Has all that science has brought us been for the best of humankind?

Question

Alright I had to ask it as it was bothering me after reading so many answers and questions. I keep reading how Christianity and other religions have brought so many negative things, some believe only negative. I have seen and answered so many times that man warps many of God gifts and rules. Now I have to ask, for those of you who basically say they believe only in science. Let's look at all science has brought us to our betterment or not. Has science only helped mankind not harmed? Where does the truth lie?

Now I am not saying that ALL science has been good. I truly believe that most scientists intended it to be for good. I believe that man has corrupted much of science just as I believe that God intended religion for our betterment and man has misunderstood or misused even that. Would anyone care to comment?

Dear sir, the last war may not have been fought over science although many of us feel the war in Iraq is more about oil than religion which would put it in that realm, but it was fought with inventions of science. Man could not have wrought such devastation using sticks, rocks, and arrows.

So we agree that scientist over all intended their creations for our good but man warps and perverts. Can we not agree as well that God/Christianity/or other beliefs generally were meant for out betterment but may as well be warped and misused by mankind?

Point made Mr. Edsawyer and point understood. But as to the rest we will just have to wait and see.
Peace to you all
Debra

Answer 1

No, of course not. Science brought us the atom bomb, the most horrendous of all "advancements."

The difference is that science, upon beholding something terrible that it has wrought can feel horror, while faith, all too often, feels glee and justification.

Answer 2

Of course science has not only produced good. The problem may not, however, be with scientists, but with the political power that lies behind them. The Wright brothers might be called scientists in that they experimented with air currents and machines to ride on them and invented the aeroplane. But the funding to develop these was military, the rise in civilian air travel only happened after WW2 when the bombers were grounded. Einstein discovered the nature of the atom and envisaged generations of cheap power, but the same technology was put (by other scientists) into the atomic bomb. What happens to scientific ideas once they are released into the wild is unpredictable. So it is impossible to claim that science has offered nothing bad to the world, and it would be just as ludicrous to suggest that religion has offered nothing good. The trouble with ideas - scientific or religious - is that they are interpreted in the minds of individuals, and are often encouraged by people with political or financial power. In those circumstances anything can happen. There is no question you could ask that had a single (good/bad) answer like this. The world is a complex place.

Answer 3

No, it'd be foolish to answer yes when Science has brought us the H-Bomb. On the other hand if you consider Philosophy a Science than the rules brought about by Philosophers (SECULAR RULES) have only benefited mankind and more clearly/concisely so than those that Religion has brought. In the end neither are particularly good or bad, however when was the last war fought over Science? PEACE!

Answer 4

Your last comment sums it up well. Of course, 'science' didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima and 'religion' didn't launch the Crusades in the middle ages. Humans did both of those things, and humans must bear the blame completely for them.

However, science is truly neutral, as has been said before. A lot of the confusion concerning science in the R&S section stems from people treating religion and science as equivalent disciplines. There are, I think, two main differences between them:

1) Science is amoral. Note, that doesn't mean 'immoral'. 'Amoral' means existing outside of concepts of morality. That atoms hitting each other can cause a chain reaction is merely a neutral truth. Whether you choose to harness that power to create energy or to exterminate mankind is the _application_ of science - which is a different thing. Science describes how the world is, not how the world should be. People often say that evolution is evil because it advises a 'dog-eat-dog' viewpoint. This is not true at all. To say that in nature, the fittest tend to survive is not to say that it _should_ be that way. Richard Dawkins, in truth more important a figure to modern evolutionary biology than Charles Darwin, says that humankind is the only species that is capable of overcoming 'survival of the fittest'. But he points out that that is a question that falls outside of science. I mention this because it's only half true to say that, for example, gay-bashing is a 'distortion' of religion. The fact is that the seed for homophobia does lie in the Bible - however much we may want to deny that. By not making any claims on morals, science cannot be held accountable for its immoral misuses. By claiming to have the 'last word' on moral behaviour, religion has to accept responsibility for people who do bad in its name.

2) Science is self-correcting. Science is renewed and improved by science. The same tools that allow us to create greate theories also allow us to take them down at a later time. Science is forward-motion and progress. Where science is wrong, it knows that it can become right (or closer to the truth, anyway), step by step. Religion stands still. Its Christian flavour, for example, is by and large unchanged over 2000 years. People can debate the validity of scripture concerning slavery, for example, but they can't deny that it's there. That it references a world that no longer exists and tries to apply the folk wisdom and common beliefs of that era to the modern era. This incapacity for self-correction slows religion down, and slows humanity down by extension. It means that whatever mistakes the religious have made in the past, new people can just carry on making the same mistakes again and again. Science has no potential for that.

