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?

[Openmind]

But, for this supposed god, is this guilt? I mean, look at his predicament. There he is, hanging out forever, without even someone else to play checkers with. Maybe the earth is just his version of TV. "Hey, I know. I'll give 'em some stuff, and then watch 'em mess around with it until they figure out how to blow each other up." Maybe that's what the free will part is about, so he can have an element of suspense in his programs. And, if it gets boring, he can just switch to the Mesozoic Channel and watch nature.

I agree - a deistic God like this would surely be highly amused at the antics us humans get up to.

Of course, but a working firearm is quite different than the base materials used to make it,

Not particularly different. God made us greedy little bastards that are programmed to preserve ourselves and our society. God gave us the means to capitalise on his creation. If he really didn't want us killing each other, why not make a universe where atoms cannot be split?

Whichever way you look at it, everything bad that has happened since time began is his fault. He made us. We are his little science project, and he was perfectly well aware of what we would do to each other.

If you put a gun in a childs hand and tell them to shoot the guy across the street, are you not guilty of providing the means for the destruction that child inflicted?

Indeed, but I would take it a step further.

If you put a gun in a child's hand that you know is going to kill someone, and they shoot the guy across the street...whose fault is it? God knows everything, why the hell shouldn't he have acted accordingly. Unless he wanted for violence to occur, in which case we are back to the deistic God watching us on Channel Divine for his own sick amusement!

[Confused]

If you put a gun in a childs hand and tell them to shoot the guy across the street, are you not guilty of providing the means for the destruction that child inflicted?

Indeed, but I would take it a step further.

If you put a gun in a child's hand that you know is going to kill someone, and they shoot the guy across the street...whose fault is it? God knows everything, why the hell shouldn't he have acted accordingly. Unless he wanted for violence to occur, in which case we are back to the deistic God watching us on Channel Divine for his own sick amusement!

That is presupposing God is all knowing. Scripture would actually reject this concept.

[Confused]

If we consider the fact that God condemned us to a sinful nature, and He is perfectly aware of how we exploit the resources He gave us, then He is guilty. If you put a gun in a childs hand and tell them to shoot the guy across the street, are you not guilty of providing the means for the destruction that child inflicted?

Of course, but a working firearm is quite different than the base materials used to make it, and as far as I know there are no gun trees where you can just walk up and pluck a desert eagle 5.0 (if you know of such a tree, please let me know.)

The trees are called street dealers and the materials they use to make them are found in your back yard.

If you raise a child to think they are worthless, sinful, not worthy without some illusion in the sky, they will act accordingly. If you condemn a child to live in contraints that go against their own instincts, against nature, they are going to rebel.
Science has made much progress with technology. How many elements on the periodic table really have no use at this time. But how many can be used in the future for more bad than good? Yet man is held accountable for our actions to use it as we see fit, but God isn't held accountable for failing to intervene so that His creation wasn't used for ill gain.

[Confused]

If we consider the fact that God condemned us to a sinful nature, and He is perfectly aware of how we exploit the resources He gave us, then He is guilty. If you put a gun in a childs hand and tell them to shoot the guy across the street, are you not guilty of providing the means for the destruction that child inflicted?

As MikeH has said, providing raw materials is different from providing the finished product. But of course, it is assumed that the proposed god exists in some curious realm outside of our normal space/time, and thus knows and sees all, from the distant past to the infinite future. Thus, he knows precisely what we will do (or, from his perspective, did) with the stuff he gave us. So, perhaps, his giving us dirt, metals, nitrate, and the like is equivalent to giving us guns, since he knows that's what we'll do with them.

But, for this supposed god, is this guilt? I mean, look at his predicament. There he is, hanging out forever, without even someone else to play checkers with. Maybe the earth is just his version of TV. "Hey, I know. I'll give 'em some stuff, and then watch 'em mess around with it until they figure out how to blow each other up." Maybe that's what the free will part is about, so he can have an element of suspense in his programs. And, if it gets boring, he can just switch to the Mesozoic Channel and watch nature.

