Nanotechnology
- Thread starter tjguitarz
- Start date
Sqweak!
After reading the article the way it is phrased makes me think the researcher may be greatly biased. I mean he was "Addressing scientists here today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" after all. I'd be interested in seeing the questions and people they polled as it sounds like the old "that backwards religion thing is holding humanity back" slant.
I really don't see what the problem with nanotechnology is as we have already been manipulating metals on a atomic level to make alloys for millennia. Example: I saw a show on how they made samurai swords and they were in fact manipulating on an atomic level, though they did not know they where doing it. The only reason I can see Christians not wanting nanotechnology, as opposed to any other technology, is they are confusing it with a different thing (like embryonic stem cell research).
It's true that technology = power but that shouldn't single out nanotechnology any more than others. Note also that preceding with caution in new things is smart regardless of what tech it is. The wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology did mention the following but it has no religious basis...
After reading the article the way it is phrased makes me think the researcher may be greatly biased. I mean he was "Addressing scientists here today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" after all. I'd be interested in seeing the questions and people they polled as it sounds like the old "that backwards religion thing is holding humanity back" slant.
I really don't see what the problem with nanotechnology is as we have already been manipulating metals on a atomic level to make alloys for millennia. Example: I saw a show on how they made samurai swords and they were in fact manipulating on an atomic level, though they did not know they where doing it. The only reason I can see Christians not wanting nanotechnology, as opposed to any other technology, is they are confusing it with a different thing (like embryonic stem cell research).
It's true that technology = power but that shouldn't single out nanotechnology any more than others. Note also that preceding with caution in new things is smart regardless of what tech it is. The wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology did mention the following but it has no religious basis...
What I find interesting about scientists is they are usually portrayed as "the good guy". They bravely forge ahead against the superstitious (Christians) or greedy (businesses) for the good of humanity. Don't people realize that they may be motivated by making a name or career for themselves, not to mention sometimes money? Ulterior motives may be especially true of some the atheist ones as I think their view is "this life is all I have" so they want to be immortalized though their deeds (although logically this isn't immortality at all).
Last edited:
ppar3566
New Member
I think there are some good points in this article and some bad ones:
Good = That the Author of the report is suggesting that scientists need to take seriously the values and beliefs of the wider Christian world rather than simply ignoring them or ridiculing (sp?) them.
Bad = Hard scientists seem to make a real mess of survey data. One, it is only one question that the guy is baising his theories one. How reliable and valid is this? My guess is not at all and therefore any results found could be meaningless. Two, the guy included no questions about religiosity and thus the difference between the US and Europe could be the result of any number of things that has nothing to do with religion.
Dawkins does the same thing in his "God Delusion" book. He quotes poorly designed survey research done by individuals with little knowledge of survey or correlation methodology as evidence that few scientists believe in a devine being. Beside the obvious logical flaws in his work, the poor understanding of behavioural science by Dawkinsis fairly dishartening.
Good = That the Author of the report is suggesting that scientists need to take seriously the values and beliefs of the wider Christian world rather than simply ignoring them or ridiculing (sp?) them.
Bad = Hard scientists seem to make a real mess of survey data. One, it is only one question that the guy is baising his theories one. How reliable and valid is this? My guess is not at all and therefore any results found could be meaningless. Two, the guy included no questions about religiosity and thus the difference between the US and Europe could be the result of any number of things that has nothing to do with religion.
Dawkins does the same thing in his "God Delusion" book. He quotes poorly designed survey research done by individuals with little knowledge of survey or correlation methodology as evidence that few scientists believe in a devine being. Beside the obvious logical flaws in his work, the poor understanding of behavioural science by Dawkinsis fairly dishartening.
ppar3566
New Member
I agree. I am a behavioural scientist who has published in scientific journals (e.g. Learning and Individual Differences). I know the pressure that researchers feel to get published, get grants, and appear in the media. Trust me this leads to a less than ideal context for producing research purely out of "love for humanity". I recently have felt extreme pressure to publish in order to secure a base level job at a fairly good university. This pressure has lead me to produce stuff that I am not 100% comfortable with.
Odale
Active Member
I really clung to the paragraph:
It immediately reminded me of Bush's stand on Stem cell Research. He played it as the killing of a life. You can get Stem cells from other areas than the embryo, such as the umbilical cord. So I agree with this paragraph, and I do not appreciate how some people manipulate religion. These new technologies may help cure many diseases or lessen their impact on someone's life.
Bush has no problem with ADULT stem cells. EMBRYONIC stem cells, on the other hand, he does have a problem with. Embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of a human life, hence the ethical dilemma. Adult stem cells can be taken from any part of the human body, and research has proven them infinitely more valuable than embryonic stem cells. Truth be told, they haven't made any significant strides with embryonic stem cells, and they have made great leaps and bounds with adult stem cells.