Objectively, I think the good that science has brought mankind far outweighs the good that religion has (although I acknowledge that there is good). But more to the point, I'd say that it's apples and oranges. After all, belief in religion is optional. Belief in science is not. Apples still fall to the ground whatever you happen to believe.

Answer 5

All science is from God. Thus, all science is good.

It is mans misuse of science that has caused all the trouble of mankind.

If man would use science as it is intended we allwould live in abundence and plenty

From a Christian Faith pov

Answer 6

Of cause not, and no1 claims that science bring only good thing. Concider nuclear tehcnology. While it can be good it can be disaterous bad.
Some medecine coz more problems than no medecine what's so ever . Science does not claim to be good or bad. Its knolwege. How we will use it is the different story.
Therefore GOD hates science.

Answer 7

You said: "...for those of you who basically say they believe only in science."

Science is not about belief. Science is not a 'thing'. Science is a set of rigorous methodologies for looking for and finding answers in nature. Science is neither good nor evil, any more that 'nature' is good or evil.

You are confusing 'science' with 'technology'. Science might be considered to be an 'enabler' of technology. Science uncovers facts about nature; technology has to do with how that information is exploited.

Science is not 'against' religion... science doesn't care about religion one way or the other. When science comes up with an idea, they do not look for ways to 'prove' it... they look for ways to 'falsify' it. That means they look for ways to show themselves wrong. The concept of 'proof' does not really apply to science... it belongs to mathematics, stamp collecting and alcoholic beverages.

This brings us to why science has nothing to say about the idea of a supernatural 'god'... that is because the idea of 'god' is NOT FALSIFIABLE; i.e., it is impossible to 'prove' that there is NOT a god. So, science leaves such things to the realm of philosophy. Remember... science looks for NATURAL explanations for NATURAL phenomena.

Finally, very people have ever been killed in the NAME of science... probably, no more than a few jealous nerds killing their research partner for stealing their work. And I'm not even sure about that. However, MANY scientists were tortured and/or put to death for daring to introduce ideas that conflicted with established church dogma. (Look up Giordano Bruno, probably the most famous example of this.)

Finally... hundreds of MILLIONS of people have been killed in the name of religion.

Also... good/evil are not things... they represent only an idea... an abstract dualistic judgement... an entirely subjective one, at that. Consider what is probably the most famous bit of technology... the atomic bomb. In the society in which over a million lives were saved because of its development and use, people might be expected to judge it a 'good' thing. For the society that had the thing dropped on their heads, killing hundreds of thousands, destroying their cities and eliminating their aspirations for dominating their region of the world, people might reasonably be expected to judge it a 'bad', or 'evil thing.

***************************

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things... that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg

Answer 8

Yes and no. Science is, in and of itself, neutral. Where the good or bad comes in is how people choose to use what science has given us. The same holds true for religion. In and of itself, it does nothing and is essentially neutral. How you choose to live your life and what you choose to do about or with it is when it becomes good or bad.

Even then, it depends on your personal definition of good and bad. Most people in america would believe that what Osama bin Laden has done is "bad" but his follower believe it is "good".

Answer 9

Science brings us a lot of good, but it also brings us bad. We have cures for diseases and amazing conveniences, but we also have terrorists that use cell phones and airplanes to commit their evil. Only the at very end of society will we know which side was meant to win.

Answer 10

Homosexuality as been recorded because the time period of the sumeritans. Now with this in thoughts Bible being the source, celebration sodom and gomorrah. One might want to judge that those that were intending to rape even strangers weren't worthy for civilizations. although I be antagonistic to gay marriage, homosexuality if with training must be extra perfect then a case of sodom and gomorrah. gay with human rights of determination in the guidelines of the regulation protects and divides evil of sodom and gommorah. although i'm antagonistic to homosexuality for myself. I antagonistic to homosexuality transforming into a mainstay because it does shrink the inhabitants. i do not imagine it might study, regardless of the indisputable fact that allow say you acquire a school of 2000 and a pair of children are gay, then i imagine tolerance of this needs to study. coaching why bullying is incorrect and tolerance is high quality. With the dep. of evil vs strong. Is it strong for individuals to be gay it relies upon on who you ask.