Opinion of internet atheists

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mikado, Al, would either of you happen to remember where in Blake the 'x of y is the z of God' (where y is various kinds of animal) formulation occurs? I'm reasonably sure it's Blake, and I think it's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, but I can't remember exactly.

(This is now a William Blake thread for those who want it to be.)

[The Mikado]

Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.

That's just it, though.  The very desire to know or understand the Universe is a fool's errand, especially if you reject the metaphysical and the philosophical to myopically focus on the physical Universe around you.  It's not just the human mind, talking about stars as hydrogen slowly fusing into helium producing a nuclear fusion reaction that generates massive amount of energy may be true for one value of truth, but sealing that as the only definition and ridiculing others for solar worship or the view that the sun is Helios pulled by a chariot is narrowminded in the extreme.    The Rationalist viewpoint tries to freeze out all approaches to truth that don't revolve around the Scientific method as not legitimate avenues to truth: in the same vein as Christianity, it is the ultimate in small-mindedness to say that one approach is right and the others are empirically wrong and prima facie absurdities. 

I have no problem with science itself, I have no qualm with it as one approach to knowledge, my problem is the outright rejection of the irrational and, in fact, turning irrationality into a derogatory term.  Many of the most valuable parts of human experience and the universe in general are inherently irrational, chaotic, unorderly, and downright messy.  Rationalism deprecates old wisdom and proclaims the value of new "knowledge," and attempts to see further and further into the tiniest particles, the most distant corners of the Universe, the creases of the human brain, and the most deep depths of the Earth's core, but loses the knowledge of the human spirit, the soul, in the process, and ridicules what it can't understand, abuses the "irrational."

Irrationality is freedom.  Freedom from the formalized structure of the scientific method, freedom from the hypocrisy of scientists who proclaim that they are working to better mankind while they perfect weapons with which to better kill vast swathes of mankind, freedom from the arrogant idea that the old gods of yore, whether they be named Zeus or Thor or Jesus, will be replaced by a new pantheon of Newton, Tesla, and Einstein. 

[Sbane]

I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

Way to prove Mikado's point.  The very action of you and others elevating Science to the status of God, replacing religious truth of one kind with a religious truth of another, but claiming it is something else ("scientifically proven"), and then arrogantly claiming that human beings will ever be able to know the full extent of the human brain's capabilities (which is not, by the way, the same thing as the human mind, and does not explain the enormous complexities of social interaction, for example)..what science has allowed modern human beings to do is to have pretensions of Godly power, of superiority, of enlightenment.

[The Mikado]

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

That's just what my problem is, though.  Science denies the validity of types of truth other than scientific truth, and values systems other than Rationalism.  What I'm rejecting is the notion that scientific "truth" is inherently more valuable or valid than other ways of interpreting the universe.  If that involves rejecting "reality" itself then so be it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.

That's just it, though.  The very desire to know or understand the Universe is a fool's errand, especially if you reject the metaphysical and the philosophical to myopically focus on the physical Universe around you.  It's not just the human mind, talking about stars as hydrogen slowly fusing into helium producing a nuclear fusion reaction that generates massive amount of energy may be true for one value of truth, but sealing that as the only definition and ridiculing others for solar worship or the view that the sun is Helios pulled by a chariot is narrowminded in the extreme.    The Rationalist viewpoint tries to freeze out all approaches to truth that don't revolve around the Scientific method as not legitimate avenues to truth: in the same vein as Christianity, it is the ultimate in small-mindedness to say that one approach is right and the others are empirically wrong and prima facie absurdities. 

I have no problem with science itself, I have no qualm with it as one approach to knowledge, my problem is the outright rejection of the irrational and, in fact, turning irrationality into a derogatory term.  Many of the most valuable parts of human experience and the universe in general are inherently irrational, chaotic, unorderly, and downright messy.  Rationalism deprecates old wisdom and proclaims the value of new "knowledge," and attempts to see further and further into the tiniest particles, the most distant corners of the Universe, the creases of the human brain, and the most deep depths of the Earth's core, but loses the knowledge of the human spirit, the soul, in the process, and ridicules what it can't understand, abuses the "irrational."

