Playing God!

[Achilles]

I think there are some philosophical and psychological implications that must be considered in such an argument:

 

If God does not exist and humankind is the master of its own destiny, then I think it's only responsible of us to carry out our stewardship soberly and with great consideration. Someone with this mind set probably isn't much of a threat.

 

On the other hand, belief in God would put such a person in direct competition with The Divine. Such a view would smack of delusion and hubris and such a person isn't likely to be responsible, sober, considerate, or slightly interested in good stewardship.

 

Suffice it to say, I think it matters a great deal

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I know that. What I meant is that we were playing God, as in, we were modifiying God's creation of the enviorment, by creating new animals to help modify the enviroment.

SilentScope, meet the dog. Dog, meet SilentScope. We've been creating species for an eternity. Nothing new there.

 

We've also been controlling our environment for an eternity.

 

Playing God: the act of impersonanting a diety (in this case God) by ursuping or legimtenatnly taking up the roles that is traditonally assigned to that diety. For example, creating mosqituos with the expressed purpose of changing the enviroment and removing malaria would count as playing God, as you are impersonating a diety and his role of changing the enviroment.

I see this as nothing but mythological belief standing in the way of progress (although SC did not mean it as criticism). What if I believe in Thor, and thus actively oppose the building and maintaining of power plants because I believe only Thor and his hammer should have the ability to create electricity (lightning bolts)?

 

I don't consider that which is 'natural' necessarily good.

Of course it isn't. Empathy is natural and is all good. Rape is natural, and is horrific.

 

Yeah, nature may not be "good". But, it at least works.

It 'works' at the cost of millions of rapes, killings, neglections and other evils. The wild, to many, is not a very cozy place to be.

 

OK, my opinion: To be frank, I think that the only reason people are opposed to this is that genetic engineering is new and controversial. If these new mosquitoes were bred the old-fashioned way it'd be perfectly OK, but when we do it by means of genetic technology, then suddenly it's not only wrong to alter species, but also to cure the disease in the first place.

 

Several diseases have been eradicated already, with no one complaining. Should we re-introduce smallpox into society, because there's an odd chance it might be used as a biological weapon if the samples kept in laboratories are released into the public? Should we stop our efforts to cure AIDS and cancer? Should we seize our efforts to spread proper nfluenza treatments to the third world? Of course not.

 

It's not 'playing God' to create new species and curing diseases. Both have been happening for just about an eternity, although our methods have been changing many a time, often for the better.

[Achilles]

I see this as nothing but mythological belief standing in the way of progress (although SC did not mean it as criticism). What if I believe in Thor, and thus actively oppose the building and maintaining of power plants because I believe only Thor and his hammer should have the ability to create electricity (lightning bolts)?

Maybe I'll convert to Greek paganism, join a Zeus mystery cult, and engage you in holy war

 

OK, my opinion: To be frank, I think that the only reason people are opposed to this is that genetic engineering is new and controversial. If these new mosquitoes were bred the old-fashioned way it'd be perfectly OK, but when we do it by means of genetic technology, then suddenly it's not only wrong to alter species, but also to cure the disease in the first place.

I think it's wise to be cautious about new technology. However, arbitrarily standing in the way of progress is not the same thing as being cautious. I think you would agree, yes?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Maybe I'll convert to Greek paganism, join a Zeus mystery cult, and engage you in holy war

 

 

Do I smell a Black & White 2 confrontation?

[AJL]

If God does not exist and humankind is the master of its own destiny, then I think it's only responsible of us to carry out our stewardship soberly and with great consideration. Someone with this mind set probably isn't much of a threat.

 

On the other hand, belief in God would put such a person in direct competition with The Divine. Such a view would smack of delusion and hubris and such a person isn't likely to be responsible, sober, considerate, or slightly interested in good stewardship.

 

Everything that happens, happens and can't happen any other way...

 

IF God do exist and he is omnipotent and creator of all things then of

course everything that happens is his will... Everything WE DO is his

will... (good and bad) One can't do against god...

[Achilles]

Everything that happens, happens and can't happen any other way...

What is your opinion based on? What evidence supports it? Do a Google search for "quantum mechanics" (specifically relating to the Uncertainty principle) before you respond

 

IF God do exist and he is omnipotent and creator of all things then of course everything that happens is his will... Everything WE DO is his

will... (good and bad) One can't do against god...

So god wills some of us to be sinful? If he knows ahead of time which of us are wicked, then what's the point of having us here? The whole idea of god breaks down without free will.

 

I do agree though that this poses a problem for the case of god's omnipotence and omniscience. So choose your poison: Either god is all knowing and all powerful and cruelly damns some of us arbitrarily (making him not much of a god), or he is notall knowing and all powerful (and therefore isn't much of a god) which means we better start looking for some other explanation for the origin of the universe.

 

@lukeiamyourdad: Can't let the abrahamic religions have all the fun

[JediMaster12]

Hi,

 

I think we may have missed each other at some point. Let me go back for a second and reframe the question:

 

You said, "We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things."

 

What does this mean? Where has the general public "gone" with stem cells and cloning things? You were discussing limits and then said the above, so my question is: What limits (real or implied) have been surpassed (encroached upon, threatened, etc) by the general public?

 

My apologies for not being clearer earlier.

What I was brushing upon was more or less the moral issue which is something that should probably be discussed elsewhere. With the stem cells and research, there are people who are for it but with limitations to it. With cloning, my mother thinks why not clone a whole organ for use rather than a whole human being? I admit it didn't make sense to me at first but I think she was getting at the idea of cloning individual organs for transplants without having to go through the whole process of cloning a human. She is for science but she thinks there should be limitations. The limits I speak of could be considered the moral limits. Even people without faith have them and I won't get into a discussion about that. I hope this clears it up some.

