Science, Our New God

Yep. Science is our new god. But is this a good thing? Those of you who own IPods and Smartphones and have all manner of technology at your disposal, you will loudly cheer for the progression of science. Those of you who have lived long enough to know what it was like to not have these things...you will, no doubt, be less enthusiastic. And I actually support that view, to a point.

We have mastered technology. We have mastered the material. And in that course of events, we have learned to despise the one group that continually cautions our growth: the Church. I have, time and again, defended the original premise of the Church, which is understood by very few, but condemned by many. True, its purpose is nearly gone...but when it was in power, moral was a heavy factor in everyday life. Now, moral is virtually nonexistent. The Church has been very useful, albeit misguided at times. And now, when we have convenience on one hand and accountability on the other, we choose the ease of deception over the pain of truth. I speak not of God, I speak not of religion...I speak of illusions in general. Illusions that keep the sheep in their pens, and drug the masses for easier manipulation. Illusions that we, the people, have chosen ourselves.

And now we decide to stand up. Now, we decide to fight. Right at the edge of oblivion, we have chosen to speak. How on earth do you plan to pull us back from the brink? How do you plan to save us, when science in our new god? And science has no morals. Morals, according to science, can be changed with a simple injection. Morals can be rendered obsolete with an electrical shock. We have these tools. All we need is the excuse to use them.

Why have I decided to broach this subject? I read Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. Much of his research is questionable at best, but there is one speech, a few pages of brilliant monologue, that shows the true nature of our progression...and the choice we have clearly made.

I'd like to address this speech piece by piece.

"Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation ... these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede. But science's victory has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply."

The Church has admitted defeat in this paragraph. It has given way to the indomitable rush of electrical engineering, of technological genius, the wave of convenience and wonder that is powered by an outlet, and not by the heart.

And as stated above, it has cost us deeply. We are simply so encumbered by the slumber instilled by our science that we do not see it.

"Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning ... and all it finds is more questions."

I think this speaks for itself. I'll leave a link here that you can peruse at your own leisure, drinking in every bit of this fantastic rendition of the battle between science and religion, showing how the reliance upon science has corrupted us. For those of you who don't care much for Dan Brown's writing, I still highly recommend that you read this. It contains no conspiracies, no farfetched claims...it is pure observation of the modern world. I think it is very much worth a read.

Camerlengo's Speech

I am not saying religion is the answer. I am not encouraging anyone to convert to any religion. I am saying that balance is key...and we are not balanced. We either rely entirely on religion, eschewing anything with any scientific connotations, or we cling desperately to all electronics, lest we be parted from our communications even for a minute.

Is this our new moral? Having the latest phone, or having a bright, shiny car that can break the speed limit faster than you can hit the brakes? Is that what our system of values has come to? Destroying the world we live in so that we know what created it?

Is it worth breaking a clock just so you can see what's inside? Is it worth lighting your shoes to see what color the flame burns? Is it worth destroying the sacred flesh of the human body just to prove that you can play God?

Are any of these things worth it?

Is the question not more powerful, more mysterious, more inspiring than the answer?

I use science every day. I use technology every day. I utilize the modern world every day...and yet, I am still able to see the folly of becoming too addicted to science, too addicted to progress, too fascinated with the gun to realize that should it go off at the wrong moment, I could die. Or someone else could die.

Wake up, people. Just because it's easy and convenient, does not make it a blessing. It simply means that you haven't learned to appreciate anything else. Religion ha saved our butts these past few centuries, and now science has undone all of that hard work. Morals are flying out of every window, to be replaced by broadband connections and stuff that goes VROOM.

Is this our destiny? TO become so obsessed with material wonders that we completely forget what's inside of us?

Don't forget the soul. Never forget the soul. Because no matter what technology creates, whether it's an online avatar or artificial intelligence, it can NEVER create a soul. And if, in the end, our souls are destroyed...

How on earth will you replace them? What will save you then? Where will your new god be?

