hermann Bondi is a harsh critic of religion which he regards as a "serious and habit-forming evil". He cites as an example, the excesses of the European witch-craze:
"In much of Christian Europe the godfearing used to burn old women suspected of being witches, an arduous duty they felt had been clearly put upon them by the Bible. The facts on witch burning are clear enough: First, faith made otherwise decent people commit acts of unspeakable horror, showing how ordinary and everyday feelings of human kindness and revulsion at cruelty can be and have been overruled by religious belief. Secondly, it exposes as utterly hollow the claim that religion sets and absolute and unchanging foundation for morality" (Science in a Changing World: Paul Davies, pg 4).

While many scientists may abhor organized religion on the grounds of the perversion it inflicts on its most staunch followers, the greater fear is the perversion of the technology and advancements science makes.

The question becomes, who has really done the most damage, science or God. The greatest infliction God has personally set on mankind was the supposed "Great Flood", but we really don't know what the population was at the time, so we can't really tally up a death toll there. Man, on the other hand, has had a direct hand in more deaths than I think we could ever attribute to God.
Gods inventions of destruction:
-Man
-Nature
-Cosmological events
-Animals
-Viruses
-Bacteria
-Fungi
-Scripture

Technological/scientific inventions of destruction:
-Bow and arrows
-Swords
-Guns
-Canons
-Torpedos
-Missiles
-Grenades
-Atomic Bomb
-Nuclear Bomb
-Biological warfare

It seems that even the best of intentions for scientific advancement has been used against man. Is science killing us?

For debate:
1) Who has contributed more to mans current suffering: God or Science?
2) What has science done to alleviate the suffering that hasn't backfired?
3) What has God done to alleviate the suffering that hasn't backfired?

[sacrosanct]

Having read your list I have some small points to make.

Your first real example of God's creations is Man. Having an all knowing and all powerful diety behind the creation of Man, he knew at the inception of the universe that creating man was going to lead to the scientific explanations you cited.

The worst human conflict in history, WWII, killed around 60 million people. While I have not done extensive research on natural disasters, I do know that the Black Death killed around 75 million people.

What is more disturbing than a direct comparision between what was used to kill people is "why" have people been killed. People have killed people in the name of relilgion. I have never see a war based on science.

~Todd

[Confused]

Having read your list I have some small points to make.

Your first real example of God's creations is Man. Having an all knowing and all powerful diety behind the creation of Man, he knew at the inception of the universe that creating man was going to lead to the scientific explanations you cited.

The worst human conflict in history, WWII, killed around 60 million people. While I have not done extensive research on natural disasters, I do know that the Black Death killed around 75 million people.

What is more disturbing than a direct comparision between what was used to kill people is "why" have people been killed. People have killed people in the name of relilgion. I have never see a war based on science.

~Todd

Hmm, I don't think you could make a very strong case for an all-knowing God. Genesis itself indicates God cannot be all knowing or He would have known that Adam and Eve defied Him and He would have known where they were as well.

Now, I am trying to figure out how you have answered any of the debate questions. Science itself doesn't kill, it is only the means in which we can kill on a much larger scale.

Again, how does your post relate to the questions I pose. I am not trying to be rude here, honestly I am not. My thinking may be getting a little muddled again so I am not connecting the dots. Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

[Confused]

hey Confused,

We seem to be having an argument rather than debate. I will never ask you for evidence, or assert corrections of your writing. I am new to this website. Sorry if i seem a little argumentative.

Sarcasm will seldom get you anywhere.

"Science", are you referring to the method, principles, community. Or just the inventions, that may be used for destruction. Firstly, Science, is a lot more than mere inventions, it has a belief system. They believe in logic, evidence based reasoning, factual data. And yes they do believe it. They have also proven its a superior method of answering questions. They understand that without certain procedures we will naturally fall into delusion.

I would suggest you read the OP again. It answers this quite clearly.

What has god done for us, can you tell me what God has done for us? Secondly, how do you deduce that god has ever harmed us. Are you saying everything you listed was Gods creation. If so how do you know he intended to harm us by creating them?

Um, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he obliterate the entire world population save one family? Again, the OP addresses this.

other things you listed, just don't make sense. Obviously he claimed he did the stuff in the bible. But how do you know he wasn't lying. As i am sure God is capable of that. He is Omnipotent. And obviously he depicts himself in a manner less than 'Good'. Has God ever stated he is 'Good', other than he loved us. But since we experience love in different ways, we cannot be sure what that means.

I fail to see where they make no sense and if you are implying He lied, then you will need to explain what He lied about and what He didn't. Otherwise your opinion is nonsensical.

Just as your fighting the literal interpretation against the figurative interpretation of the bible. I am being taught legal debating skills, that center around ripping down the opposition, rather than exploring with the opposition. I was confused with the word debate, this is more of an exploration rather than debate.