[Achilles]

I'm still not sure that my question has been answered.

 

The tone of your post (#16) very clearly came across as though you felt society had already crossed some line with stem cells and cloning.

 

As far as I know, no human has been cloned and the federal government has taken the appropriate steps to stymie ESC research (I'm assuming that you meant embryonic stem cells in your earlier post. Please correct me if I am wrong). So, again, I'm not sure what line has been crossed.

[Jae Onasi]

Couldn't resist posting this Dave Barry article since it talks about playing God....

 

Night of the living roach

By DAVE BARRY

 

(This classic Dave Barry column was originally published July 9, 1995.)

 

Today I wish to present further evidence that the scientific community has completely lost its mind.

 

Exhibit A is an article that appeared recently on the front page of The New York Times (motto: ``Even We Don't Read The Whole Thing''). The article concerns a scientist named Dr. Raul J. Cano, who got hold of a bee that died 30 million years ago and was preserved in amber. Now here is the difference between a scientist and a sane lay person such as yourself: If YOU came across a bee that had been dead for 30 million years, your natural, common-sense reaction would be to stomp on it, just in case, then maybe use it as part of a prank involving a salad bar. But that was not Dr. Cano's scientific reaction. His reaction-and remember, this story comes from The New York Times, which never makes anything up-was to extract some really old dead germs from the bee's stomach AND BRING THEM BACK TO LIFE.

 

Yes. Does this make ANY sense to you? I mean, don't we already have ENOUGH live germs in this world, causing disease, B.O. and really implausible movies starring Dustin Hoffman? Do we lay persons not spend billions of dollars per year on antibiotics, Listerine, Right Guard and Ty-D-Bol for the specific purpose of KILLING germs?

 

According to The Times, the scientific community is all excited about Dr. Cano's revived bee-stomach germs. Apparently the scientific community has never seen ''The Mummy,'' ''Frankenstein,'' ''Night of the Living Dead Bacteria'' or any of the numerous other reputable motion pictures depicting the bad things that inevitably happen when some fool brings a dead organism back to life. You wait. One of these nights, Dr. Cano's germs are going to escape from their petri dishes and start creeping forward, zombie-like, with their little bacterial arms sticking straight out in front of them, and heaven help the laboratory security guard who stands in their way. (''What's wrong, Bob?'' ``I don't know! I have the weirdest feeling something's trying to eat my toe!'')

 

At this point you are saying, ``OK, so this one scientist is perhaps a few ice cubes short of a tray. But he's probably just an isolated example.''

 

You wish. I have here another New York Times story, sent in by many alert readers, concerning scientists who have figured out how to -- get ready -- GROW EXTRA EYES ON FLIES. Yes. The story states that, by messing around with genes, the scientists have produced flies with ''as many as 14 eyes apiece'' in various locations -- ``on their wings, on their legs, on the tips of their antennae.''

 

On behalf of normal humans everywhere, let me just say: Great! Just what we need! Flies that can see EVEN BETTER! As I write these words, I am unwillingly sharing my lunch with a regular, non-improved fly, which is having no trouble whatsoever seeing well enough to keep an eye on me while it walks around on my peanut-butter sandwich. Whenever I try to whap it, the fly instantly zooms out of reach, buzzing its wings to communicate, in fly language, the concept of ``neener neener.''

 

Not that it would do me any good to kill it; Dr. Raul J. Cano would probably just bring it back to life.

 

Speaking of insects, I have here a column from the spring issue of American Entomologist magazine, sent in by alert reader Jackie Simons and written by May Berenbaum, who discusses a University of Illinois entomology professor who has -- you are not going to believe this, but I'm going to tell you anyway -- ``pioneered the design and use of artificial limbs for cockroaches.''

 

Naturally, I had to call this professor, whose name is Fred Delcomyn. He freely admitted to me that he has, indeed, fitted cockroaches with tiny artificial limbs made from toothpicks. He's trying to figure out exactly how cockroaches move -- in stark contrast to us normal, non-scientist, sane people, who would like to figure out exactly how to make cockroaches STOP moving, so we could hit them with hammers.

 

But here's the truly alarming thing: Delcomyn, as part of his research, wants to BUILD A ROBOT COCKROACH. In fact, he has already built one that's a foot-and-a-half long (''not too big, compared to your Florida roaches,'' he noted, correctly). But his plan is to build a bigger one, a robot cockroach that will be FOUR FEET LONG.

 

When will these scientists ever learn? We know what's going to happen! We've seen this movie! Everything will be fine at first, with the robot roach doing exactly what the scientists want it to. But then one night, after the scientists have left the laboratory, there will be a lightning storm, and extra electricity will flow into the roach, and it will COME TO LIFE ON ITS OWN -- FrankenRoach! -- and escape and terrorize the community, smashing its way into supermarkets, skittering past terrified, screaming shoppers, seizing entire display racks of Hostess Twinkies.

 

Oh sure, eventually the Army will come up with a way to stop it, possibly by constructing a 50-foot-tall can of Raid. But do we really want to put ourselves through this? Why must scientists continue to mess with the natural order of things? Why do we need to create giant cockroaches? We already have the O.J. Simpson defense team! If you are as concerned about these issues as I am, I urge you to take action TODAY in the form of doubling your medication dosage. Also you are welcome to this sandwich.