Have a wonderful day.

Science is a noun and God is a noun, however just equivocating two nouns doesn't make it so. If you can't prove God exists then nothing will take its place. Science isn't something to be worshipped but eternally questioned.

What kind of parametres define God? All-knowing, All-seeing, All-powerful?

Science would be a noun that defines systematic study of the world. It's the idea that science is studying the world that makes it unable to be God, what use would God have for studying the world if they made it and knew how it was going to turn out already?

Science can't be God, those who try to merge the two are tricksters.

I don't really know why you'd drag in Dan Browns fictional book but I'll try to wrap my head around the post once more.

Don't forget the soul. Never forget the soul. Because no matter what technology creates, whether it's an online avatar or artificial intelligence, it can NEVER create a soul. And if, in the end, our souls are destroyed... How on earth will you replace them? What will save you then? Where will your new god be?

Prove that the scientific method of experimentation can not create a soul. If a soul is just something ascribed to a conscious person who is able to become a sophont later, then yes you can in fact make a child with an experimental mindset. It's possibly immoral to do so, however technology doesn't ascribe things to have a soul, humans do.

If I have a child and want it instead to be placed inside a surrogate mothers womb rather than the biological mothers womb, does it mean the child loses its soul? Because the technology that allows embryos to be implanted in surrogate mothers is a part of science, biological parenthood isn't a gateway to the soul.

Since only humans can give something the 'soul' then yes, Technology might be able to one day create consciousness that has a soul. If humanity can create life in the lab it might be able to create a soul.

What part of technology prevents a soul from forming in an embyro?

I fail to see how religion equates to morals
or, how the loss of religion is somehow also the loss of morality.

Principles are not taught in church..they are instituted with self reflection and society requirements.

'morality" in regards to religion is highly corruptable, Far more than principles guiding morality.

my religion demands we destroy things that are wicked
my religion has stated red haired people are wicked
my moral objective is to destroy red haired people.

See, religious morality is highly corrupt. Silly Example given? ask a witch if its silly. Ask a infidel that was part of a terror attack. Ask etc...religious morality is a unsheathed knife relying on the interpretations of man to figure out divine.

Religion withers from influence in our public life..in turn, science builds up, because science does not teach morals, but instead, it develops society principles. from that, morality can come to you personally...

Science is not a god, it requires no faith. Science, in the way you are describing it, is a product that is establishing trust based on principled stances outside of moral determination.

And we have not even begin to master the material...far, far cry from it. We are barely a infant in our scientific endeavor.

(got distracted with the starting..had to kneejerk respond...going back to read the rest now...but am star/flagging this just for interest in the topic)

reply to post by Sachyriel


When people think of science, they think of microscopes and laboratories. In other words, they think of equipment and technology. Furthermore, this suggests they think in material terms, which proves exactly what I'm saying.

You say Science and God are not interchangeable? Interesting. We know very, very little about science...what you describe is a scientific mindset, and does not cover science itself.

I won't even go into what a god is, because no one knows. All we know...is what we've been taught. And what we've been taught is what other people THINK stuff is. What is science? The study of the world. And how do we study the world? By ripping it apart and playing god.

Stop arguing semantics and address the actual message.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Where do all morals come from?

Man is the only one who has morals, and every instance of morals is related to pleasing one god or another. Additionally, every time we have a question of morals, where do people look?

The Bible.

ok, read the whole post
and I couldn't disagree more with the opinion presented.
I don't even know where to begin without starting several 5000 character posts addressing each issue...its like, if you throw soo many disagreeable things into a giant mountain of wrong, a person becomes nearly overwhelmed with the idea of counter pointing it that they just walk away.

Will start with just..I guess the main point.

What happens to our soul or whatever should we eliminate the ignorance and see only science?
nothing
our soul (if there) remains there. It was never the human destiny to sit and look at a sunrise forever without becoming curious about it and wanting to know more.