Irrationality is freedom.  Freedom from the formalized structure of the scientific method, freedom from the hypocrisy of scientists who proclaim that they are working to better mankind while they perfect weapons with which to better kill vast swathes of mankind, freedom from the arrogant idea that the old gods of yore, whether they be named Zeus or Thor or Jesus, will be replaced by a new pantheon of Newton, Tesla, and Einstein.

Again, I think you completely misunderstand rationalism if you think it is all about promoting science as the Absolute Truth and ridiculing any forms of metaphysical thought. I don't think at all that most rationalists would agree with you characterization. Reducing all of us to Auguste Comte is like reducing all Christians to Jerry Falwell, and your vision is equally simplistic as those internet kids who bash all religion because of a few fundies.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but here is how I see things. Metaphysical thought is a form of truth, and one that is extremely fertile and enriching to human beings. If someone believes in God, then God does exist for this person. Science has nothing to say about it, not because it is less true, but because it is simply not relevant/competent. Metaphysics is, etymologically, what goes beyond the realm of nature, what is beyond scientific and rational understanding. The two fields should remain separate not intervene in one another. Religion cannot tell us anything about the material/physical structure of the universe - science cannot tell us anything about the existence and nature of deity.

There is one major difference between material/rational truth and metaphysical truth: the latter is inherently subjective and personal, the latter is universal. One's spiritual beliefs are true, but only to the person who holds them. Rationality, like it or not, is humanity's common language. It is the tool through which we can interact, and find the common ground to act as a collective. It is what we can all agree on, without relinquishing our individual metaphysical thought. The distinction isn't between truth and falsehood, but rather between objective and subjective truth. "Objective" is not an adjective that gives superior value to truth: it simply means "a truth that does not depend from the observer", a truth that is the same to all.

A major issue arises, however, when people attempt to impose their own metaphysical thought to others: there comes organized, institutional religion - religion as a tool of social control - which is, IMO, a perversion of spirituality. There is nothing wrong against people confronting and debating their respective metaphysical beliefs - to the contrary, this is a formidable experience for human intellect. However, as soon as one assumes that what is true to him must be true to all, terrible things start happening. Secularism, thus, simply means preventing this from happening, and preserving the liberty of all to find their own beliefs without being forced into some through socialization.

[Sbane]

I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

Way to prove Mikado's point.  The very action of you and others elevating Science to the status of God, replacing religious truth of one kind with a religious truth of another, but claiming it is something else ("scientifically proven"), and then arrogantly claiming that human beings will ever be able to know the full extent of the human brain's capabilities (which is not, by the way, the same thing as the human mind, and does not explain the enormous complexities of social interaction, for example)..what science has allowed modern human beings to do is to have pretensions of Godly power, of superiority, of enlightenment.

If you read my comments in the other thread about whether humans are a "higher" being than other animals, you can tell I have no such delusions about the supposed superiority of human beings and rational thinking. I just think it is the best way to understand the world around us and ourselves. That being said, there is a lot that is still undiscovered and some questions that just cannot be practically answered currently. If you want to believe in myths about it, that is fine with me. I just don't see how that is in conflict with the scientific method. I am really puzzled by the anti-science rants. Unless you are one of those who believes the earth is 6,000 years old or doesn't believe in evolution, I don't see how you are in conflict with science. Perhaps you believe in a myth that cannot be proven or disproved by science. That does not make you opposed to science. There are just some people out there, like me, who cannot make those leaps. Perhaps you can. I don't think that makes either one of us superior to the other.

And science is not god. I don't understand where that accusation even comes from. The scientific method just allows us to learn about the world a little more step by step. Maybe one day we will fully understand the complexities of the human brain, maybe not. I really don't understand what arrogant claim I made. I don't think I even understand your thinking process.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.

That's just it, though.  The very desire to know or understand the Universe is a fool's errand, especially if you reject the metaphysical and the philosophical to myopically focus on the physical Universe around you.  It's not just the human mind, talking about stars as hydrogen slowly fusing into helium producing a nuclear fusion reaction that generates massive amount of energy may be true for one value of truth, but sealing that as the only definition and ridiculing others for solar worship or the view that the sun is Helios pulled by a chariot is narrowminded in the extreme.    The Rationalist viewpoint tries to freeze out all approaches to truth that don't revolve around the Scientific method as not legitimate avenues to truth: in the same vein as Christianity, it is the ultimate in small-mindedness to say that one approach is right and the others are empirically wrong and prima facie absurdities. 

