GO TO 1999 BIOGRAPHIES

GREAT AMERICAN THINK-OFF FINAL FOUR ESSAYS FOR 1999

Science More Dangerous

Debra Tastad Think-Off 99'

It was my twelfth year working in the Intensive Care Unit.  Cliff was being admitted again.  In spite of his denial, he was dying.  Usually terminally ill patients choose to die comfortably at home, surrounded by loved ones. Cliff, however, had decided when his heart and breathing stopped, he wanted "everything medically possible" done to him.

The nurses dreaded the day he would need to perform CPR on Cliff's fragile deteriorating body.  We wanted his final days to be peaceful. Clearly, Cliff was afraid of dying.  Blaming everyone else for his demise, he never acknowledged his role in his illness.  He had lived with the philosophy, "you only live once, grab the gusto!"  He played and worked hard, drinking and smoking heavily.

Cliff was a highly intelligent man, a physicist and scientist whose world revolved around formulas, equations and logical order.  Proud to be an atheist, science was his god. It was dependable and provable.

In a cold sweat, Cliff would frequently awaken from a restless sleep, crying out in anguish.  He described his dreams as full of power forces of destruction and devastation.  Once he spoke of a snake like creature trying to eat him.

On his sixth hospital day, Cliff's heart stopped beating.  Honoring his request, we beat on his chest, placed him on a breathing machine, and administered countless medications until his body responded.

Totally alone, Cliff had long ago divorced his wife and disowned his only son because of their belief in God.  He had instructed us to never notify them nor anyone else.. no matter what.  It was a terrifying time for us.  In a vegetative state, Cliff was kept alive by machines and drugs.  We were legally responsible to continue life support.

A month passed.  As we were preparing to summon help from the Ethics Committee, mercy stepped in.  Cliff's heart failed, but this time he could not be revived.  He was buried alone, without anyone knowing or caring.

Through the years, I have witnessed many people journeying through the dying process.  Most exhibited a calming peace.  They spoke of their belief system, one that  included life after death.  Frequently, these people had visions of their deceased loved ones or angelic beings joining them, helping to ease them into after-life. Seeing the difference between these people and Cliff, I understand the dangers basing one's life upon science.  It had left Cliff empty and frightened. He fought death, which to him was nothing more than a cold dark grave.

Religious philosophies teach that more exists to life and death. Exudingan inner peace, believers realize suffering is inevitable, but their beliefs provide hope.  If the body fails, they know it is merely a shell containing the "true self". Science, however is based in the rational mind.  It is difficult for the scientific mind to understand or lend credence to those basing thier lives in spirituality. Science expects a physical order to life, whereas religion transcends the limited need for human logic.  Limitless, it cannot be calculated or measured. During my 24 year nursing career, I have often questioned the value of the vast medical and scientific advancements which can prolong life, or is it to prolong death?  Terms such as "right to die," "quality of life," and futile treatment, have become commonplace.  In many ways, the advancements have out paced society's ability to solve the ethical problems associated with the new health care technology.  Ethics Committees are necessary to develop guidelines, make recommendations, and monitor these situations.  Often, these need resolution through the legal system.

Decisions which were once left up to God, or another Higher Power, are suddenly being made by humans.  Suddenly mankind with all it's hidden agendas and differing values is able to control life by a touch of a button. When is enough, enough?  Has science exceeded the bounds of humanity?

The most difficult family struggles I have seen involve them facing the decisions whether to initiate or with hold life sustaining treatments when the outcome seem dismal.  Worse yet is the pain and devastation of deciding if and when to withdraw life support from a loved one.

Those of us caring for Cliff will never forget him, nor the lessons he taught us.  He was a physicist who contributed to the scientific world. Yet, surrounded by the greatest technologies, he died alone and empty. Which is more dangerous, science or religion?  I believe if Cliff could answer that question today, even he would say....science.