Our entire move since the dawning of intelligence is to figure out, to use, to progress forward. You cannot suddenly decide...wait, we were supposed to stop before we got iphones, else we won't recognise the beauty of the ocean.
I reject that notion.
When I look at the ocean, I see the vast body of water..I wonder at times how long it would take to simply swim to Europe (doggy paddle). etc..but as I am thinking these calculations, and knowing that land exists far away..it doesn't stop my creative side also just looking at the soft colors and being pleased with the scene.

We have the ability to do both, calculate, and have more abstract simple pleasures. Humans are not one dimensional creatures.




And..just wanted to slightly touch on the last statements...only humans have a soul..AIs wont. Why? to suggest that means you can prove a soul and know what its made of. Why isn't a soul something that is born through self awareness? why must it require a biochemical frame verses a silicon and metal frame? if you cannot identify what a soul is, or the makeup of it, then you cannot say what it can be housed in.

Like saying cats don't have souls..because they are cats and not human...or if they do, well, trees don't, or if they do, then AIs don't. I am of the opinion that if anything, be it man, or machine, can creatively think enough to wonder if it has a soul (not programmed to wonder, but its program allows it to wonder, and then wonder if it has a soul), then there is no reason to suggest it doesn't.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Where do all morals come from?

Man is the only one who has morals, and every instance of morals is related to pleasing one god or another. Additionally, every time we have a question of morals, where do people look?

The Bible.

edit on CSaturdaypm050513f13America/Chicago19 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

Morals comes from the animal kingdom. More importantly, it comes from a desire to keep your species alive.
Animals have morals. If not, there would be perpetual mass extinction. You ever seen a hungry den of lions? why doesn't one lion simply eat a slightly weaker lion verses go out and hunt? right.."morals"..well, not really morals, but encoded survival of species.

Morality is a fancy way of saying species survival directives..which must be encoded if life is to continue.

When we have a question of morals, where to people look?
typically their parents or kinsmen
whom got their morals from parents or kinsmen
whom got their..etc.
you don't need a bible to tell you not to murder and eat your friends if your peckish...dogs don't need bibles to not do that.
The bible eloquently puts things that common sense also allows for. Watch a dog try to take a bone from another dog. Lots of growling, teeth sneering, etc...aka, dont steal.

I don't need the bible to tell me that killing my neighbor is wrong...I don't want to be killed. I don't want to incur the wrath of others to kill me...therefore my brain, being bigger than a peanut, allows me to understand what I do to others can also be done onto me..and my actions influences similar actions...
more eloquent words have been put in the bible (and many, many other books)..but, we don't need any holy books to tell us that before we understand it...we already understood it...books just flesh out words more articulately.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Are we responsible enough to handle the things we discover?

We created the atomic bomb and promptly destroyed two innocent cities.

Science is too dangerous without morals...and it just so happens that we have less faith in religion every day.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Are we responsible enough to handle the things we discover?

We created the atomic bomb and promptly destroyed two innocent cities.

Science is too dangerous without morals...and it just so happens that we have less faith in religion every day.

Interesting you bring up those specific events.
I read sometime back that when the a-bomb was given a go, one of the last words was "may god have mercy on our souls".
Problem here...there was plenty of morals at work here...just no principles.
morally, they justified bombing 2 civilian cities to end the war...and had no principles to check them on this act of (effective) terrorism.

What we need is less moral conviction and more principled stances...with moral conviction, you can murder babies for the cause..for principled stances, you will stop before a single child is hurt..cause be damned.

Religion promotes morals, humanists promote principles.

Are we responsible enough to handle things we discover? That is a tricky question. Ultimately, there is only one way to find out. If we make it to space without extinction, then the answer is yes...otherwise, no, we weren't and chances are never were going to be.

