How can the question ‘Are Scientists Playing God’ exist if we don’t believe in no God? A recent NYT article reported that there seem to be less ethical obstacles in front of the embryonic research in eastern countries then there are in the western.
Most of southern and eastern Asia displays relatively little opposition to either cloned embryonic stem-cell research or genetically modified crops. China, India, Singapore and other countries have enacted laws supporting embryo cloning for medical research (sometimes called therapeutic cloning, as opposed to reproductive cloning intended to recreate an entire human being). Genetically modified crops are grown in China, India and elsewhere.
And this difference was attributed to religious reasons.
“Most people in Hindu and Buddhist countries,” Dr. Silver says, “have a root tradition in which there is no single creator God. Instead, there may be no gods or many gods, and there is no master plan for the universe. Instead, spirits are eternal and individual virtue — karma — determines what happens to your spirit in your next life. With some exceptions, this view generally allows the acceptance of both embryo research to support life and genetically modified crops.”
Chinese have been criticized as ‘having no belief’, especially after the economic boost since 1979. In some westerners’ mind most of the modern Chinese don’t believe in God of any kind or that there is some ultimate judgment after death. People just dare to do anything that’s practically feasible and profitable. This is to some extent true, indeed, and this view has also affected a large number of Chinese who are now calling for ‘spiritual construction’ or ‘ethical education’ of our nationals. No matter how the modernization takes place here, tradition and culture are hard to eliminate. And although they become buried deeper beneath our mind, they still affect our choices.
I am a Chinese so I can provide my view here. I am a downright atheist and Marxist, as I believe all scientists should be. Ethical issues are important, that’s why we need all those ethicists. If all the new technologies that ‘conflict’ with old ethics should be abandoned, no ethics is needed then. Bible or Koran is enough to judge everything And-yes, many people do think so. Aren’t they Struthio camela, or ostriches? No matter you need it or not, and until you can control all human beings, science exists, constantly challenges tradition with its new finding, and is believed by many other people if you don’t believe it. That’s why we need ethics, constantly discussion on how to cope with science findings with old recognition, by and only by altering or reconciling the tradition with new knowledge. Therefore all ethics should be discussed with science regarded as a premise. Stopping science can never be an option.
