How completely intellectually dishonest you are. Atheists cannot dissociate science and religion? Have you completely lost your marbles or something?
Not in the US apparently and some of them, not in other places either. The inherent lack of morality when associated with atheistic science is also a troubling scenario in the future when considering aspects such as eugenics and cloning; with an equal propensity for abuse, misuse and discrimination. The association of theism with lack of scientific rationale overlooks the fact that present day science is more likely to be misused for destruction by those who believe that ethics has no place in research, quite in the same way that the concept of capitalism without ethics has contributed to structural adjustment. Most arguments about science in the US ignore the fact that the educational standards of the society have fallen due to neglect; I believe this is a much bigger factor in the falling interest in science; polarisation by atheists only deepens the divide and does nothing to improve the education or the attitude.
You have put the position very clearly, for which I thank you. Here . in the UK the siuation is also much as you describe. For reasons nobody can yet adequately explain, fewer young people are studying since than in the past. It is commonly said that people are opting for softer options, i.e., those requiring less intellectual rigour than science. Apart from the arts, which have always been popular, many students are choosing to read media studies for example. It would take too much time and effort to list the courses available at our universities, but I can safely say that there are many subjects which command little respect from the educated public. As usual, it boils down to money. There have been significant changes in the funding of higher education which has made many potential students think twice before undertaking a course of study. Some universities could reasonably be said to be lowering their sights and offering courses which will have wider appeal than traditional ones. In short, no students = no income = departments closed or downsized . Despite what I have said, the only reasonable explanation is that for whatever reason, secondary schools find fewer youngsters opting for maths. or science. I'm not aware of any in-depth study having been undertaken, so we are left with the concusion that interest in science has waned for reasons unknown. We have experienced a serious shortage of doctors, for example, in the recent past. But various inducements have succeeded in attracting more undergraduates so that we now have more doctors coming on stream. As you have said, medics only need a rudimentary knowledge of science. Maufacturing has declined because we continue to be flooded with cheap imports from abroad. So there are virtually no job opportunities for mechanical engineers. Electronic engineers fare better but cheap imports of products or components for assembly into end products will change the situation in the near future. We are in the process of becoming an assembly plant for the rest of the world. So, careers in marketing, PR , media studies and the like seem to be what the future holds for most job-seekers. I find it galling that we import goods in ever increasing quantities from repressive regimes such as mainland China where, as you know, human rights are non existent. But people vote with their wallets. I find it a sad state of affairs and one that some people will live to regret when we are totally dependent on the Russians (gas), OPEC and China for manufactured goods. It's not clear what we will have to offer because we will have been overtaken in science and technology as well as manufacturing.
Certainly, you can't be suggesting ethics gleaned from an Abrahamic cult such as Islam are to be established into science, are you? Ah, I see, atheism somehow has lead to a decline in education, because of "polarisation." :huh:
The supposed lack of morality in science is not something that can be solely associated to atheists. How many leaders (who claim to be deeply religious) have their been who have supported and funded scientific advancement in weapon technology because it was beneficial to them and their country, regardless of the destruction such weapons would cause? Do you think a sufferer of Parkinsons would find it moral for any group, be it religious or not, to restrict embryonic stem cell research that could result in the cure of their disease? Do you think they would find it ethical?
I find much of the "protest" against such research stems from ignorance.e.g I have asked several people how they perceive an embryo Like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That peception played a role in whether they ascribed human qualities to the "child"; this may not be true for everyone, but it is a legitimate concern for people who associate embryos with their children and see it as "human" experimentation. Obviously we in science also see human experimentation as unethical, which is why the IRB is constantly on our backs (not without cause, if you know something of the history of human experimentation in science) The tendency to label people and brush aside their real concerns is something that we must avoid in science; are people to be dismissed for their ignorance or are they to be educated? What if their concerns are legitimate? Who makes that decision? The long term goal should be the betterment of science AND society, rather than attacking people for their beliefs; dismissing concerns will achieve nothing, IMO. Look at the forced sterilisation of the handicapped in the 30s. Of course, there are people who will take advantage of ignorance, that is why having an open attitude is more conducive to meeting the goals rather than a close minded attitude that cuts off the opinions of a large segment of the people. The tendency to dismiss all dialogue on ethics in science is a disservice to science and society, IMO.