I have no problem with science itself, I have no qualm with it as one approach to knowledge, my problem is the outright rejection of the irrational and, in fact, turning irrationality into a derogatory term.  Many of the most valuable parts of human experience and the universe in general are inherently irrational, chaotic, unorderly, and downright messy.  Rationalism deprecates old wisdom and proclaims the value of new "knowledge," and attempts to see further and further into the tiniest particles, the most distant corners of the Universe, the creases of the human brain, and the most deep depths of the Earth's core, but loses the knowledge of the human spirit, the soul, in the process, and ridicules what it can't understand, abuses the "irrational."

Irrationality is freedom.  Freedom from the formalized structure of the scientific method, freedom from the hypocrisy of scientists who proclaim that they are working to better mankind while they perfect weapons with which to better kill vast swathes of mankind, freedom from the arrogant idea that the old gods of yore, whether they be named Zeus or Thor or Jesus, will be replaced by a new pantheon of Newton, Tesla, and Einstein.

Again, I think you completely misunderstand rationalism if you think it is all about promoting science as the Absolute Truth and ridiculing any forms of metaphysical thought. I don't think at all that most rationalists would agree with you characterization. Reducing all of us to Auguste Comte is like reducing all Christians to Jerry Falwell, and your vision is equally simplistic as those internet kids who bash all religion because of a few fundies.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but here is how I see things. Metaphysical thought is a form of truth, and one that is extremely fertile and enriching to human beings. If someone believes in God, then God does exist for this person. Science has nothing to say about it, not because it is less true, but because it is simply not relevant/competent. Metaphysics is, etymologically, what goes beyond the realm of nature, what is beyond scientific and rational understanding. The two fields should remain separate not intervene in one another. Religion cannot tell us anything about the material/physical structure of the universe - science cannot tell us anything about the existence and nature of deity.

There is one major difference between material/rational truth and metaphysical truth: the latter is inherently subjective and personal, the latter is universal. One's spiritual beliefs are true, but only to the person who holds them. Rationality, like it or not, is humanity's common language. It is the tool through which we can interact, and find the common ground to act as a collective. It is what we can all agree on, without relinquishing our individual metaphysical thought. The distinction isn't between truth and falsehood, but rather between objective and subjective truth. "Objective" is not an adjective that gives superior value to truth: it simply means "a truth that does not depend from the observer", a truth that is the same to all.

A major issue arises, however, when people attempt to impose their own metaphysical thought to others: there comes organized, institutional religion - religion as a tool of social control - which is, IMO, a perversion of spirituality. There is nothing wrong against people confronting and debating their respective metaphysical beliefs - to the contrary, this is a formidable experience for human intellect. However, as soon as one assumes that what is true to him must be true to all, terrible things start happening. Secularism, thus, simply means preventing this from happening, and preserving the liberty of all to find their own beliefs without being forced into some through socialization.

In my humble opinion, you're both right.  I've long been a believer in what Stephen Jay Gould coined "non-overlapping magisteria."  Theists can and should believe things which derive from a methodology that isn't ideal to mainstream scientists.  The problem lies in areas where one methodology clashes with the one that gives us empirical truth -- such as, for example, evolution.  Both philosophy and science provide us limited interpretations of "reality" (because understanding reality in its entirety is, like The Mikado said, a "fool's errand").  And both methods have been used as a weapon by those who want to control.  That, of course, is not a good reason to completely reject either method of understanding life.

Science and religion are funny to me.  They can, at times, be very different.  But from some angles, they're more similar than we think.

[Sbane]

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

That's just what my problem is, though.  Science denies the validity of types of truth other than scientific truth, and values systems other than Rationalism.  What I'm rejecting is the notion that scientific "truth" is inherently more valuable or valid than other ways of interpreting the universe.  If that involves rejecting "reality" itself then so be it.

I am not making any judgments. I just don't think I even understand how you think. See, I do not try to just dismiss anything that has not been explained by science. This is why I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I also keep open the possibility of things existing which others say is impossible or is crazy to even think about without first being proven by science.