Then you need not waste my time if you are only looking for an argument. If you are being taught the legalities of debating skills, then you ought to learn that respect comes first. I am not fighting for anything. And if you go into a debate being so certain you are right, you become so closeminded you will never see the possibility that you are wrong. I find I am wrong about as much as I am right. But you know what, I learn in the process.

[byofrcs]

2) Indirectly Science has not caused nor alleviated suffering. Science is knowledge. How that is used is politics. See (1).

How science is used is hardly only a manner of politics. I pervades almost every issue of life, so I think this statement is hardly accurate.

Wikipedia has a nice definition of politics as,
"Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions on who gets what."
Thus unless all the science that surrounds you was of your own making and you are a hermit on your own, the interdependency of every one of us with our community means that what you see is as a result of decisions of groups of people: ergo, politics.

3) Indirectly God has not cause nor alleviated suffering. God doesn't actually exist but is used as an authority to rule. How the authority is used is politics. See (1).

If you could actually prove anything in this one, I am dying to hear it (literally).

Don't need to prove anything. I don't have any belief in God. It's up to the people who believe in God to give you your evidence: they are the ones with the belief after all. I wouldn't hold my breath; they'll invent all sorts of excuses but never seem to come up with anything remotely convincing.

[Cathar1950]

Some say God is the beginning and the end. We don't know if God exists or if God has a beginning. All of our concepts of God do have a beginning.
Before there was marriage everyone was a bastard.
I remember reading about how humans became aware of the male contribution to conception about 3500 BCE when all the phallic symbols started popping up in cultures. A virgin was a woman that had not had children and until she had children she was useless. The child could come from anywhere or anybody.
Once they were found to be fertile they were valuable and many times the first born was sacrificed. I would like to know what point you are making and how it is suppose to matter.

[realthinker]

It seems that even the best of intentions for scientific advancement has been used against man. Is science killing us?

For debate:
1) Who has contributed more to mans current suffering: God or Science?
2) What has science done to alleviate the suffering that hasn't backfired?
3) What has God done to alleviate the suffering that hasn't backfired?

Science, the facts and technologies accumulated by the human scientific community over the years, is inert. It has no motive and no value of itself. It is the application of science by Man that may or may not have value as it is applied with human purpose to fulfill some motive.

As with anything, application of effort with incomplete knowledge may have unanticipated consequences. Application of effort with misguided motives may also have unanticipated and often undesirable consequences. I don't think it's appropriate to ascribe the consequences to the means by which the effort was applied. In short, don't blame the tools that science has given us.

In that humans provide the effort and the motive to apply science, and given that God supposedly gave Man free will, I think both science and God are in the clear for any damage done by technology.

Those things you attribute to God, however, are his alone. So I'd say God's got more blood on his hands than science.

[sacrosanct]

Having read your list I have some small points to make.

Your first real example of God's creations is Man. Having an all knowing and all powerful diety behind the creation of Man, he knew at the inception of the universe that creating man was going to lead to the scientific explanations you cited.

The worst human conflict in history, WWII, killed around 60 million people. While I have not done extensive research on natural disasters, I do know that the Black Death killed around 75 million people.

What is more disturbing than a direct comparision between what was used to kill people is "why" have people been killed. People have killed people in the name of relilgion. I have never see a war based on science.

~Todd

Hmm, I don't think you could make a very strong case for an all-knowing God. Genesis itself indicates God cannot be all knowing or He would have known that Adam and Eve defied Him and He would have known where they were as well.

Now, I am trying to figure out how you have answered any of the debate questions. Science itself doesn't kill, it is only the means in which we can kill on a much larger scale.

Again, how does your post relate to the questions I pose. I am not trying to be rude here, honestly I am not. My thinking may be getting a little muddled again so I am not connecting the dots. Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

Guilty God or Guilty Science -

Science can not be guilty. Only the application of it.

God (should one exist) is defacto, by definition of God as a prime cause, is guilty fo everything.

[Cathar1950]

I have been reading “Fighting Words” by Hector Avalos.
It is about the Origins of Religious Violence, actually that is the subtitle.
I just finished the Hebrew history and working on the Christian.
He describes the idea of sacred space and group belonging as a form of sacred place.
Of course the Judaic-Christian tradition are not the only ones to create these functions as science also can suffer from the same malady as people outside of the cultures that use modern science can be left out or even exploited.
There is always the problem of us and them. Even Christians suffer from this problem of others. Paul may sound like salvation is universal but it is conditional even if it is rather arbitrary. He even curses those that have a different gospel including what seem to be the Jewish followers of Jesus. There was no re-Judeanization (spelling?), as they had no sense of abandoning the Law, including anything Jesus may have taught.
Whatever we look at it is a human construct. Before we can blame God or gods we have to have some clear idea of the attributes. Granted there are some that claim God is all powerful and responsible. I question the whole idea of responsibility as it seems we are pretty well determined and eventually that which doesn’t work will be eliminated even if it means all of life.
But it seems religion does have a problem with us and them.