I am confused by your response. You talk of an inherent lack of morality when associated with atheistic science... Surely you are not suggesting that moral behaviour depends on religious belief. We were attempting to focus on the topic of the thread and avoid discussing religion, but when you mention "atheistic science", you are implying that religious science, whatever that might mean, is preferable. You live in a democracy so your fears about eugenics, etc. are not well founded. You can rely on the checks and balances exercised by the population as a whole. Or have I missed something ? The first respondent to my thread wanted to see a number of scientific projects cancelled. I had no problem sypathising with his view because it is possible billions of dollare are being wasted. Such vast sums might better be spent alleviating the povery, hardship and disease which plagues the world. I was less happy with the blanket statement about removing science fairs from schools. I asked what the reason for this was but I received no response. I believe education is about making children aware of all possibilities and points of view, thus enabling them to decide things for themselves when they are mature. I hope you support this sentiment. The alternative is frightening. We read daily of innocent people being blown to pieces by people who have been brainwashed into believing that they will become martyrs and have a priveliged place in some putative heaven. I am not suggesting that the US would become a hotbed of fanatics if young people were denied the opportunity of finding out about science and the scientific method of enquiry. But why deny them the chance to see what options are available. I am confident that most people are inherently good and can be trusted to behave decently, at least most of the time. What is your view ?
I think it is important for both theists and atheists to dissociate their beliefs from scientific research and have a common system of scientific ethics based on dialogue, education and consensus. My discussion on atheistic science is regarding the small group of militant atheists who wish to adopt science as a part of their belief system.
I agree, but both sides have to be willing to come to the discussion table with open minds. That is not always the case. When you see religious groups holding Governments to ransom over who they may grant research funds to, it does not bode well for the advancement of science in general. That has a polarising affect. Scientists being held back because of their dependence on said funding may become militant. I see both as being embryo's, and I have two children. I suppose my view stems from the fact that such "human experimentation" could one day provide a cure to a disease my own children could fall prey to. Selfish of me, yes. I don't deny it. I do not view it as "human experimentation" because I personally do not view an embryo as being inherently human. If we have a situation where embryos are being forcibly removed from people or live babies are being experimented on, that would be another thing altogether. The divide exists because no one can come to a consensus as to when an embryo becomes a "child" and thus, a "human". You have a point. Does an individual have a legitimate concern when they protest against the possible experimentation on an embryo created in a petri dish and frozen and about to be discarded? The couple, to whom the frozen embryo belongs to, have donated it to science for the very purpose of experimentation. So should an outsider or outside force have the right to interfere with said donation? Should they then go further and attempt to stifle all experimentation on human embryos because they hold the personal view that life begins at conception? You are right, there does need to be a consensus and real concerns need to be addressed. But both sides of the equation need to be open and a middle ground needs to be found. However I doubt it would be possible when you have one group who believe life begins at conception, and others who do not.
I agree with all your points; my point merely is I do not believe ridiculing people leads to their enlightenment; and ignorant people are more easily manipulated by vested interests.
Theists cannot be included in such ideals as they are against science and lack education and are completely unable to dissociate their beliefs from anything. That comment clearly demonstrates how little you know about science as a methodology.
Yet, you do believe telling people gods, angels, devils and other such fairy tales are real does lead to their enlightenment?
If your method of debate is to make yourself look ridiculous, you're doing very well. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion.
Why not let them believe what they choose. The fat that you refer to them as a small group means that they should pose no threat to society as a whole. What is the belief system to which you object ? I have no lnowledge of what you are referring to.
