LastOne

4m(1)-BO

1)

As old as religion is, I can understand why it would be involved in warfare technology, religion have experience war before therefore it will have a need to speak up about it. As history shows the Crusades were wars of religion, although, I am not familiar with the Crusades I can understand why Religion will have an opinion. From what I understand the Crusades were a war to control the holy lands and because it was a sacred reason those who fought did so in unimaginable ways. Same with the wars of the present time like World War II and the Vietnam War, soldiers of those wars also fought in unimaginable ways. Moreover, religion much like politics seems to try to justify war to ward off enemies. As the text implies “So perhaps religious people can allow their government to use destructive weapons to support the interests of their country” (164) Then maybe religious people can allow their government to use deadly weapons to support the interest of their country. No matter how much religion emphasizes peace there is always an exception and that is protecting the people and the land. Weather is the last resort, or the first resort religion seems to encourage war although it practices peace at extreme levels. So, if religion speaks up about war then it would perhaps decide on a decision no similar than politics. Perhaps religion can make such decision even though some might not approve of it.

Furthermore, enhancing the human body for beauty or health reasons seems as stepping over boundaries when it deals with the human original appearances and health. CRISPR the technological process of adding DNA to a cell to change or eliminate dangerous mutations is sort of defying God or the big bang theory. The way humans are born is the way they are meant to be, to enhance their genes is to change the whole order of things. Once change it cannot go back and when is secure it will likely be passed down to a future generation. Allowing for what is supposed to be natural be extinct and what is modified to thrive is to destroy how the world and people are meant to be. If religion argues that God made humans in their current form than perhaps they can speak up against CRISPR because is defying their strict believes, moreover, those who are not religious but believe that humans are to stay in their current form without any alterations can agree with religion and allow for religion to speak up. Religion will and should be involved in politics and medical and everything else the builds a community despite that some do not believe in it. As a person who is conflicted in what to believe since enrolling in class, I can stand alongside with religion when it comes to altering genes because the way we are born is the way we were meant to be no matter if its good or bad.

Comment: 200 words

4m(1)-DR

2)

In recent times the ethical questions about science and technology are becoming more prevalent because as science pushes boundaries, more ethical issues will arise of what is right and what is wrong. As I try to answer this question, none of these scientific-technological advances, I can’t say which one is easiest or hardest to answer because of perceptive changes once you are directly affected.

Let me try to illustrate with some real-life examples. A dear friend of mine got shot multiple times about his body. His lungs collapsed and had to place on life support; he also got shot in his back, which made him paralyzed from the neck down.

His family and I visited the hospital regularly. While in this state, what will you do knowing he will never live as he used to be? Another issue was one of the bullets was lodged close to his heart, and if removed the doctors said he might have died immediately. Unable to eat regularly, with a copperhead bullet poisoning his bloodstream and the pain of being shot. Should the family pull the plug? Some would say yes, and others would say no.

When it comes to warfare technologies if you asked a person who was in Japan and Vietnam during the wars, they would say these ABC weapons are the worst because their effects linger long after the fight. I would argue it is war, and there are no rules in war. The only rule is to win at any means. The reason I would think this way is because I have no emotional connection to this situation.

How could I tell a family who always wanted a child not to use technology to have one? How can I tell someone not to save a life with stem cell research? How could I tell a family what to do with braindead individuals?

Maybe I am not as religious as I should be, but perception changes drastically once the person directly involved is someone you care for deeply. A parent would never lift a finger to take the life of their child, and on the flip side, a parent would give anything to their child to live a great life.

Another factor is as time progresses thoughts of what is accepted by social norm changes. Stem cell research 75 years ago might have been looked at as interfering with gods work, but now it is taken in science.

Comment: 200 words

4m(2)-VBF

3)

Throughout the chapters, we were able to view how religion and science combat with each other with extremist people on both sides. We were also able to learn about real life cases that involved science and religion and how it was influenced. As I was reading the chapter, there were five options that were presented that could be the likely hood of religion and science. The one that I found to be the most likely to occurs is option 4. It states the following "one can also imagine establishing a (more or less) permanent truce between these two systems of thoughts." (Future of science and religion, p171). This one stood out to me because now there is more opportunities to find out more information whether it's related to how the world was made or what started humanity. When you identify yourself to a specific group, you will be curious to know to opposing facts as well. Some people take this and will want to expand their learning as naturalist although they are religious. Before, there weren't any information to back up anyone's claim, but modern science has helped changed that. Science will only continue to evolve and so will our beliefs which should lead to peace between science and religion. We have read so much information in regards how they co exist with each other or if they are two separate topics. The one that I believe would be rational given the information is option 4. In my opinion, I believe that there will always be some kind of conflict that argue about the creation of the world and it is also hard to change one's view when you have believed in it for so long. If both can develop a certain boundary, things can flow a little better. The option that would lead to the best consequence for the society in the future is option 5 which is both groups working together implementing their beliefs and results to comprehend both perspectives. There are so many reasons as to why I think this would work the best for all. One of them is that prevents conflict and debates that they have towards one another. I believe that instead of arguing against each other, they should use the knowledge that both offer. Sometimes picking a side is difficult because you may find yourself lacking information about it but the union can help researchers uncover facts.

Comment: 200 words

4m(2)-SG

4)

Throughout this book I have noticed that the author seems to always point out views of integrating science and religion. I have thought about why not keeping it separate as is? It is always when people want to conjoin two distinct groups together that create problems. Why do people want to convert one side of believers to believe in something else? Can’t people just believe in what their heart desires? Why do we have to prove one side wrong and the other right? Also, what if they’re both right then that’s okay but some people still do not want to conjoin them. I agree with the point of view that the emergentist mentioned before, that the world could have started from a creator like god and then established evolution which explains how humans have evolved. It could be a possibility or it could also be possible that both sides are wrong and there is another explanation to how the world came to be. What I have learned from a specific religion is the Buddhist way of thinking. To appreciate all living things and be in peace and harmony with life. If one lives by those rules then one can have a successful life, not worry so much about how and when the world started. The emergentist view between this conflict is the one that makes more sense in my opinion. The author stated, “But one can imagine that people could come to hold a variety of religious interpretations of the world in ways that are compatible with and respectful of the spirit of science” (Clayton 173). With this integration the two viewpoints coexist and bond in harmony but that brings back to my questions of why should there be integration when it can both be separated to avoid conflict. “One does not have to believe in God to think that it is good to act in a loving manner towards one’s fellow citizens or the people in one’s neighborhood” (Clayton 181). I agree with this quote because it means that one doesn’t have to classify themselves in to a certain religion or certain scientific thinkers because no matter what everyone should know what is right and wrong in their conscious. So to end this off there isn’t a difference if one categorizes themselves as a religious believer or a naturalist thinker because they both have something in common and that is making moral decisions of what it ethically good to do and what is wrong.

Comment: 200 words