What Would a World Ruled By Science Look Like?

Distrusting Tyson because he is nor ego than science, is not the same thing as agreeing with the articles premise that government based on rationality and science would be inherently bad.

.

The article sets the stage for the opposite of rationality and science being religion. There is an attempt to smear rationality for bad ideas that people have tried to justify with science....but is an unwise door to open for proponents of religion.

.

If it were a choice between rationality/science or religion/irrationality for our governing basis, the choice would be easy.

The problem lies when people believe the science as if it were a religion. It's not that I distrust Tyson because of his ego, it's more an issue of distrusting the people who claim that the science is done. We as a people know much, but there is still much to know.

Well said.

In order to provide support, I own and operate an automotive repair facility which I decided to name Automotive Technocracy. I am often asked why the name is such. The reason I decided on this name is because all of my work is a system of society which is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. (Myself included as I've been at it for about 45 years).

I really try not to impose any decisions that have an effect on others based on blind faith, I try to be at least a little scientific. I also don't give any religious devotion to repairing vehicles, although I have a few times used some religious sounding words when I was working on them.

I am of the Christian faith, but science is just another part of my existence that proves my faith is true. Everything in the entire universe testifies that God exists but that is no reason to worship cars or science.

There is, or used to be, a group called Technocracy, Inc. They advocated a society controlled by engineers, scientists, and the like. Obviously, that never caught on, because we are clearly controlled by something else, if anything at all.

The Technocrats had their day during the Great Depression. Quite a colorful group, a topic for a Hollywood flick as a counter point to ''Oh, Brother Where Art Thou.''

Good point Sir Robin! The human element is always what turns the beginning of science into a freak show, a side show, a revival tent (not that all revivals are bad, it is just the more modern connotation of those who preach simply as a mean of gain).

The world cannot be completely ruled by science, because there are so many who would have no clue what reality is supposed to now be.

It all depends on how it's implemented. A world run by science might be the worst dictatorship you could imagine, with the individual having absolutely no freedom, the ultimate Nanny State.

IMHO, the individual should not have absolute freedom but the maximum amount possible that avoids trampling on the freedoms of others. These boundaries of freedom, like country boundaries, need to be worked out.

In sparsely populated regions, the individual can have more freedom than in densely populated areas and the people that live in each region should work it out for themselves. People who live in cities give up freedoms for what cities offer. Those who want more freedom can move to the countryside.

I don't know how science can decide, people have to come to a consensus and have the freedom to choose what suits them. It's what freedom is about.

JMHO

Here is an interesting TRD talk on how science can and should be involved in making moral decisions.

You might edit TRD to TED. (Unless you think the talk is really bad.)

Lest there be any question, I think Sam Harris's talk was right on.

When I saw the title, I thought "The world is ruled by science (if you define science as the laws of nature)." Then I saw 'a rational nation ruled by science . . .' in your link, and got the real jist of your question. Of course, we already have a certain group of 'scientists' who are using 'science' to force political action. I can only shudder to think of this taken much further. The real shame is that so many people are so poorly grounded in fact that they take the media's reports as factual.

this isn't freedom its control of expression, lame concept doomed to fail

It would be complete madness....much like putting a religious fanatic in charge...

Igor for veep!!

Long Live Shrek!

There is something that I believe we all should have - faith in a superior being, our God. We all know what science says about God creating the universe. If our society is based solely on science, then people who have faith will either be criminals or will be forced to lose their faith.

The religion I believe in says that each of us are saved and will go to heaven to be with our Father, but only if we believe. Our acts do not give us entry to heaven; our faith does. As a consequence of having faith, our behavior will be honorable, humble, righteous, meek and obedient.

So, if science cannot prove the existence of God and the laws will be based on it, then running the world based on science will fail.

'... If our society is based solely on science, then people who have faith will either be criminals or will be forced to lose their faith ....'

.

This argument is fallacious, at the very least an appeal to fear. Science and rationality will realize the value to society of promoting individual rights, including the right to believe in odd aND sundry invisible men in the sky.

Having religion and irrationality pervading government has not lead recently to outlawing the familiarity with nor use of scientific knowledge. If you are honest, you will admit that science would be at far more risk in a religious government than religion would be in a rational science government.

Truth, you write a lot of really great things on this site and I do listen to your side of the story.

I will pose a challenge to your comment about which side is at more risk. In a religious government (something that I don't proscribe to, because I do believe in the division of state and religion), I see certain scientific concepts being challenged and banned, Darwin's theory of Evolution is an obvious one, freedom of choice being taken away, etc.

On the other hand, a government based on rational science cannot prove the existence of God, therefore religion will have no place in this type of government. Using only logic, God cannot be proven, therefore it is inefficient for churches to exist and people cannot be allowed to practice religion.

In either case, both would be bad choices and I don't think it matters if one is worse than the other - neither should exist. At least that's how I see it.

'....government based on rational science cannot prove the existence of God, therefore religion will have no place in this type of government. Using only logic, God cannot be proven, therefore it is inefficient for churches to exist and people cannot be allowed to practice religion.....'