GO TO 1999 BIOGRAPHIES

Science More Dangerous

Mark Friestad Think-Off 99'

In the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, the animals' dream of a perfectly equal society crumbles when pigs assume leadership of farm life. Soon pigs are enjoying certain advantages, such as a better diet.  The pigs defend this to the other animals by reasoning that their work, which is "brain work", not manual labor, requires better nutrition, and thus, the pigs should eat better.  The other animals are told,"this has been proved by Science, comrades," and lacking evidence to the contrary, they are convinced.

Considering the question,"Which is More Dangerous: Science or Religion?" we cannot conclude that either is inherently more dangerous. Science and religion are both powerful ideas: one holding that we cannot accept an untested idea, the other holding that ultimately we must accept some truths without proof.  Although instinct may tell us that science, being provable, must be safer; in fact, the more dangerous idea is the one we accept more blindly.  I believe that to be science.

While most educated people today can distinguish between religious fanaticism and sincere faith, most are not sophisticated enough to make qualified scientific judgments.  When Scottish scientists cloned sheep, public debate focused not on the revel ant question, which was the promise unlocked by the discovery, but on the more easily understandable issue of whether we ought to clone humans.  An important moral question, yes, but it led us away from the merits of the research itself.  Even among college graduates, few can discuss in detail if a space-based missile defense system would be effective, or if space research is beneficial, or it nuclear energy is safe.  And  the nature of scientific progress ensures that in the future the average person will be less, not more, capable of making technical judgments.

Take the theory of Multiple Intelligences, which holds that there are at least eight different ways in which people are intelligent, but that schools typically measure only two-- verbal and mathematical.  If we subscribe to this theory, it could drastically change the way kids are taught, as the traditional skills-- reading, writing, and arithmetic-- are de-emphasized in order to make time for other activities.  But among classroom teachers, how many are sufficiently versed in the MI research to decide whether is is or isn't valid.  The same could be said for research into ADD, or gender bias, or any of a host of other educational theories.

To compensate for our lack of scientific acumen, we rely on experts, trusting that their education and experience will do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.  From the dawn of science, this has produced results ranging from the ridiculous to the tragic. Faith in the practice of bleeding--still a common medical technique in the 18th Century --hastened the death of George Washington.  William Kellogg, founder of the Kellogg breakfast cereal company, built a following on the science that sexual abstinence, exercise, and bowel movements would cure almost any ailment.  Hitler's campaign of genocide was grounded less in the gospel of white supremacy than in  the science of eugenics, the theory (subscribed to by some prominent 20th Century scientists) that mankind's gene pool could be permanently improved by eliminating its weaker elements.

Society these days is so skeptical that an expert boasting "proof" has tremendous power.  Yet even these admit that sometimes they're wrong. But we continue to follow blindly.

Sometimes science's work is perverted to fit our social needs. Consider the work of Charles Darwin.  His theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest were a major scientific contribution, but their social impact was just as profound.  "Social Darwinism" is held by many people to this day to be reason that people are poor, or uneducated, or criminal.

It isn't the scientists fault.  Did Darwin suspect of intend that his work would be invoked in a debate over whether to give young mothers welfare?  Scientists don't claim their work is "the truth".  But that's usually what the public takes it for.

Without question, science holds unlimited promise.  But the public, fascinated with progress, often asks, "Can we?" without always addressing, "Should we?" Science doesn't purport to make ethical judgments. That makes it dangerous.

In an age of rapid communications and openness, religious fanaticism is quickly exposed for what it is.  But science continues to win legions of followers.  Science needs ethics and wisdom independent of itself for restraint.  Otherwise, we might find ourselves blindly led by the experts down a road we don't want to go.

GO TO 1999 BIOGRAPHIES

Religion More Dangerous

Taylor Hayward Think-Off 99'

Essay Not Available

GO TO 1999 BIOGRAPHIES

Religion More Dangerous

Laurie Lalko Think-Off 99'

Which is More Dangerous: Science or Religion?