That does very well as basically a trolling assertion well suited to deflecting the discussion into exactly the rut you claimed to want to avoid. As far as the US being opposed to science, the obvious fact has an obvious partial explanation in the dominant religion of the US - which many scientific discoveries have run foul of over the centuries, and which has always viewed scientific investigation with suspicion and responded to the results with hostility and occasional violence. But another part of the explanation, maybe just as important, is seen in several posts here which equate education with job training. Scientific knowledge is only tangentially related to service jobs and consumer purchasables, and any view of education that requires a clear,visible payoff on the job market as it exists now ("now" being at any given moment) will not lend itself to encouraging the kind of playful and useless following of curiosity that underlies science. Americans don't like useless (i.e. unlucrative) knowledge - it's acquisition is an elitist's hobby, a form of one-upmanship. Combine that with the fact that scientific education involves a lot of time and hard work (stolen from responsible and profitable efforts), can lead to damage to a student's GPA and job resume credentials, and produces children who know more than their parents about silly stuff but earn less money, and you have the makings of the standard American mainstream anti-intellectual bias. It's not a new thing - America's scientific eminence has always been imported, derived from specific ethnic immigrants not part of the mainstream culture. Look at how smoothly the description of science as something "we" admire and respect - not something "we" do - fits into the American responses here.
You are very welcome, Myles. I avoided the rather wild tangent that others went off on by confining myself to the broad and readily observable social and economic factors involved. While they won't appreciate my saying so, the tangent they went into - religion, ethics, stem-cell research, etc. - is only a VERY narrowly limited slice of the issue and has almost no impact at all on the greater scale of things. It's certainly an issue within itself but isn't even remotely connected with the decline of students in college that are studying the "hard sciences." Here's another bit of insight (in my opinion) for that decline. 50 years ago, science was seen as almost glamorous. A well-paying field and most parents hoped their children would pursue a career in science, medicine (or the unrelated legal profession). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Doctor, lawyer or scientist - those were the lofty goals of that period. Because those were where both the money and prestige were. But today things have significantly shifted. Most parents now are happy if their child can FIND a job - any job that pays above minimum wage. And instead of the venerated halls of ivy, a great deal of the education beyond the basic 12 years is becoming increasingly done in technical schools - which reinforces the specialty trend as opposed to a broad-based higher education. The countries you mentioned, and others as well, will find themselves in exactly the same boat as America and the British Isles. As the whole world continues it's headlong rush into what I call "instant-gratification consumerism", it's sad to note that serious basic research will only continue to decline. Will there ever be a turning around point? I only wish I knew.
Is what you describe widespread or are you talking about a fringe element. In your opinion how much influence do such groups have ? To say a government is " held to ransom" is pretty strong stuff and frightening if it is true. I am stating the obvious when I say the demand for funds will always exceed what is available. So someone is going to be upset because a particular project has not been supported. It follows that priorities must be established based on informed discussion and, one hopes, consensus but I feel that will only happen in some Utopia. In the real world things are not like that, but if you are suggesting that in a democracy a small. vociferous group can influence affairs to the detriment of the majority, I would find that a cause for concern. It is the first step on the road to totalitarianism.
Thanks . If you will allow me to say so . you have provided a measured , unemotive view of the situation. What you describe is exactly what I see happening here. There is still basic research in some of our universities but, because of progressive cuts in government funding, the universities are falling prey to big business. Few take a long-term view; an instant return on capital invested is the order of the day. Ten years ago Tony Blair trumpeted that one of his top priorities was " education, education, education" We are still waiting for things to improve. I'm sorry to end on such a gloomy note but things are as you say. Instant gratification, as you will agree, is no gratification at all. It has no lasting value. There is always a new all-singing, all-dancing product waiting in the wings. A dog can scarcely be blamed for chasing its tail; how sad that the najority of mankind cannot be educated to know better. Thanks again , Myles
On the whole, your views are the same as mine. But I thought the importation of scientists had slowed down to a trickle after Werner von Braun and others post WW2. Are you not overlooking people such as Feynmann, Gould and numerous others I could mention. How about MIT, NASA and many other such institutions. You are surely not suggesting that immigrants constitute the preponderance of the researchers in such places. Research is in decline here in the UK because of ongoing cuts in government funding. We are told we cannot afford it. It is clearly a shortsighted policy and one which will cost the country dearly in the future. Sadly, funds are always readily available for the production of "better" weapons.