The nuclear bomb, chemical bombs, etc..all of this is chicken feed. Soon (potentially very soon) we will discover things that literally will destroy the world should it be used as a weapon...do we promote moral conviction then, or principled responsibility, that even if a nation is lobbing 500 nukes on you, you still don't use it...moral conviction would be to not let the other side win at any cost...to include extinction.

reply to post by SaturnFX


The only reason we are still alive is that one) no one wants to be the last person on earth, and two) we make everything run.

Hence, to destroy everyone else is to commit suicide.

It's not charity. It's surivalism at its finest.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Sachyriel

 

When people think of science, they think of microscopes and laboratories. In other words, they think of equipment and technology. Furthermore, this suggests they think in material terms, which proves exactly what I'm saying.

You say Science and God are not interchangeable? Interesting. We know very, very little about science...what you describe is a scientific mindset, and does not cover science itself.

I won't even go into what a god is, because no one knows. All we know...is what we've been taught. And what we've been taught is what other people THINK stuff is. What is science? The study of the world. And how do we study the world? By ripping it apart and playing god.

Stop arguing semantics and address the actual message.

Well I think your message was a bunch of open-ended questions that you tossed together to look intelligent, then referenced a popular novel to make sure people stayed interested.

>what you describe is a scientific mindset, and does not cover science itself.

What is science if not the scientific method? Is science the set of different disciplines used to study it, because the disciplines of science do not adhere to a set of differing sects in the religious sense.

reply to post by SaturnFX


"We have the ability to do both, calculate, and have more abstract simple pleasures. Humans are not one dimensional creatures." You're very right in saying this. Relying on science to explore and figure out the universe as well as make progress doesn't have to necessarily take away man's ability to act with morals/principles and appreciate more abstract ideas. You are also right in saying that religion doesn't always equate to morals and science doesn't always equate to no morals. However, the main message that I believe the OP was trying to get at still stands: that in our quest for knowledge, progress, technological advancement, etc. we must not lose sight of the things that make us human. All the knowledge/progress in the world profits us nothing if it ultimately drives us apart as a whole (which to at least some extent it has). Religion, like it or not, has classically been many peoples' main source for particular morals, and the OP is saying that we shouldn't just throw all that out because of science. This does not mean that we shouldn't follow science and reason and try to make progress- this is surely a good thing. It also doesn't mean to convert to the nearest religion, like the OP said. It just means that, in doing this, we can't forsake the things that really matter the most to us in the name of "progress."

I agree with you that science has become our God, in this modern age. It would seemed to have improved all of our lives, but then there is the cost. No one seems to want to look at that.

All these toys we have, what purpose do they serve, distractions. They do not help us live, they do not bring us closer together, they distract. This is one of the ways TPTB are able to get away with all they do, we do not pay attention or follow through if we do notice, we would rather play a video game, be on the net, etc. We are hypnotized by our gizmos.

Science is a false God, it cannot solve our problems without creating more, different problems, it cannot answer our questions, without creating more questions. It is a mobius strip

reply to post by Sachyriel

What is science if not the scientific method? Is science the set of different disciplines used to study it, because the disciplines of science do not adhere to a set of differing sects in the religious sense.

Good question. And here's my answer.

Automotive industry is not simply the concept of a car, but the actual cars and parts used and created within it. Just as with this, science is not just the concept and the technique, but the creations resulting from it as well.

It is the ending as well as the beginning...the instructions and the product.

The instructions are well enough, but do they provide moral guidance? No, because morals are not fact. They are not measured, they cannot be prodded with a stick under a bright light. Morals are subjective, and invisible. They are from the heart, not the mind.

And thus, without moral guidance, instructions become a free-for-all for anyone who has any sort of intention in mind. You want to build a car? Sweet, here's how you can. But after you finish the car, you go drag racing and suddenly you're upside down with a concussion and a shattered femur. Because the instruction manual, which is PURELY scientific, gave instructions on how to build a car and operate it...but not how to use it. Sure, no alcohol and stuff, but that's as far as it goes.

