The Case for Theism

[ManMachine]

It's interesting that not only have you cherry picked some technologies to demonstrate a point but you have been selective about how you presented them.

By way of a response, I can think of any number of behaviours that computers are used to perpetuate, that do not necessarily mean 'instantaneous' communication is a positive thing.

Doubling the human lifespan has led to overpopulation in many areas of the world, we are an incredibly rapacious species.

If you read carefully, I think you'll find you haven't responded to me at all.

You point out the downsides to having these tools... so what? Does that mean that the science behind it was developed solely with those downsides in mind? Absolutely not: especially with medical science, the technologies were developed to improve human life. No scientist thought to themselves "I'm doing this to cause overpopulation."

There are going to be downsides to everything, some of them will be unpredictable at the time a technology is invented. That doesn't alter the motivations for doing so, or the purpose of the scientific method that aided in that, which is what you were arguing.

In the tiny micro-world of one individual it may seem everything in the garden is rosey, and I'm sure it suits some people to think that their PC pops out of some shiny factory in the West and not that it is assembled from component sweat-shops in the third world and that it is only used to create 'instantaneous' communication and it is not a tool of oppression in many countries or enables anti-social behaviour and terrorism.

You might notice that the "science" parts of the equation stops at invention. You have a problem with manufacturing and usage, not discovery.

I'm not suggesting that these things are all bad at all, but they are certainly not the 'advances' we are led to believe them to be. There is little excuse for the particular brand of liberal humanist claptrap that props up the smug western belief that science is a disinterested pursuit of the truth that advances our species.

So be negative for no reason. You're arguing a non point.

You seem not have taken account of the context in which this comment was made.


MM

---

You seem to be confusing the use of the term "science advances", meant in the sense that the body of scientific knowledge increases as new discoveries and tools are made, with the sense of "science advances society", which I certainly did not say.

Neither did I. You need to re-read it.

If the latter is what you mean, then that would indeed depend on how such knowledge is used. The discovery of atomic reactions was used both for peaceful and politico-military purposes, which carry the potential for making the world more prosperous and less stable respectively. Far from being "a cacophonic hymn from the church of delusional humanists", the term as I employed it could more correctly be called a truism if anything. Maybe you can think of an area of science in which we know less than we did previously, because I'm buggered if I can.

"Science will never be used chiefly to persue truth,or to improve human life"? Tell that to the millions of people who annually survive medical conditions and traumas which only too recently in history would have been fatal; including my own mither, who around twenty years ago endured, and survived through emergency medical intervention, a brain haemorrhage. Hell, remember it next time you or someone you know and love develops an infection, or needs dental work.

'The latter' is not what I meant, but seeing as you brought it up you are making my point for me very well, how those tools or knowledge is used is entirely the point, and as far as I am aware human nature has been around longer than scientific method. it's very short sighted and one could argue disingenuous to adopt an altruistic view of scientific endeavour when we all know very well what human nature is like. Sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling 'la... la... la...' very loudly is not an appropriate response to tens of thousands of years of human behaviour.

It's naive at best and at worst arrogant to suggest that science can in any way be a disinterested endeavour that will 'improve' our lives. I assume this has to be the point of scientific endeavour otherwise what is?

Oh, and when you make cultural references, please be sure to get them right. Bear in mind that as an Englishman I am not unfamiliar with King Canute (or Cnut, as he's now rather dyslexically known). The legend has him defying the tide of the River Lavant, not as an Ozymandias-style exercising of his power over nature, but as a clear demonstration that no-one, not even a King, has that sort of power. In other words, he knew ahead of time what was going to happen and proved it to anyone who thought otherwise.

I'm always slightly amused when someone begins a paragraph with , 'Oh'. It tends to signify a certain kind of individual... still let's deal with your point.

I very clearly said 'Folklore has grown up...' not this is an historical fact. The original 'tale' was recorded in the 12th Century by Henry of Huntingdon and, rightly or wrongly, it was set on the coast because (guess what)no one knows!

I'm fully aware the tale has been misinterpreted but it is this common misinterpretation I was using to illustrate my point. I'm not presenting an historical fact which would be pointless as the original 12th century account is not believed to be factual anyway.

The fact you ended with this utter nonsense sums up your debate.


MM