Evil intent differs from evil essence, and it is even addressed in the Bible. There is a poorly understood scripture, but it speaks against “fighting” evil people. If you fight them, it confines you to reacting to them.
Would you say the state of science as a social entity is a stable and positive influence in today’s world?
Not as a social entity, no. As they say, any scientific advancement can be used for good or ill, so something else must guide that.
I think science has improved the quality of living for most human beings, but can also be used for evil, like any tool.
What guides science today?
I’m not sure, a loose form of consensus morality?
It has introduced problems that dwarf anything we previously had – looming ecological disaster, medicine resistant viruses and bacteria.
Unfortunately, science grants are affected by politics, and private research is affected by greed. You have it exactly. Politics, and the early religious tensions that arose in the scientific community, like around the 1800s, arose not because of a religious opposition to science, but because of religious and political schisms – Protestants versus Catholics. Early on, many scientific thinkers made considerable effort to affiliate Protestant thinking with scientific freedom and progress.
Yes, there are people who are making museums to teach creationism. I have looked into creation science. It reads like a bad comic book. Too many plot holes in my opinion.
Religion and politics are fighting over the child called science? Indeed, you summed it up very well.
There is a reason so many politicians are notable devout members of their faith. The school of thought that originally dominated those circles, and still more or less does, tends to seek to fill seats with more of their own. Obama is himself openly a member of a Christian congregation. I in no way fault him for this, and he is one of the most pro-science presidents America has had in a long time.
It is interesting that being religious is good politics.
In America, a non-religious candidate is more offensive to a religious voter, than a religious candidate is to a non-religious voter. Indeed, people still are more comfortable with the norm. It makes things feel stable if somehow science could put forth principles or a philosophy to help guide our governing body.
In Europe, I believe it is the opposite. In Europe, the conflict between religions is in many ways still a social powder keg, like the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland.
Science deals with how, but not why. Indeed, and how without a what and why serves humanity in what way?
Simply more tools. Tools without will are fallow or worse. Will without clarity of purpose or intent is destructive.
But expecting science to provide morals is like expecting religion/philosophy to provide electricity. Each has their purpose. Indeed, but science without guidance is aimless, ultimately fruitless.
And philosophy without science is in the dark, literally.
They still say that necessity is the mother of invention. How do we determine that necessity?
Physical and emotional needs.
Still politics, I think.
Ah, would it not be fair to say, due to the rise in popularity of materialist reductionism as a philosophy, we now have a society that says, “Here’s some trinkets and food. Oh, and I own your shelter, so do as I say and be quiet?”?
We definitely could use more ethics in society, and those should come from religion and philosophy, not from science. Yet science is doggedly trying to piece apart/together those things also. A world that put material gain and prosperity first, well… The future looked bright. Did we come anywhere near that utopia?
Yes, science is looking for the materialistic basis for morals and ethics.
Perhaps some scientists are, and some science fiction writers/fans, but science itself is just acting on curiosity. I would say it’s acting on commission.
Our whole economic system uses a scientific view of morality. Indeed, behaviourism specifically. Science’s physical arm technology. Science in application is technology.
In seeking to conquer nature, what have we done to it? What have we done to ourselves? Some would still insist that we haven’t done meaningful harm.
Depletion. Does technology work without consumption?
There is technology that is more environmentally friendly, but it’s been held back by rich powerful capitalistic interests. What inspired the environmentally friendly technology, strictly good science?
Science is what alerted us to global warming. Perception spurred scientific inquiry. Science just collected the data and made a convincing argument, and it took a very long time to convince.
True. There always has to be a motivation.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.