Are religious descriptions of science deliberately deceiving?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Seattle, May 11, 2019.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,338
    That's like saying any car can kill people so you shouldn't worry about having brakes, replacing your tires or driving drunk.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    Not at all. It's like saying we shouldn't blame Gottlieb Daimler for the Tiger tank.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,338
    It is very much like that. If all car deaths are equal (if all technology is equally good/bad) then there's no need for brakes (no need to evaluate technology.) In both cases people die, and there's nothing you can do about that (per your rationale.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    You're talking about incomplete technology, which has nothing to do with anything I've said.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,338
    Nope. I am talking about complete, working technology. Like solar-PV or Sarin. One has only evil applications, one does not.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    Nope. A car without brakes is incomplete technology.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,338
    Not at all. Plenty of cars don't have brakes, or rely on external braking. It's complete, it's just not what you prefer.

    And if you drive drunk, the brakes work just fine - so even by your standards that's "complete technology." Does that mean that driving drunk is not a bad thing, since sometimes people get killed by cars?
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    I don't know what point you're trying to make.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,338
    That you are responsible for your decisions. If you decide to drive drunk and hurt someone, you are responsible for that decision - even if someone else made the mistake of trying to cross a street you are driving on. If you develop Sarin and it's used to kill a thousand people, you are responsible for that decision - even if someone else dropped the bomb.
     
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,557
    He would have had to be utterly delusional. That's an insanity plea he might be able to get away with, anyone coming after him to make modifications casn't use that plea.
    That's irrelevant to the moral responsibility of scientists, engineers or technicians who deliberately develop a tool specifically for killing - especially one designed specifically for killing the maximum number at one time.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    Not at all. Any number of innocuous devices could be adapted to be used as instruments of torture.
    And that seems irrelevant to anything I've said.
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,557
    How does incompleteness affect moral responsibility?
    All technology is incomplete, in that it keeps developing and mutating, and everyone who works on a modification down the line has some degree of responsibility for the outcome of their particular contribution.
    In the case of cars, the inventor of the first one may have had only good intentions and little or no idea how many ways the invention could be made more or less benign - such as powering it with steam, gasoline or electricity. But whoever turned it into a tank did know the purpose of that modification: had to, in order to do the job.
     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    *shrug* And I've denied that?
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    Again, I have no idea what you guys are arguing against. It seems to be a position that I have not taken.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,557
    I wasn't referring to any number of devices. I specified the rack.
    He has no defense whatever. Full responsibility.
    The fact that other things could have been used doesn't enter into his decision.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,338
    "How could I possibly know "full well" what somebody's intentions "might" be? Any technology can potentially be used to kill people."

    And no drunk can know whether or not he will kill people by driving. A wise driver (or scientist) has a pretty good idea what the risks are, though. In other words, you CAN know.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    If life worked like that, we would have no technology at all, and sticks and stones would be banned too.
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,557
    We are arguing against absolving scientists, inventors, engineers and technicians of moral censure for the development of harmful technologies. We are in favour of holding people responsible for their informed, autonomous decisions.

    If you hit somebody with a rock, the fault is all yours. If you bomb a thousand people from an airplane, you can share the guilt with the inventors, makers and owners of the equipment used for the purpose. Each of their shares is directly proportional to their contribution, degree of awareness and freedom to act differently.
    Whatever else might have happened doesn't affect the blame for what did happen.
     
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,557
    Which is....???
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,769
    Me too. But I am not in favour of blaming the first guy who tied a rock to a stick for every subsequent abuse of his invention.
    So the Wright brothers, Otto Lilienthal, etc. are responsible for the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.
     

Share This Page