The John Day River in Oregon is named after John Day, who was rescued at the junction of the river with the Columbia. He and his party were captured by Indians (as they were called at the time), who took their supplies, weapons, and clothing, and then set them free. It took them a long time to make their way to a place where they could be rescued, no doubt involving some chilly nights, hunger spells, sunburn in unpleasant places, and whatnot. All this time, we can picture their previous captors watching from a distance, being amused at their shenanigans. They didn't have TV, after all, and what better entertainment than to take a bunch of city-slickers and turn 'em loose naked in the wilderness? They say god made us in his own image...that image may include a desire for entertainment, and if a few of the actors get killed as part of the action flick, well, that's just how the plot seems to work out.

If I was to somehow miraculously find this God, I could never ramify enough contradictions in scripture to believe He would be all knowing. But He did set up all the variables and it isn't hard to predict that 1+1=2. Add enough guilt and shame onto your creation, what do you suppose they are going to do with the materials you have provided. Since you remain curiously protected in the sky, allowing mere humans to do your dirty work so you can claim the illusion of love, man can't punish the one who is ultimately responsible. Man can't even have a direct conversation so all is made clear in a logical sense that all man could understand. He couldn't get it right 2000+ years ago, nor could He get it right for the time era before that. Instead, He allows liberalists, fundamentalists, and non-religious to duke it out amongst themselves, thereby ensuring His strongest creation survives, despite the death toll attributed directly to His words, His action, and His creations.

[byofrcs]

.....

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?

Politicians use science to kill and the worst politician is the one who thinks God is on their side. So to answer the points...

1) Indirectly God because God has been used as the authority for rules who use the bounty of science for their own purposes.

It is a it hard to oppose a ruler when they have God on their side. In the past few years God has been removed as the authority and the authority is now The People. This is for all nations and is the idea behind the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 21 (3) ...

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Amazing that was just 60 years ago. It took the estimated 50 million to over 70 million (now is that an estimate or what !) deaths in the second world war to catalyse this document and it is still not fully implemented everywhere.

A millennia of the authority from God washed away by the blood of millions. Took a long time to learn huh ?.

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

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).

[GrumpyMrGruff]

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

As byofrcs points out, science is knowledge by definition. Nowadays, science may also refer to the application of the scientific method to answer various questions about the natural world. This is not a ethically neutral process. The decisions about which questions are asked are made by people, and I would argue that those people (both the researchers posing questions in grants proposals and the funding organizations) are obligated to consider the impact of the research. Weapons researchers aside (they've already recused themselves from the ethical discussion IMO), science as a profession has had mixed results in anticipating the results of its discoveries.

Very generally speaking, science is at fault if scientists take a cavalier attitude toward their discoveries (e.g., failing to communicate discoveries to proper regulatory bodies) and religious fanatics are able to utilize those discoveries to inflict suffering on others. (Zealots do less damage with sharp sticks than with bombs.) For example, until a few years ago it was possible for private citizens to order custom DNA sequences from biotech suppliers without any screening of the customers or sequences. At the same time, the genomes of various infectious diseases were (and still are) available online. In 2006, a reporter at the Guardian ordered and received a fragment of the smallpox viral genome at his residence. The potential for for such abuse must be guarded against.

That said, considering the advances in sanitation/medical/agricultural/meteorological/information technologies I would be hard pressed to call science the greater source of suffering. Indeed, if we consider disease and natural disasters to be part of God's will per the OP, then science actually works to offset the suffering caused by god.

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?

If I had to name one technological application of scientific knowledge that hasn't backfired (yet), I would point to the GMO crops with increased drought/pest resistance and increased yields which allow us to feed millions (billions?) more than we could a thousand years ago.

God's scriptures (depending on the religion) tend to promote at least in-group altruism. He can't be faulted for that. A shame He didn't say, "Love all mankind," rather than, "Love thy neighbor."

[Confused]

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.

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).

[Simon_Peter]

Hey Confused,

And i don't mean to embarrass anyone, but this is a debate,

I understand your asking me who has done more damage. But how can i assess the damage if you haven't brought forward, anything for me to judge.

Yes science is dangerous. And yes science has made it possible for worse and worser things to happen. However everything is double edge blade. Murder doesn't just happen. So by saying that science has done damage, by technology being perverted is a drastic accusation. Name me one example.