I am fine with other medical systems beyond just the western approach. Even there though, the therapies that work can be proven to work by the scientific method. The mechanism of action can be uncovered by the scientific method. And science is not something mythical, all it is is a systematic approach to uncovering the truth. I do not understand how another method would be better....If there was a better method out there to find out the truth about something, it would be utilized by science. Does that make sense?

And if we are going at this from the science vs religion angle (which is idiotic, but what this thread kind of seems to be about), I think it is just a fundamentally different way of looking at the world. I don't think there is any need to be judgmental about it, although imho, if you have a heart attack, science will come in more handy than prayer. Of course, we are also finding substantial evidence that prayer can help with the healing process, so perhaps there is something to that as well. But I would argue that even there we should be able to find the mechanism within the body through which prayer is helping us heal, rather than some sort of divine intervention. At least that is how I look at the world and I am really incapable of looking at it from a more "spiritual" sense. I don't see how that makes me a bad person worthy of scorn. And if you can't appreciate the scientific method, that is fine as well.

[DemPGH]

There is one major difference between material/rational truth and metaphysical truth: the latter is inherently subjective and personal, the latter is universal. One's spiritual beliefs are true, but only to the person who holds them. Rationality, like it or not, is humanity's common language. It is the tool through which we can interact, and find the common ground to act as a collective. It is what we can all agree on, without relinquishing our individual metaphysical thought. The distinction isn't between truth and falsehood, but rather between objective and subjective truth. "Objective" is not an adjective that gives superior value to truth: it simply means "a truth that does not depend from the observer", a truth that is the same to all.

A major issue arises, however, when people attempt to impose their own metaphysical thought to others: there comes organized, institutional religion - religion as a tool of social control - which is, IMO, a perversion of spirituality. There is nothing wrong against people confronting and debating their respective metaphysical beliefs - to the contrary, this is a formidable experience for human intellect. However, as soon as one assumes that what is true to him must be true to all, terrible things start happening. Secularism, thus, simply means preventing this from happening, and preserving the liberty of all to find their own beliefs without being forced into some through socialization.

Well, we've happened onto a wonderful discussion now. This I agree with. I think in a warm and fuzzy, philosophical sense the arts have every right to construct the world as they see it. They have to. Because it's not about empiricism, it's about poetics and impressions and music and mood and so on. I've defended the arts elsewhere, because I think they are very useful and should not be relegated to third tier status. But the arts have limits. In the past the arts have not acknowledged those limits, of which I generally mean the Church, and the arts tend to be just as conformist as science, only along different lines. Science at the very least says, okay, let's see the evidence. If it can't be produced, then it doesn't make it. I don't even know that the arts are about that - the arts are more, I think, about conforming one's ideology to some thinker or philosopher or performer who is revered.

When investigating the cosmos, you don't just make up something because you feel it's right and that's it. It's why science is not a religion, and the leading thinkers in science are not popes. So if we want to know something about the subatomic world, do we ask a leading physicist, or Walt Whitman? I would hope the physicist. Because he or she has done the work with the proper technology and run the tests.

Understanding the universe empirically is not a fool's errand at all, I will add. Ask Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Leeuwenhoeck (discovered microbes - "animalcules"), Mendel, Curie, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, and there are, of course, many more, many of whom have built upon the previous generation's knowledge quite substantially. I mean, from Kepler's law of harmony Newton more or less invented the principles of calculus to explain what Kepler could not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, I suppose the arts do have limits. Didn't produce zyklon-b or thalidomide, for instance.

[DemPGH]

Yes, I suppose the arts do have limits. Didn't produce zyklon-b or thalidomide, for instance.

Nope, but you know what I'm going to say: to whom should we credit the Inquisition, the crusades, and the conquests, now?

It's trial and error. We discover the law of harmony, but we get Zyklon-B. Thank goodness Zyklon-B is the exception.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank goodness Zyklon-B is the exception.

Is it? I'd like to agree with you, because I'd like to agree that Zyklon-B is the exception to anything, but how exactly is this to be determined? (I ask primarily in the interest of clarifying the terms of discussion, not because I don't understand what you're saying.)

[TJ in Oregon]

Science and technology, the internet included, can be used both for good or for ill. This should come as no surprise. Science as an institution covers the mechanism behind how hydrogen cyanide kills cells, not whether or not producing such a gas is good or bad. Conceptions of "good" and "bad" are ethical rather than hard science (though one could argue that social sciences should be included and then the picture gets much foggier).