.

You have to layer a couple of premises to get to the above conclusion....and more than one of those premises is flawed.

It would be difficult to impossible to support logically/scientifically that society and individuals on whole would benefit from government involvement so intrusive as to dictate beliefs and superstitions, or even that such regulations might be reasonably enforceable.

Science logic would have difficulty showing net benefit from outlawing religion specifically.

Science rarely 'proves', but rather puts forward falsifiable suggestions. Many aspects of deities are not falsifiable, but that doesn't prove deities are non-existent, just non-scientific.

.

The problems you suggest aren't really qualities of a science based rational government. The problems are those of governement overreach that impedes personal liberty.

The benefits of maximized personal liberty of the population are so unambiguous, science shouldn't have a problem falsifying suggestions that lesser liberty might be more beneficial.

.

True philosophy deals with rational proofs that border on mathematical precision.

I once saw one of the professors at the college I attended carry out this logical proof on a blackboard, that demonstrated the existence of God. It was simple, yet elegant, and powerful in its conclusion.

Would you by any chance have a copy or reference?

I am sorry to report, I do not have my notes from that day, any longer, and the professor has since passed away. I might still contact the College (McMurry University now) and see if they have records of his philosophical proofs.

Yes, but remember Oolong Kaluphid used logical arguments to definitively prove the nonexistence of God in the fourth book of his blockbuster trilogy, " Well, That About Wraps It Up For God".

Seriously, in "A Salmon of Doubt", Douglas Adams laid out the reasons that show the nonexistence of God. Personally, I believe in God for precisely the same reasons.

Remember also that the Phd stands for Doctor of Philosophy.

From ,"Because I'm Blonde":

"I know some people are smarter than me

but this is my philosophy,

So What!"

BS: We know that one;
MS: More of the Same;
PhD: Piled higher and Deeper.

What worries me about a science based government is that science tries to find rational solutions to miracles. Miracles don't have a scientific solution; it's a miracle. People who have religion in their heart can only do so if they have faith in God. Science doesn't have an answer to having blind faith - at least I haven't heard one.

When science does find an explanation, the curiosity ceases to be miraculous and begins to become understood.

"I see no reason to continue to believe in the one that remains".

The fact that one continues to remain is good reason to continue believing!

I have heard that there are still a number of people who believe the Earth is flat.

Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

I had to re-read my post, because your comment makes it sound like I'm trying to impose my religion on others. I've copied my comment here for you to re-read. Can you tell me where I stated that my concept of God (my religious beliefs) should be imposed on others or "we all"?

Here's my comment, correct me if I'm wrong. "There is something that I believe we all should have - faith in a superior being, our God."

I'm very sorry to hear that you lack faith in a God. Now I understand where your comment comes from. I wish you well.

I'm a scientist. If I should ever see some evidence suggesting the existence of a "superior being", then I will begin to suspect that such a being exists. So far, I have seen no such evidence.

On the contrary, if there were such a being, then those faithful to that being ought to benefit from that faith, and in this lifetime. I haven't seen any such benefits to the faithful, and so far I haven't seen any disadvantages to not being faithful.

As I believe I said previously, I guide my life by the golden rule. I see no need for additional guidance.

I'm very sorry that you feel you need an imaginary superior being to guide your life!

Some people use religion as a crutch. The reason they do so is because they need it. It's either because they've had a difficultly in life that caused them great pain. Believing in God helps them cope with the pain.

And there are some who use religion as a means to force others to their belief. As you already know, these people do succeed, but in the long run, they fail, because this isn't what religion is about.

Still others use faith as a way to better ourselves. The Christian belief has one aspect where we as humans are tempted and most of us aren't strong enough to resist. We use our belief in God to help give us the strength to resist. When we do fall, we try our best to repent. We are then forgiven of our sin and we can go on with our life without the guilt hanging over use. To repent builds character and being forgiven is just plain good for our souls.

There's a lot more to having faith than what I've written. Much, much more. I wrote it in the hope that you could see the benefit religion has.

The benefits of ascribing to a particular set of beliefs doesn't offer any reliable indication of the veracity of the whole or parts of the set of beliefs.

The possible benefits of ascribing to particular set of beliefs, shouldn't be out of reach for a person who desires such benefits even if they do not find sufficient compelling evidence to have actual belief, so long as they can understand how the benefits are achieved.

We see dimly now, as though looking through a veil, but some day all will be as clear as the noonday sun.

I recommend against spending time looking at the noon day sun. Certainly don't gaze at I in an attempt to evaluate how clear it is....it very well might be the clearest thing you ever see ...from that point on.

Nobody goes around staring at the sun. You totally misread my comment.

That's OK. I choose to believe in God with my free will, you choose not to with your free will. I do not serve a God who forces belief, or even 100% compliance with commands. It might be in my best interest (in the afterlife) to listen to God and obey what the scripture points out. The two great commandment of Jesus: Love your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. If more people actually followed those commands, then there would be less violence, less hatred, and less foolishness in the world.