You build an atomic bomb and set it off on a city full of civilians. Was there a warning label describing the precise situations in which to use that device? No. That was pure discretion.

Technology, and science in general, does not come with a moral compass or guidebook. That's where religion comes in...except the convenience of science naturally compels us to ignore that little nagging voice saying, "Don't do it." Why? Because it's fun.

And we like to have fun, don't we?

reply to post by Iamschist


But beware relying on religion as well.

We are a reliant species. If we rely on something once, we keep going back to it. It seems we are either too weak or too distrusting to stand on our own two legs...

Balance is the key. That is my message here. Feminine and Masculine, Black and White, positive and negative, material and immaterial...

Spirit and Science.

Science is not a god, it requires no faith.

I respectfully disagree with that statement. Mankind puts a lot of faith into their tools, and instruments to get to the nuts and bolts aspect to science.
Science and religion could learn so much from each other if they would take a minute and learn how to understand no one has all the answers. And each of them drop their dogma. And stop fighting over stuff that neither one understand at its base root.
Science has the edge I must admit. But even science has its creepy, dark side. Just as religion does.

People could take religion much more seriously if it was not so "magical".
Science replaces Magic with, Technology.
Yet science can be driven by a good moral code. which REAL religion teaches.. Not the extremist Fundamentalist usurpers. That drives science to defend itself.

Yet it could be easy for science to lose its way, and be a discredit to mankind, rather than help. Our morals will decide that. And I think that is what religion at its base root is meant to teach.
So science can benefit from the moral code religion teaches.
So that it does not cross over from science to Mad Science!

reply to post by Starchild23


I am sorry to see that you have such low opinion of science in general. From the way you write and how you state you opinion, I dare guess that you are neither a scientist or an engineer?
Just to say from the beginning so you may infer my point of view, I am an engineer (electrical engineering/mechatronics) and mainly do programming in computer vision.

Science is not a/the new god but it has certainly changed mankinds view of the concept of what (a) god is, could be or possible never will be.
From the earliest times, humans tried to make sense of the world around them and at the same time survive. In the beginning, "we" probably had nature's spirits. That was a rather simple construct and left the usually small groups of gatherers/hunters with enough time to provide for food.
Later on, it was gods which kept the world turning, the sun rising, the flowers blooming etc. Those were usually created by larger societies which could afford complex rituals, societal rules etc.
After that, it became just one god (for jews/christians/muslims) and with only one god, the rules became even more complex (Torah/Bible/Quran) and the claim to be the sole reference for moral behavior increased even more.
So those morals you claim we have lost. Did you know that also includes witch burning, killing of gays/lesbians, not performing autopsies to learn anatomy, oppression of women and minorities?

There are so many religions with so many different teachings... Which one is right? That is a question you cannot answer. Neither can I.

Also, the spread of a religion was/is (!!!) done by force or use of fear while science stands on its own merits. (excellent read on the fear part: Battle for the Mind, by William Sargant)

True, religions influenced morals and ethics but it certainly was also the other way round. And to say that science is without morals is just useless. Science is the process of discovering the ways the universe works: gravity, electricity, biology, chemistry, social sciences, archaeology, and many, many others, even theology.

Science does not answer what is morally right or wrong, that is for society to decide. Science discovers facts, while religion sells truth. But contrary to facts, truth comes in many flavors, even contradicting ones.
So when you criticize the development of the atomic bomb or the latest smartphone, science is only partly to blame. It is always the people that apply the knowledge who should be held accountable.

The world is much too complex for any current religion to describe and science might not be there yet, but it is constantly working on shedding more light on what happens around us.

Is society ready for all the latest scientific and technological achievements? Not all of them are. But then again, even in biblical times there were people who had the best sword, or any other type of novel technology of their time, not using it in the right way.

And science also does not take away the beauty of nature or the wonder of life or love. Although I know that a kitten is a biological organism, needing oxygen, food, water, mammal, predatory, etc..., I still cannot help but let out "dawwwww" when I see one!