[Sbane]

Yes, I suppose the arts do have limits. Didn't produce zyklon-b or thalidomide, for instance.

Yes, and using science we could figure out thalidomide caused birth defects so we stopped its use. And we also discovered ondansetron using science, so women could control their morning sickness and have healthy babies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Point missed entirely, but that's to be expected.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though the nature of the missing of the point is quite instructive as to why this kind of discussion is so frequently lamentably unproductive in almost all possible respects.

[Sbane]

Point missed entirely, but that's to be expected.

Both of those drugs were created with good intentions. Yes, they had side effects. Many drugs have side effects (which is why they are tested so regularly these days, thus the high cost). What exactly is your point (probably something irrational that you think makes you look smart)? Sometimes they can be used by humans with bad intentions (like Zyklon-B), but I don't see how that is some sort of a huge indictment of science.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Al, what's your point exactly? Because if your point is "science can do bad things", then you probably believe we are all idiots, since only an idiot can be unaware of that.

...or maybe you were just trolling.

[The Mikado]

Al, what's your point exactly? Because if your point is "science can do bad things", then you probably believe we are all idiots, since only an idiot can be unaware of that.

...or maybe you were just trolling.

The point isn't "science can do bad things," it's that "scientific 'progress' is not inherently good, but its advocates take it to be as such and make little effort to philosophically justify that contention."  There's an arrogance involved in people attempting to bring order to chaos or whatnot and neglecting to realize that a substantial amount of humanity finds refuge, beauty, and grandeur in that chaos that they're beating back and don't want it to vanish.

Put simply, in the battle between trying to further understand the universe and accepting life, nature, and the universe itself as chaotic, beautiful, and terrible unknowable mysteries.  I side with the chaos over the order, with celebrating the unknown over the efforts to "know," and I resent the idea that "science" is ideologically championed as "a good thing" that should be blindly furthered without questioning.


EDIT: I should clarify.  I keep seeing goals like "furthering human knowledge" given without seeing even an attempt to justify why "furthering human knowledge" is in any way a desirable goal using any sort of moral philosophy.  Science's advocates have become arrogant enough that they neglect to use any sort of philosophic framework to justify the pursuit of more "truth," which, like all information, is quite possible of having drastic, lethal results.  Astronomy improved trajectories for rockets and ballistic missiles, aeronautics allowed for the deaths of millions in aerial bombing raids, chemistry allowed (and allows) for mass poisoning, biology for the intentional cultivation of illness, and physics tampers with the fundamental building blocks of the universe and unimaginable power.  Why is this allowed?  How can scientists justify their "right" to further research in these fields?  Where is the philosophic justification for why the furthering of knowledge in these fields is at all desirable?  Science used to be a subdiscipline of philosophy, which was as it should be.  Its divorcing from morality and its complementary status to metaphysics has produced a field allowed to tamper with the very foundational building blocks of life without any sort of extensive soul searching as to why this quest to further humanity's understanding of the universe is even a desirable goal to begin with.

[Gustaf]

Wait, did BRTD post a complain about people being unoriginal and repetitive three times in the same thread? Lol.

[afleitch]

The point isn't "science can do bad things," it's that "scientific 'progress' is not inherently good, but its advocates take it to be as such and make little effort to philosophically justify that contention."  There's an arrogance involved in people attempting to bring order to chaos or whatnot and neglecting to realize that a substantial amount of humanity finds refuge, beauty, and grandeur in that chaos that they're beating back and don't want it to vanish.

Put simply, in the battle between trying to further understand the universe and accepting life, nature, and the universe itself as chaotic, beautiful, and terrible unknowable mysteries.  I side with the chaos over the order, with celebrating the unknown over the efforts to "know," and I resent the idea that "science" is ideologically championed as "a good thing" that should be blindly furthered without questioning.

But science is what is 'chaotic' surely? Order is what humans do to make sense of themselves and the world and that tends to be philosophy, myths and self expression. Science is what it is. All we do is try to understand which has a chaotic effect on our understanding of the universe and our place in it especially if it conflicts with per-conceived notions. You argue that science should be a 'sub discipline of philosophy' but why should it be bound to us mere humans? It's bad enough that our understanding of it is limited by our material limits but at least we should have the humility to accept that science transcends us.