No one has ever perfectly obeyed God, except Jesus, and look they crucified him. Even that is OK, because He has overcome the world, and death, and now sits on God's right hand (meaning with all authority). There are no enemies here, only brothers and sisters.

I still feel sorry for the fig tree.

That's the way it goes in this world. Either bear fruit, or be damned.

The correct quote is ,"If it ain't broke, you're not trying hard enough."

Hey, just so that we are clear. I was not serious in my staring at the sun comment. Also, no disrespect was intended.

I appreciate your insight and perspective. When I see your name at the top of a comment, I am eager to read it and rarely is there any dissapointment.

I typically go on the assumption that those who make well considered comments have also considered their own beliefs thoroughly enough that no off hand comment, or even a direct challange 'would''elicit more than a strong rebutted and perhaps a short lived adversarial tone related to that subject.

But that assumption has not always served me well. And I have upset some people that in retrospect I wish I hadn't.

There are a number of things about the belief system you describe that seem at odds with reason/logic...i'd really like to know what you think about the discrepancies I perceive, but not at the risk of you taking genuine meaningful offense.

I likewise look forward to your comments, and find them of interest, although many times I am hard pressed for time away from my J.O.B. duties that are always more intense during summer peak electric demand season.

When the heat and humidity are high, the humility is also high. Sort of like herding bees. The political party I follow has a large tent with room for everyone. Same with my God, He knows what it is like to walk the earth as one of us, and is mindful of the stuff we are made of. Have no fear, He is 100% pure love.

Every once in a while, Harry Shearer's "Le Show" has a skit about the "So's"; i.e., people who start sentences with a superfluous "So". Terry Gross gets nailed a lot, among others.

Very well put!

I also agree with tcmtech. Note that he made absolutely no reference to a superior being of any kind.

As to morals and ethics, all we really need is a far-sighted application of the Golden Rule: Treat others in the same way you would like them to treat you.

So you think a world ruled by your fellow church members would be chaos?

You might want to think your premises through a little more.

I think you know what he meant.

Perhaps even better.

Having worked in church administration, either chaos or tyranny with occasional, rare fact finding trips into sanity, but then we're Methodists.

Of course not! My fellow parishioners know God!

From "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra", "I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything."

I don't think any specialized group of people running a country exclusively would be good for the country as a whole. I think, as a general rule, too much of anything is not good for everything.

And now for a trip down a different rabbit hole:

To me, science and religion both look like ways for man to manipulate his (her's, it's) environment.

In science, we go with taxonomy, description, characterization, theory and prediction. The goal is to see something, make a prediction and take action to attempt to reach a desired, predicted outcome. I'm primarily an engineer, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. As an engineer, I know that if I get lucky, I take it and run.

In religion, you observe and take some action to reach a predicted outcome. Usually this takes the form of asking for an outcome and waiting for it to happen, but can range from thinking good thoughts to lighting a candle to sacrificing a virgin on the rim of a volcano. the goal is to get God to take action to make the environment to be a better place for us, for "them" if convenient, but certainly for us. As a Methodist, I have learned that sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes no. If the answer is yes, it becomes a joy during the joys and concerns section of the service.

From a cultural standpoint, if we have a scientific basis to deal with an issue, we do it. If not, we turn to religion until some squint out there reduces it to a scientific principle, as in, "If you have a lot of people with malaria, sacrifice mosquitos en masse, sleep under a net and anoint the open waters with magical chemicals from the high priests of Ortho." That's the scientific way to do it.

You sir are something of a laugh riot, especially the point about virgins and volcanoes.

Good luck finding a virgin (of age) these days.

If however, it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it could be a duck. I think a world ruled by science quacks a different tune depending on the weather and might or might not be a duck, or maybe something else that rhymes with duck.

And just what would be the religious solution to the malaria problem? Its pretty clear that praying and waiting haven't helped!

Grinning and bearing it is not scriptural. My Bible says "You will mount up with wings as eagles." - Meaning: Get up off your butt and do something about it.

He who has the knowledge and wherewithall, and does nothing, is worse off than the idiot who tries at least to do something, even if it fails. Even idiots can learn.

Most likely the response would be to schedule an exorcism and then bury the departed whose immortal soul we obviously preserved.

In fact, what usually happens is someone does something for whatever reason and makes things to be perceived as better and then the local group adopts a ritual for doing that thing for whatever reason and it becomes institutionalized within that population.

In Portland, we've solved the homeless problem by letting them camp wherever they want, providing free food and then giving them one way bus or plane tickets to somewhere else when they become annoying enough. I'm not sure if this is science or religion. Probably both and neither.

There was a routine in "Pause in the Disaster" by Firesign Theater where the local holy man gathers up all the followers in the early morning every day for the daily miracle. Sunrise. The thought process is that if he didn't, it wouldn't. The early Egyptians did the same sort of thing for the annual floods. In college we had a ritual that if, when you went out in the morning, you couldn't see Mary's Peak, then you needed to go back inside and get an umbrella. In that case, the lack of a vision meant rain's a comin'.