I love art, I appreciate wine, but I can't argue art and wine have had the same impact as smallpox vaccine and the space race. MLK did a lot, but I think the industrial revolution, the atom bomb, and the invention of gunpowder, were more profound occurrences.
I guess some philosophers may have had as profound an impact on history as scientists, and a few historical leaders, but science is the only class of people who have "godlike" powers. I suppose you can argue that creating atomic weapons, travelling away from the earth, talking to someone on the other side of the world, and bringing people back from death are not "godlike" powers- but I couldn't possibly agree with you.
I do not know any other class of people who have created such powers. I wouldn't argue they all use what they create appropriately, this is about the POWER, not about everyone using it appropriately. You have confounded two very different issues when you talk about them not all being worthy of reverence. I revere the sciences generally for what they have given. I don't like to see science used in ways I don't approve of, but that makes science itself no less awesome and powerful, and scientists no less responsible for science.
Godlike powers is really the issue. And only scientists have those. You may not like that they have them. You may think they are unworthy to have them. While I don't actually think either the scientist or the streetsweeper is divine, I do think only the scientist has powers one could call "godlike". As I said above, if you don't see what science can do as pretty much just like what primitive Gods, like the old testament God, are described to be able to do (and you can throw in the miracles of Jesus as well), then we'll just have to disagree. |