[John Dibble]

Mikado seems to have a caricature of science advocates and Rationalism in his head that has no bearing on reality. For instance...

In other words, what I oppose isn't atheism, it's Rationalism and the scientific paradigm itself.  It refuses to keep to itself and expands into fields it can't comprehend, intruding on and smashing literature, music, philosophy, history, economics, and others beneath its weighty models.

I don't think I've ever seen science advocates try to apply it to literature and music in any significant fashion. Sure, we might study human reactions to such things and see how their brains light up, but at no point has science ever had something to say about whether a piece of literature is interesting or a piece of music beautiful.

In regards to philosophy, I suppose it might depend on whether or not the philosophy makes statements of fact that are measurable, but human values aren't something science has anything to say about. You might be a hedonist, and while science may be able to in some fashion be able to determine the benefits and consequences of your hedonism it can't and doesn't try to put them on a scale and determine the worth of those things - only humans can assign 'value' to them.

History and economics... well, sorry Mikado, but science has legitimate reason to be in these fields. Archaeology is valuable in determining our history, and it is both a science and a humanity. How can we determine the age of something we've dug up if we don't use the tools we have developed through science? As far as economics goes, businesses use science all the time. They gather data scientifically and make models because they have been proven to work and increase their profits. Still, science can't necessarily say why humans enjoy certain products.

Science advocates push for science because we want to improve the human condition. We want to make people's lives better. We still enjoy literature, music, poetry, and all of those kinds of things just as much as everyone else.

I'll close with a quote that we science advocates quite favor...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

[Sbane]

Al, what's your point exactly? Because if your point is "science can do bad things", then you probably believe we are all idiots, since only an idiot can be unaware of that.

...or maybe you were just trolling.

The point isn't "science can do bad things," it's that "scientific 'progress' is not inherently good, but its advocates take it to be as such and make little effort to philosophically justify that contention."  There's an arrogance involved in people attempting to bring order to chaos or whatnot and neglecting to realize that a substantial amount of humanity finds refuge, beauty, and grandeur in that chaos that they're beating back and don't want it to vanish.

Put simply, in the battle between trying to further understand the universe and accepting life, nature, and the universe itself as chaotic, beautiful, and terrible unknowable mysteries.  I side with the chaos over the order, with celebrating the unknown over the efforts to "know," and I resent the idea that "science" is ideologically championed as "a good thing" that should be blindly furthered without questioning.


EDIT: I should clarify.  I keep seeing goals like "furthering human knowledge" given without seeing even an attempt to justify why "furthering human knowledge" is in any way a desirable goal using any sort of moral philosophy.  Science's advocates have become arrogant enough that they neglect to use any sort of philosophic framework to justify the pursuit of more "truth," which, like all information, is quite possible of having drastic, lethal results.  Astronomy improved trajectories for rockets and ballistic missiles, aeronautics allowed for the deaths of millions in aerial bombing raids, chemistry allowed (and allows) for mass poisoning, biology for the intentional cultivation of illness, and physics tampers with the fundamental building blocks of the universe and unimaginable power.  Why is this allowed?  How can scientists justify their "right" to further research in these fields?  Where is the philosophic justification for why the furthering of knowledge in these fields is at all desirable?  Science used to be a subdiscipline of philosophy, which was as it should be.  Its divorcing from morality and its complementary status to metaphysics has produced a field allowed to tamper with the very foundational building blocks of life without any sort of extensive soul searching as to why this quest to further humanity's understanding of the universe is even a desirable goal to begin with.

Almost all the fields you mentioned have produced good and bad applications of that knowledge. In my view it is humans that choose to abuse knowledge, though that's not always the case. Science does not always produce good but I do believe most researchers have good intentions. Unfortunately many pieces of knowledge can have both good and bad applications. The does not mean we should limit research to limit the bad when It produces more than enough good to outweigh the bad.

In terms of philosophical justification, most researchers do have to make some justification for their work, and it usually isn't "I want to kill people". Military research is a hard one to justify, but the argument is made that if you don't do it, someone else will.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point isn't "science can do bad things," it's that "scientific 'progress' is not inherently good, but its advocates take it to be as such and make little effort to philosophically justify that contention."

This is exactly so.