Throughout history there has been a struggle for power between science and religion. One reason for this battling has been the overlapping areas of interest and authority, which they share. Either field, when misapplied, could be the end for civilization, as we now know it. In the final analysis, however, I suspect that religion "wins" the contest for the title of most dangerous.

First, there is the belief that many have that they are privy to the truth: Even if the teachings of their religion have altered to be more tolerant of other viewpoints; even if their religion allows that "others" may enter heaven, some remain committed to the pure "orthodox" elements of their belief system. Alas, this can result in those "fundamentalists" being willing to kill in the name of their religion. As some of those individuals are in powerful groups, they can use weapons of war to hold nations hostage or eliminate those they oppose. Great power can be had with minimal scientific knowledge, a little black-market nuclear material, and the delusion that God is on your side. Note that to be truly impressive, science still dirties its hands in the area by providing efficient means of significant destruction. The rationale for wielding that power, however, is often provided by religion.

Another way that religion can be extremely destructive is in the topics which it censors. In many cases, true believers will strive to have their "forbidden list" become society's forbidden list. Ignorance comes at a very great price. Clamping down on the free exchange of ideas, even when some ideas are contributed by the deranged or immoral, is dangerous. At times, scientists who are staunch members of a religion will close off certain areas of investigation for fear of meeting with church disapproval. Few discoveries are completely pure from a moral perspective, so the potential evil applications of much of science may cause a religion to close that path of exploration. What about the peaceful uses of some "diabolical" research? We know the horrors of nuclear research, but it also has given us radiation therapy, nuclear energy (certainly at least at the submarine level a useful advancement), and so forth.

Religion also tends to take advantage of special status in society. "Religions" no matter how ridiculous or offensive can be tax exempt in the US, for example. Why aren't the religious organizations carrying a tax burden? That lack of "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's" makes the field extra ripe for scam artists to develop their own religion. There are always gullible individuals out there who are happy to join the "Church of I'm Bogus, But I Crave Power, Follow Me Blindly." Once established, whether worthy or not, prisoners do love to sue that they are converts and need special things to have their First Amendment rights protected. Better diets, weekly sex, the ability to preach their nonsense, etc. have all been demanded by the very religious behind bars. The money and time wasted on these usually frivolous suits pushes aside genuine violations. Lunatic fringe scientists, especially in the social sciences, can come close to achieving the same level of chaos and waste, but religion seems to be the number one source of such nonsense.

People typically agree that the mind of God is a mystery to mere man. We cannot truly fathom His ways. Those who claim that God speaks to them, that they have some special understanding, can manipulate many people into believing they are telling the truth. As those followers usually lack the confidence to shout, "The Guru has no clothes," they can be misled into wasting their lives in the service of the demagogue of the moment. Science rarely takes such "blind prisoners." True science demands that authority be questioned.

In the final analysis, both science and religion are intrinsically neutral. Science is normally done for research's sake or the betterment of mankind. The rules of science require that scientific work be open to scrutiny, that the methodology be exposed to all, that the work be replicable, and that ethical standards be upheld. There is no hidden agenda to science and the mark of a true scientist is his being open to debate and challenge. Many scientists literally put their lives on the line for their work and they devote their lives to their calling. Religion, on the other hand, is not so clear cut. It is there for the glorification of God. Many religions, and probably all bogus ones, dislike being questioned: the "appeal to authority" attitude appears to be very ingrained in many of them. There really is no way to scrutinize how "prophets" were given their information and the ethical/moral standards can be defined by the religion itself. In some religions, simply questioning gets one ostracized. Nonetheless, many people are willing to be part of a religion that clearly disrespects them as individuals.

Based on quality of life issues, on respect for others, and the firm belief that one must "know oneself" and follow ones conscience, it seems that religion has the potential to be more dangerous than science. "Bad religion" could kill us all-as could bad science. The motivation, however, lies in the heart-and soul-of the person(s) who reign the destruction down on us. I think that is more likely to be the result of someone who believes he is on God's mission rather than a scientist doing his job.