I think it is important to point out that the reason embryonic stem cells are such a hot issue is that if they are declared immoral or wrong, then abortions are just a step behind.
Cruxshadow
New Member
"No technology of itself is 'immoral', rather, it is a question of application." -me
This is appears to be an anti-christian hit piece to propagate a stereotype amongst the scientific community that there is a natural and intrinsinc fear/rejection/conflict of science by the "religious". Such bashing/marginalization of people with religious convictions is quite popular in "atheist", and "humanist" circles lately. (you cat catch much of this in the vitriolic anti-christian themed comments in reply to the article)
One of the key problems with this article is that it does not give the questions asked those who were surveyed, and I suspect the reason for this is that the questions were rigged to give a bogus "christians hate science" result.
"The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. "
Do "Americans with strong religious convictions" really lump these things together? Or were they lumped together in the questions asked? I can garuntee a large number of people with religious convictions will have issues with creating and manipulating human individuals for industrial/medical gain without recognition or respect for their rights (its called slavery).
As for objections to simply makings smaller? I see no rationale for opposition of the pursuit of this technology. There is nothing moral to consider in pursuit of technology to make a smaller microchip or a micro bandaid. Morality only comes in to play when we discuss what we shall do with the technology, and when those uses result in an abrogation of individual rights (which I and many Americans view as endowed by the Creator), naturally there will be and should be opposition.
It is fascinating to study the unscientific approach many "scientific" people take in the discussion of the relation between religion and sceince/technology. This "science" article is surprisingly devoid of key facts required to support it's claims, yet no one seems to question. This is of course a natural Human response, and science, just like any religion, any just about anything else, can be twisted by the wicked minded to demean and alienize other humans. The "Christians hate science" canard just happens to be another expression of this human tendancy.
The thing to remember, is that the world will hate those who love The Lord. Jesus speaks about this again and again. Do not be surprised, and do not become angry. Recognize that this is natural, and remember that your calling is to respond with love, as well as reason. While their claims are outrageous, The Lord calls us to respond with patience, and love, rather than contentious anger and pride. Reason with others, but do so with a heart for The Lord and the individual's salvation.
This is appears to be an anti-christian hit piece to propagate a stereotype amongst the scientific community that there is a natural and intrinsinc fear/rejection/conflict of science by the "religious". Such bashing/marginalization of people with religious convictions is quite popular in "atheist", and "humanist" circles lately. (you cat catch much of this in the vitriolic anti-christian themed comments in reply to the article)
One of the key problems with this article is that it does not give the questions asked those who were surveyed, and I suspect the reason for this is that the questions were rigged to give a bogus "christians hate science" result.
"The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. "
Do "Americans with strong religious convictions" really lump these things together? Or were they lumped together in the questions asked? I can garuntee a large number of people with religious convictions will have issues with creating and manipulating human individuals for industrial/medical gain without recognition or respect for their rights (its called slavery).
As for objections to simply makings smaller? I see no rationale for opposition of the pursuit of this technology. There is nothing moral to consider in pursuit of technology to make a smaller microchip or a micro bandaid. Morality only comes in to play when we discuss what we shall do with the technology, and when those uses result in an abrogation of individual rights (which I and many Americans view as endowed by the Creator), naturally there will be and should be opposition.
It is fascinating to study the unscientific approach many "scientific" people take in the discussion of the relation between religion and sceince/technology. This "science" article is surprisingly devoid of key facts required to support it's claims, yet no one seems to question. This is of course a natural Human response, and science, just like any religion, any just about anything else, can be twisted by the wicked minded to demean and alienize other humans. The "Christians hate science" canard just happens to be another expression of this human tendancy.
The thing to remember, is that the world will hate those who love The Lord. Jesus speaks about this again and again. Do not be surprised, and do not become angry. Recognize that this is natural, and remember that your calling is to respond with love, as well as reason. While their claims are outrageous, The Lord calls us to respond with patience, and love, rather than contentious anger and pride. Reason with others, but do so with a heart for The Lord and the individual's salvation.
Errr.... they don't like it because it creates materials that do not occur in nature? (that's what I inferred from it--by all means correct me if I'm wrong)
What about plastics? Special metal alloys? Preservatives in the foods that those same people eat? It's not like this is the first time an artificial material not found in nature has been made, the only difference is that it's on a molecular level. I really don't see how it's morally unacceptable.
What about plastics? Special metal alloys? Preservatives in the foods that those same people eat? It's not like this is the first time an artificial material not found in nature has been made, the only difference is that it's on a molecular level. I really don't see how it's morally unacceptable.