Is Science our new God ?
In a theosophical perspective the church or any other religious embodiment proscribes the belief that science is the new god and would in the same sense consider it sacrilege to all the ancient scriptures that form the genesis of their deep-rooted beliefs. Even in a manner unrelated to this, if a person was an atheist, each of them would have some ingrained canon that makes him choose between the various elements of the society for his God. For an ardent follower of rock music God could be anywhere in the gamut from the lead singer of Metallica to the drummer of Anathema, For a passionate fanatic of tennis it was Sampras back then in the 90's and now it is possibly Federer. In this view God is something indomitable, inspiring, inconquerable. In the end to some people God is purely an ethical entity and to the others it is the one in the top flight.
According to the atheist, the argument that science is god is perfectly untenable. If my memory serves me right I remember Prof. Biswas quoting in one of his earlier lectures that despite the human race's relentless efforts in resulting a number of contrivances, the human ear is still by far the most sensitive device on this planet. This is but a mere example to state how sometimes there are things that are impervious to the overbearing influence of science. Added to this, the new England journal of medicine JAMA in 1986, relating to issues on Cancer treatment, concluded that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure. And after 12 years of data and experience, even in 1997 the conclusion was so truly entrenched that it found no significant cause to change. Years down the line there might be a cure to cancer, but I believe nature always has its way of playing with conceited moves, hence disease might still continue to persist. To add salt to the wounds, the failure in coming up with a substantial result entails with it humongous levels of resource sconsumption. This way science on an ahteist's basis is not the best thing that could happen to humanity.
Coming back to theosophical grounds, which indirectly has ethical issues associated with it. Through that window God is something that protects mankind and provides a foundation for effectuating the things that either cure problems or prevent them. God is an intangible force which impels them towards the better side of humanity. On this ocassion, I'd like to take opportunity of recapitulating a historical fact that shook many a person's ground when it transpired. Around 1860's a Swedish chemist and engineer mixed nitroglycerin with explosives like gun cotton and came up with an ingenious device. A few years later a newspaper quoted a premature obituary in his name by mistake and proffered upon him the title 'Angel of Death' because what he invented fell into the wrong hands and was manipulated as a very destructive tool. The scientist was Alfred Nobel and we all know the trauma that befell those who became the victim of the earliest usages of dynamite. A contemporary argument we are aware of is 'cloning' which brings with various debatable issues in the social as well as religious sense. The recent movie The Island, where clones are entirely treated as sources for medical treatments fettered away from social life, reflected the same.
What I've to conclude is that science is a mere instrument. It is a curate's egg. One person's vulgarity might be another's poetry. A pillow can be used to nestle in comfort or to strangle anyone to death. But God in any of the senses described here is above all subjugation.
Note: This was a denial of the motion in a debate at the Electronic Hobby Center, DA-IICT on 27082005. I have found a lot of flaws in this matter but since I take pride in it I won't point them out, instead let me pass the baton over to the reader.
According to the atheist, the argument that science is god is perfectly untenable. If my memory serves me right I remember Prof. Biswas quoting in one of his earlier lectures that despite the human race's relentless efforts in resulting a number of contrivances, the human ear is still by far the most sensitive device on this planet. This is but a mere example to state how sometimes there are things that are impervious to the overbearing influence of science. Added to this, the new England journal of medicine JAMA in 1986, relating to issues on Cancer treatment, concluded that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure. And after 12 years of data and experience, even in 1997 the conclusion was so truly entrenched that it found no significant cause to change. Years down the line there might be a cure to cancer, but I believe nature always has its way of playing with conceited moves, hence disease might still continue to persist. To add salt to the wounds, the failure in coming up with a substantial result entails with it humongous levels of resource sconsumption. This way science on an ahteist's basis is not the best thing that could happen to humanity.
Coming back to theosophical grounds, which indirectly has ethical issues associated with it. Through that window God is something that protects mankind and provides a foundation for effectuating the things that either cure problems or prevent them. God is an intangible force which impels them towards the better side of humanity. On this ocassion, I'd like to take opportunity of recapitulating a historical fact that shook many a person's ground when it transpired. Around 1860's a Swedish chemist and engineer mixed nitroglycerin with explosives like gun cotton and came up with an ingenious device. A few years later a newspaper quoted a premature obituary in his name by mistake and proffered upon him the title 'Angel of Death' because what he invented fell into the wrong hands and was manipulated as a very destructive tool. The scientist was Alfred Nobel and we all know the trauma that befell those who became the victim of the earliest usages of dynamite. A contemporary argument we are aware of is 'cloning' which brings with various debatable issues in the social as well as religious sense. The recent movie The Island, where clones are entirely treated as sources for medical treatments fettered away from social life, reflected the same.
What I've to conclude is that science is a mere instrument. It is a curate's egg. One person's vulgarity might be another's poetry. A pillow can be used to nestle in comfort or to strangle anyone to death. But God in any of the senses described here is above all subjugation.
Note: This was a denial of the motion in a debate at the Electronic Hobby Center, DA-IICT on 27082005. I have found a lot of flaws in this matter but since I take pride in it I won't point them out, instead let me pass the baton over to the reader.
posted by Rahul at 1:05 AM
1 Comments:
'The human ear is the most sensitive device on the planet?'
Thats a horrible, horrible genralisation. You mean for magnifying sound waves, or detecting them, or converting them into electrical signals?
Amplifiers can magnify vibrations more than human pinnae can, we pick up sound waves of the freq 20-20,000Hz only, and machines can convert vibrations into electrical impulses and vice-versa. Not only that, they can also transmit them around the world via satellites.
When talking about 'sensitivity', what is the unit we're using? You've got to have a standard to compare and rate the qualities of two things.
Post a Comment
<< Home