Three religious views on science

There is a very interesting piece in today’s Orange County Register by John Tierney regarding the different ways that the world views some of the cutting edge biotech going on today (stem cells, cloning, modified foods). Depending upon where you are in the world, different sorts of scientific research are allowed or restricted. I always knew that here in the US we had restrictions on research that destroyed embryos and on cloning. And I also understood that in other parts of the world they had different regulations. For example, in southern and eastern Asia there are little or no restrictions on this type of research. In much of Europe, there is opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods. But this article helps us understand why these distinctions exist.

According to Tierney, there are three basic religious viewpoints on biotechnology, as shown in the table below:

While these groupings are a bit of a generalization, it does give insight into how the world is dividing on these issues.  You can also see how this plays out on this map.

Tierney ends his piece with this insight:

It is by no means certain that this type of stem-cell research will ever yield treatments for diseases like Parkinson’s, but should that happen, it is hard to see how any Congress – or any law – could stop people from seeking cures.

Tags: stem cell research genetically modified food science re

Is computer technology morally neutral?

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This phrase has been uttered by those supporting the right to own guns as a way to quickly summarize the argument that it is not the gun, by itself, which causes harm, but instead it is the person using it. They see guns as morally neutral. Those arguing the other side, in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership, point out that a gun makes it much easier for someone to do something morally problematic; someone who only would have punched someone is now capable of killing them with less effort. Both sides have a point, and they are both correct: guns don’t kill people by themselves and guns do make it easier for someone to kill someone. This argument has been going on for years and I am not going to solve it here. But I am going to add a twist…

In my MIS class a couple weeks ago we were discussing the question: “Is computer technology morally neutral?” This is something I really had never considered before. Isn’t the computer just a tool, like a hammer or a notebook or a calculator? In researching this further, I came upon this quote (taken from religion-online.org):

Our technology is a tool, yes, but all tools allow the user to do certain things and not others. The tool, in a sense, encourages the user to undertake some tasks and exclude others. Some people have bought the notion that our tools are morally neutral; they argue, for example, that the hydrogen bomb is neither “good” nor “bad.” It is rather a tool which we put to either good or bad use.

- J. David Bolter

In thinking about this further, I can start to see how computer technology could be considered morally problematic. For instance, take hypothetical person “Rob”. Rob likes music, but he would never go into a music store, put a few CD’s in a bag, and then walk out of the store without paying. But then Rob was introduced to file sharing over the Internet. It was so easy, and he wasn’t hurting anyone, so he started downloading just the songs he really wanted. Or take Rick, a Christian young man trying to walk the straight and narrow. Rick would never think of buying a Playboy magazine or renting an adult video. But then he got his computer…

It gives one pause…on the one hand, it is still the responsibility of the sinner and we will be held accountable. Yet on the other hand, the existence of the computer was what enabled the sin to take place…

What do you think? Is computer technology morally neutral?

Tags: computer technology morally neutral