Ben Stein: "science leads you to killing people"

Ben Stein: "science leads you to killing people"

www.crooksandliars.com

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well I won't argue the fact that science has created weapons of all shapes and sizes throughout history. What I will argue is that religion has killed more people on Earth than any other group, we have had the inquisition, a convert or die mentality for centuries, crusades, and all sorts of culture destroying murdering raping conquest based in religion, yet for some reason they claim the moral high ground today.

Does he not know history?

So what is it people does religious zelotry lead people to kill?

Or does science?

or both?

www.crooksandliars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Utter nonsense...

Science doesn't kill people....PEOPLE kill people.

Ben Stein is a smart man. A very, very smart man. A genius, they say.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean he's a sane man.

Ben Stein is a smart dude no doubt, and I'm willing to accept that he made an intelligent documentary about mass scientific acceptance of evolution and the "cover up" of intelligent design, regardless of my actual view on the subject. But saying science leads to killing people is just stupid. In fact, I would say the opposite is true.

If Ben Stein is going to say things like this he's going to kill all his credibility and the credibility of his movie, which is probably the strongest thing ID'ers have going for them.

the last time a scientist told a member of my family what to do, they walked out of the hospital under their own power, having been declared free of the cancer that would have killed them for certain even 20 years ago.

THAT is science at work. Stein wants to link science in general and evolution in particular to the Nazs. Now that he's proved Godwin's Law to be true outside of the internet, can we assign him to the same dustbin as Nixon, and get on with life?

Men with power order people to kill people.

Religion is used as a justification and battlecry.

Science unfortunately can be used as a tool.


In the case of the gas chambers, neither religion nor science were the causes, they were used as tools. The cause was a purely political one... a less than sane political cause.

Even the smartest people are capable of large axiomatic 'leaps' of logic. What may seem 'obvious' to him is not necessarily so. As smart as he is I don't think he would wantonly make a statement like this without realizing that he was condemning an entire community in a most obtuse way.

Unless I am misunderstanding, this equates to the 'knowledge is evil' cornerstone of the philosophy that takes us towards 'it is our duty to obey'. How's that for a leap of logic?

reply to post by LDragonFire


Interesting thread. I do have a couple of disagreements with Ben Stein's statements as well as yours in your commentary.

Regarding Ben Stein's Comments: Although it is true science has been used as a tool and inspiration for massive destruction, science has also brought immense advancements and has saved untold lives through medicine, technology, etc.

General Statement: Likewise, religion has been the inspiration for immeasurable suffering and destruction but at the same time has also been responsible for taking care of widows and orphans, education, hospitals, and various humanitarian efforts.

Conclusion: Both religion and science have the potential for advancement and destruction. Due to this, we're left to conclude the problem and benefit leads us back to... people. Or as another member said in THIS comment, "Science is as bad as religion in the hands of zealots."

To the OP commentary: It was proven on another member's thread called 'Are Atheists Airbrushing History?' that atheist/secular states have killed more than religiously inspired wars and that things like the Inquisition and Crusades caused only a fraction of deaths in comparison. Not anything to make an issue out of due to what we already explained in the preceding paragraph but I still wanted to point that out.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

Interesting thread. I do have a couple of disagreements with Ben Stein's statements as well as yours in your commentary.

I admit I did paint the picture of religion with a broad paint stroke.

Regarding Ben Stein's Comments: Although it is true science has been used as a tool and inspiration for massive destruction, science has also brought immense advancements and has saved untold lives through medicine, technology, etc.

General Statement: Likewise, religion has been the inspiration for immeasurable suffering and destruction but at the same time has also been responsible for taking care of widows and orphans, education, hospitals, and various humanitarian efforts.

Conclusion: Both religion and science have the potential for advancement and destruction. Due to this, we're left to conclude the problem and benefit leads us back to... people. Or as another member said in THIS comment, "Science is as bad as religion in the hands of zealots."

Very good reply, and I have to agree with you. It is the extremists that are the murdering type e.g. To kill the sinners for sinning, even though it's a sin, or to kill a thousand to save a million such as some disease study.

To the OP commentary: It was proven on another member's thread called 'Are Atheists Airbrushing History?' that atheist/secular states have killed more than religiously inspired wars and that things like the Inquisition and Crusades caused only a fraction of deaths in comparison. Not anything to make an issue out of due to what we already explained in the preceding paragraph but I still wanted to point that out.

I disagree with this, and by proven, I have to assume thats your point of view, and that doesn't make it fact at all, but it's a discussion for that other thread.

I have to question Ben Steins credibility, possibly he is in mental decline to say such a thing, people kill, they kill for greed, they kill for political ideology, some just kill for fun or a thrill, and some people kill because they have no other choice. Science is but a tool or method used, it can be used for good such as incubators for preemie babies, or for bad such as abortions.

But in the end it is a human that pulls the trigger, whether they be religious, atheist, or agnostic, and if they use a stick that has nothing to do with science at all.

I agree with the poster that said Ben is the best thing going for the ID movement, but not if he continues to make statements such as this, unless of course it's just a ploy to make Ben Stein some money.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by LDragonFire]

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I disagree with this, and by proven, I have to assume thats your point of view, and that doesn't make it fact at all, but it's a discussion for that other thread.

