I believe you can have science without a dogmatic faith, but if you have science without morality based on what is good for humanity, you are in deep trouble. This was demonstrated in spades in the 20th Century - poison gas during WWI, the Holocaust, the firebombing of Dresden, and, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have it right now in Africa, where cheap drugs could do a lot to counteract aids, but of course they are not cheaply available. In biological and chemical weapons, you have the opposite of science with morality; that is, science with the intent of evil, though, naturally, such science and its practical applications would be clothed in the highest of moral purposes by its users.
Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com Article: Today's Visions of the Science of Tomorrow Hi Brian, Yes, of course I worry about the unintended consequences of science. I am almost as greatly in fear of what genomics might produce, as I am excited by its possible benefits. In arguing that an "apparent dichotomy between science and religion, between the physical and the spiritual, is an artifact of recent history", I don't think David Noble should blame scientists (as he appears to do, unless I misunderstand him). I think the dichotomy springs from people who are afraid of science -- and don't want to understand science. I don't think great scientists have any religious or millenarianist motivations. They are, quite simply, people of great curiosity. However, from my reading, it seems to me that most of the great scientists are also individuals of great religious and philosophical sensitivity. There are some exceptions to this. Darwin is an outstanding example but in his case he had a particularly poignant reason for cursing religion (the death of his gifted daughter). But, generally speaking, I think that religious quest and scientific quest are co-products of the same source -- curiosity. I'm very greatly in favour of demystifying science. Keith At 06:33 05/01/03 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Keith, >Do you ever worry about the unintended consequences of science and >technology? I do. My recent posting about my friend and mentor, David >Hawkins, shows why I've come to feel this way. I also choose to seek out >the views of 'heretics', for example, David Noble. Here is a review of a >recent book of his "The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and >the Spirit of Invention": > >From Kirkus Reviews: > >Noble (History of Science/York Univ., Canada) argues that the apparent >dichotomy between science and religion, between the physical and the >spiritual, is an artifact of recent history. He examines nearly 2,000 >years of Western history to support his thesis. Noble (A World Without >Woman, 1992) cites two early impulses behind the urge to advance in >science and technology: the conviction that apocalypse is imminent, and >the belief that increasing human knowledge helps recover knowledge lost >in Eden. For example, Columbus's writings show that he believed the >Orinoco to be one of the rivers of Paradise and expected the End Times >to come within a century or so. Indeed, the metaphor of a return to Eden >runs through the writings of advocates of science, exploration, and >technology from the earliest days. Isaac Newton's religious studies, >which seem such a puzzle to moderns, grew out of his belief that, by >understanding the divine creation, man fulfills God's plan in preparing >for the millennium by perfecting himself. Priestley, Faraday, >Clerk-Maxwell, and other giants of Anglo-American science shared his >millenarianism. Evolution, which decoupled science from religion, led to >a restatement of the millenarian vision as a secular quest for >perfection, one that underlies scientific enterprise from NASA to the >Human Genome Project. But, says Noble, without the religious >underpinnings from which it arose, the quest for perfection leads to >technical progress for its own sake--and to Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and >other horrors yet to be unveiled. Only by demystifying science and by >depriving its practitioners of their quasi-priestly status can we >rehumanize it and turn it again to real human needs. Densely argued and >supported, but well within the grasp of the nontechnical reader, Noble's >thesis is fascinating and in many ways convincing. An important >document--and inevitably a controversial one--in the current debates on >the role of science in society. -- Copyright ©1997, Kirkus Associates, >LP. All rights reserved. -- >------------------ >Take care, >Brian McAndrews > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