When i read your work, its fantastic. You almost convince me of what your saying. You never said that science is bad, but you make it out that way very subtly. Its a fantastic skill. What Confused has said is literally, the fear, of technology being perverted is a greater fear than the actual perversion of organized faith. Well that is what we call leading, but thats beside the point. Asserting your opinions in a different contextual sense to influence someones train of thought. Its best to say, Do you think.. this will stop you from saying leading statements. However another thing i like is the way you have said it, you very graphically depict the followers of religion and make them appear perverted, which is a very common belief amongst people. But then use this imagery and juxtapose it onto Science. In comparison the church is the lesser evil.

Even though in the statement, or in fact entire initial post, you haven't said science has done anything bad.

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.

And i have read what you have wrote carefully. Apart from it being a biased and general viewpoint. Is there an actual damage science has done, or is it just the fear too much to handle. You then went to list some things, like bombs. Which still escapes me, why you have done this. Well yes we have the ability to do damage. But your list provided no more insight other than describing the type of power we have, other than that, i fail to see reason.

But to answer the first: This is why we need to be careful. Who is worse God or Science, i think the followers of God are.


Regards
Simon

[Confused]

Ok, I am limited on energy here and have every intention on being put back to sleep as soon as possible, but some things I need to address in this post and a few more before twilight sleep takes me under again.

Yes, this is a debate. The purpose of my OP is to learn. If I had the answers to the questions I would not have bothered asking them.

Hey Confused,

And i don't mean to embarrass anyone, but this is a debate,


I understand your asking me who has done more damage. But how can i assess the damage if you haven't brought forward, anything for me to judge.

Perhaps the point of the OP has escaped your understanding. I am asking a question, not making an assertion in it. If you want to start to participate in the debate, then address the questions. Sounds easy enough to me.

Yes science is dangerous. And yes science has made it possible for worse and worser things to happen. However everything is double edge blade. Murder doesn't just happen. So by saying that science has done damage, by technology being perverted is a drastic accusation. Name me one example.

Oh buggers. If you are not going to read what I wrote as the questions for debate, then why waste time?

When i read your work, its fantastic. You almost convince me of what your saying. You never said that science is bad, but you make it out that way very subtly. Its a fantastic skill. What Confused has said is literally, the fear, of technology being perverted is a greater fear than the actual perversion of organized faith. Well that is what we call leading, but thats beside the point. Asserting your opinions in a different contextual sense to influence someones train of thought. Its best to say, Do you think.. this will stop you from saying leading statements. However another thing i like is the way you have said it, you very graphically depict the followers of religion and make them appear perverted, which is a very common belief amongst people. But then use this imagery and juxtapose it onto Science. In comparison the church is the lesser evil.

No, what you percieved Confused as saying is your own interpretation. When I want advice on how to word my assertions, I will ask for it. Thank you anyways. If you percieve me as graphically depiciting followers of religion to appear perverted, then you don't know me very well. Whether or not that is common belief, I don't know. But quit trying to put your own context on mine.

Even though in the statement, or in fact entire initial post, you haven't said science has done anything bad.

Try reading the OP QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

And i have read what you have wrote carefully. Apart from it being a biased and general viewpoint. Is there an actual damage science has done, or is it just the fear too much to handle. You then went to list some things, like bombs. Which still escapes me, why you have done this. Well yes we have the ability to do damage. But your list provided no more insight other than describing the type of power we have, other than that, i fail to see reason.

Obviously you have not read what I wrote carefully. There is a reason I post a thread with debate questions. It is because I don't know the answers to them. If you would like to try to answer them, then do so. But misinterpreting what I write does nothing to help me learn. As for bias, here is a little hint, we are all biased in one way or another. The point of debating is to not only learn, but to evaluate your own beleifs to see if they are indeed valid or if they are to heavily influenced by biases.

But to answer the first: This is why we need to be careful. Who is worse God or Science, i think the followers of God are.

Oh my. You are finally going to address the OP questions? Just so you know, I don't agree. I don't think the followers of God are worse than science. Either one can be just as damaging when held by the wrong people.

Who controls science, the minsters of government are the followers of God, those guys we need to worry about. These idealists. Much like President Bush. Should we create a database for everyone who follows god whilst serving in politics, its a rhetorical question.

Just to make it clear i am a Christian, very reluctantly.

Regards
Simon

I have no clue what the purpose of this final statement is.

[Simon_Peter]

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.

"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.

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?

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.


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.

Regards,
Simon