did chuck colsen take it to far?

[madarab]

ApocryphaNow, societies have always placed ethical or moral limits on scientific research and inquiry. In some cases, it's been for the better; in many for the worse. For example, we could have greatly increased our knowledge about brain functioning through much more invasive means if we didn't care about the moral aspects of it.

 

[BVZ]

I have often wondered when exactly you are 'playing God'. Where do you draw the line? If there is a giant rock in my driveway, and I move it, am I playing God? If not, why? What exactly is the difference between cloning a human and moving the rock? Technocally, nothing. The only difference is that the level of sophistication in the technology needed is greater when cloning a human. (I am not saying cloning is ethical, I am just trying to figure out when you are 'playing God', and when not.)

 

[Dannager]

I have often wondered when exactly you are 'playing God'. Where do you draw the line? If there is a giant rock in my driveway, and I move it, am I playing God? If not, why? What exactly is the difference between cloning a human and moving the rock? Technocally, nothing. The only difference is that the level of sophistication in the technology needed is greater when cloning a human. (I am not saying cloning is ethical, I am just trying to figure out when you are 'playing God', and when not.)

I don't think it's possible to ever "play God" in a way that would challenge the supremacy of any hypothetical God. You may eventually devise natural methods for doing what various sources may say that God has done at one point or another, but that still doesn't mean you're doing anything other than emulating God with the assistance of whatever fantastic devices you've come up with.

 

[ApocryphaNow]

ApocryphaNow, societies have always placed ethical or moral limits on scientific research and inquiry. In some cases, it's been for the better; in many for the worse. For example, we could have greatly increased our knowledge about brain functioning through much more invasive means if we didn't care about the moral aspects of it.

This is true, but it's not really want I'm trying to get at. Experimenting on grown people against their will is frowned upon by scientists and society alike. No specific banned needed tp be placed on it because, in addition to being sadistic, it is also rather impractical (outside of Nazi Germany at least). Like I said, I'm more interested in the ethics of implications than the ethics of practices. Religious dogma is hardly enough to hold back an entire community of scientists from persuing valid lines of reasoning.

 

[madarab]

The key word there is valid and how validity is determined. That is not as divorced from religion as you seem to be indicating. For most of our history, religion was the main source of moral thinking. It has only been relatively recently that other sources like games theory have started examining ethical issues from a non-religious perspective. For most of society, even scientists, religiously-based ethical direction still strongly influences them, regardless of how religious they may personally be.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do think that science and scientists have an obligation to limit themselves in applying technology if there are good ethical to do so. Human cloning certainly fits into that category, IMHO.

However, Colsen certainly goes off the deepend with this one:

"Nanotechnology—which, again, is being promoted as helping those with dread diseases—holds the dangerous potential of controlling or possibly even re-engineering human nature."

The difference here is that this is part of freewill, something that even christians feel is important. What we do with our bodies is well within our perogative. In the case of cloning or embryos there is no participation of the child or embryo in the decision making process. However, nanotechnology has the potential of increasing the life expectancy, life quality, and overall enjoyment of life for the person making the decision. Nanotech is a continuation of chemical engineering, something that has been ongoing since man made his first medicines.

 

[LittleNipper]

I do think that science and scientists have an obligation to limit themselves in applying technology if there are good ethical to do so. Human cloning certainly fits into that category, IMHO.

However, Colsen certainly goes off the deepend with this one:

"Nanotechnology—which, again, is being promoted as helping those with dread diseases—holds the dangerous potential of controlling or possibly even re-engineering human nature."

The difference here is that this is part of freewill, something that even christians feel is important. What we do with our bodies is well within our perogative. In the case of cloning or embryos there is no participation of the child or embryo in the decision making process. However, nanotechnology has the potential of increasing the life expectancy, life quality, and overall enjoyment of life for the person making the decision. Nanotech is a continuation of chemical engineering, something that has been ongoing since man made his first medicines.

For the Christian he understands that his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (GOD). Christian's should consider that they have an obligation to not mistreat it. Anybody ready to be marked 666....

 

[Loudmouth]

For the Christian he understands that his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (GOD). Christian's should consider that they have an obligation to not mistreat it. Anybody ready to be marked 666....

How is using nanotech a violation of the temple? Is eating red meat tainted with human made growth hormones a violation? Is aspirin? Is obesity just as serious a violation of the bodily temple as nanotechnology? It would seem to me that updating the bodily temple with the latest technology is no different than adding air conditioning and a modern PA system into a church.