We showed it through statistics. Truthfully, the debate of who has killed more people has always sounded morbid to me- especially when both sides try to downplay the death tolls on their side. Regardless, it is a moot point for this discussion as we both agree religion, race/ethic, science, politics, power, greed, or any other reason wars have been started all trace back to the single root cause of people. It also make logical since though if you don't feel like looking up the verified statistics. WMD's have only existed for a drop in the bucket of time. Secular states have had access to such weapons whereas religious wars in the past were fought with swords, guns, slingshots, etc. Such a thing would immediately skew the results to show how modern secular states have run up a higher death toll. Anyways, it's irrelevant.

As for Stein, he was most likely using sweeping generalizations or sensationalism to make his point. It has been said (that is all I can offer as I am not knowledgeable on the study), that eugenics and Darwinism had a hand in the Holocaust. Being that Stein is anti-evolution and pro-design, it would seem he was focusing on the danger of that type of science (especially when looking at the context of his quote where he talks about the holocaust) and is not criticizing science as a whole.

On the other hand, I encourage you to read THIS COMMENT I linked to above. It was very well written. Of course, everything goes back to the point we have both agreed upon: People are responsible and can use anything as a tool to both benefit and harm mankind.

Again, good thread.

I think most of those responding have missed the boat on this.

Stein wasn't saying that chemo-therapy or even the construction of the gas chambers themselves are responsible for mass killing. He isn't saying the science of the Earth being round is evil. He isn't saying that inventing new ways to cure disease is responsible for killing anyone.

He's saying the science and practice of eugenics justifies to some the killing of many. This is absolutely no different than any group using religion to justify the killing of any other group.

Sure, he said "this is where science leads you" and he probably should have been more specific but I don't think anyone honestly believes Stein is so crazy he thinks making a smaller iPod will kill his people or anyone else.

Some people can be convinced to murder for their god and others for their science. No difference. Sorry, there is one difference. Those who murder for science have "facts" to justify their actions and those who murder for god have "faith." Both are equally "real."

I believe also that Mr. Stein was explicit about the statement being a personal opinion, viz:

That was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you. (My emphasis)

If anyone here looked at the world through his eyes, they would probably arrive at the same conclusion.

It may be your opinion that he's insane. To this, I ask, "Is your opinion better-informed than his?" One out-of-context quote can mean anything, and no matter how well it combines with a filmography, I don't see how it alludes at all to someone's state of mental health.

He has his reasons. Like him, we each have beliefs, and our reasons for believing them. I think this is one of those situations where we shouldn't get upset at him because he thinks differently. Instead, let us try to understand as much as possible why he believes what he does, and then observe other views of the situation which he might be missing.

I kind of have the same conclusion. I think science is great but it seems like extreme views distort science just like everything else. We always seem to point in a direction were science believes it can make the human race better and that usually means some kind of master race plan, social Darwinism and Eugenics programs.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Yes, unfortunately, it would seem, that Ben Stein has gone off the deep end.

I couldn't believe it when he actually compared scientists to Nazi's performing sick and twisted crap on Jews.

This guy's just lost it.

Originally posted by bigbert81

Yes, unfortunately, it would seem, that Ben Stein has gone off the deep end.

I couldn't believe it when he actually compared scientists to Nazi's performing sick and twisted crap on Jews.

This guy's just lost it.

Well actually, the Nazi's learned their stuff from American scientists prior to WWII. It is scientific ideas that never go away. They just sit dormant until people forget how awful they are and then science brings them back out onto the table and tells us how it needs to be done for our own good. Science talks about forced sterilization, limits on reproduction, thinning the herd - all to make the planet and the "people" better.

Science in the hands of the rightously ostentatious leads you to killing people.

Science in the hands of factual truth, tolerance, understanding, respect and love for other Human beings and all of existence leads only to self betterment for all.

Ben Stein is clearly confused and not explaining himself properly. I think that's what he meant. It's the people that create the killing, not the science, although the science can be used and created by the people, at the core it's the spirit of those people involved with science that eventualizes killing. Science doesn't kill people: people kill people.

Religions fight, they fight using science, but they won't admit that it's true; ironic. A Jesus freak would quickly pick up a gun and kill in the name of his Holy Father without even questioning how that gun came about or why.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by zerotime


So let me guess...you're a 'glass is half empty' kind of guy...J/K

You're only looking at the bad stuff that has to do with bad people. What about Norman Borlaug and HIS science? I can name several others, but I think you have a bad impression of science for some reason.

Maybe it is just that all roads lead to chaos when human beings are in charge. Science itself is a neutral endeavor. It is the human choice that makes it good or evil - just like everything else. It is never the good guys we have to worry about. Its the extremist who for some reason seem to have the most sway on popular opinion.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by zerotime]

reply to post by zerotime


I think the real problem here, brother, is that power corrupts, and power is where the money's at, and money is where the corruption is at...in several cases.

I too became overly pessimistic here on ATS seeing all this bull going on in the world, but I guess maybe, MAYBE, people will start to wake up and know that to advance as a society, we need to help each other out, instead of just setting rules and expecting others to follow.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, selfishness and greed lead to what you were describing, NOT science.