What Do Scientists Know about Ethics and Morality?
The popular conception of scientists is that they are driven by facts and reason, and have everyone's best interests at heart. Also, scientists are above regular people, uncorrupted by greed and avarice, so they're morally above us as well. If you study on it, you'll see that this Scientism view makes them non-human. But they're not automatons.
It occurs to me that one reason people may be looking up to scientists is something left behind from the days of class distinctions. Edjamakation was not freely available to all, only the elite few. (If someone was wealthy, they were somehow "better" than the poor, who were also created in God's image.) So, a scientist was a better, elite person who had money for education, so you have jolly well listen. These days, degrees are much more freely available, and the criteria for granting them are much lower.
Everyone has a worldview, even though most don't sit down and cognate on it, "Here's my worldview, and it's based on this and that". We also interpret things we see (including scientific evidence) according to these worldviews. Christians are supposed to have a Bible-based worldview as their final authority for faith and daily living. Many scientists have a naturalistic a priori belief system, and many are atheists. Bill Nye is a popular "expert" on many things, including abortion, but the influence of his worldview clearly affects his pronouncements. Even though they're scientists, they can be wrong, both morally and in their fields of expertise.
I was talking to a woman a spell back. Her mother was in a nursing home, but wanted to go back to her apartment. The woman said no, she's not capable of being on her own, but the head nurse disagreed and the mother was discharged. Less than a week later, she was readmitted. Later, she was sent home again, even though the daughter knew it was a bad idea. After a while, the mother was re-readmitted. Permanently. The "experts" were plumb wrong.
Interestingly enough, this seems to be a Western thing. Eastern countries are not as scientist-adoring as the West, and some Middle Eastern countries even show disdain for science and research. That's how it seems to me, anyway.
When scientists get to fiddling around with things like genetic editing, they are faced with ethical and moral considerations. Are all scientists professing atheists? Not hardly! Many are atheists and naturalists, and atheism has a faulty moral compass. In addition, big-money science has a leftist slant. Things tend to get dicey when moral matters are decided by elitists who exclude people who are not leftist and materialist in discussions and policy making.
It occurs to me that one reason people may be looking up to scientists is something left behind from the days of class distinctions. Edjamakation was not freely available to all, only the elite few. (If someone was wealthy, they were somehow "better" than the poor, who were also created in God's image.) So, a scientist was a better, elite person who had money for education, so you have jolly well listen. These days, degrees are much more freely available, and the criteria for granting them are much lower.
Everyone has a worldview, even though most don't sit down and cognate on it, "Here's my worldview, and it's based on this and that". We also interpret things we see (including scientific evidence) according to these worldviews. Christians are supposed to have a Bible-based worldview as their final authority for faith and daily living. Many scientists have a naturalistic a priori belief system, and many are atheists. Bill Nye is a popular "expert" on many things, including abortion, but the influence of his worldview clearly affects his pronouncements. Even though they're scientists, they can be wrong, both morally and in their fields of expertise.
 |
| Made at Atom Smasher |
Interestingly enough, this seems to be a Western thing. Eastern countries are not as scientist-adoring as the West, and some Middle Eastern countries even show disdain for science and research. That's how it seems to me, anyway.
When scientists get to fiddling around with things like genetic editing, they are faced with ethical and moral considerations. Are all scientists professing atheists? Not hardly! Many are atheists and naturalists, and atheism has a faulty moral compass. In addition, big-money science has a leftist slant. Things tend to get dicey when moral matters are decided by elitists who exclude people who are not leftist and materialist in discussions and policy making.
By assuming misbehavior evolves, some scientists become agents of evil, and Big Science institutions become their enablers.To read the rest of this thought-provoking article, click on "The Science Axis of Evil".
Take any behavior that the Bible condemns, and you will find a scientist saying it’s not so bad—maybe even good. Failing to find bad consequences in their research, they assume that engaging in certain evil deeds can be justifiable in some contexts. In other cases, they rationalize behaviors traditionally considered evil, thinking that humans are mere products of evolutionary heredity or environment.
In their misguided belief that science can be morally neutral, they become Satan’s tools to corrupt society. Here are some recent examples.