Skip to comments.
Study: Religion colors Americans’ views of nanotechnology
University of Wisconsin Madison News ^
| Feb. 15, 2008
| Terry Devitt
Posted on 02/20/2008 9:39:32 AM PST by MetaThought
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: ThisLittleLightofMine
I think most Americans dont even know what nanotechnology is or how they as consumers already use this technology. Faith in God does not make someone stupid as this article implies. I agree that the greater majority of Americans have never even heard the term nanotechnology. I want to know how they asked their questions. If they presented the argument in a manner that invokes "creation" or "God", then the poll is slanted.
21
posted on
02/20/2008 10:15:24 AM PST
by
DallasDeb
((a.k.a. USAFA2006Mom!))
To: MetaThought
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions,
Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and
stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities.
That's about the only explanation I could find for any religiously-
observant Americans having misgivings on nanotechnology, based
on any sort of religional/moral objections.
I can't help but wonder if the survey questions didn't help some
of those surveyed to infer such a false premise.
But I wouldn't be suprised if a number of observant Christians
with an eye on "end times" might see nanotechnology as part
of the plans to have an identifier ("mark") on humans.
Maybe that's the thought that bothers them.
Or governmental intrusion with all sorts of nano-sized tracking devices.
22
posted on
02/20/2008 10:26:23 AM PST
by
VOA
To: MetaThought
The premise of this claim seems bogus on its face. The Bible and true science are not in conflict. A fact is a fact. As we all know by now, how a number of people are going to answer a survey question depends a lot on how the question is worded, the context in which the question is asked and the methodology used to find a random sample of the public to ask.
Maybe we are really seeing ‘projection’ on the part of the good professor. Some of these nano structures that have been discovered in biology are impossible to explain with the present worldview of spontaneous life and evolution. How does a rotary joint in a flagellum evolve? And especially how does a structure “evolve” when it has so many interdependent complexities?
AFAIK, there is not enough time in the universe for some of these structures to be an accident. And it is not as if we only have to explain one or two of them. Hardly a day goes by without some new very improbable complexity being discovered.
To: MetaThought
For someone to study this is truly amazingly disgusting. Probably federal funding. Drawing a parallel between the two is like comparing apples to the moon.
24
posted on
02/20/2008 10:33:23 AM PST
by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
To: MetaThought
Did the typical respondant even have the slightest idea what nanotechnology was? Is the term used more in Euro news than in the US news? Was there any control which asked the question "Is quasifagian technology moral or immoral?" to see if some unknown (and completely made up) term is seen at different morality levels in the US and Europe? Were there any follow up questions asking "Why do you think that?" to see why the respondant thought that way instead of just speculating on a reason afterward?
Either this was a very weak study or very bad reporting of the study or, more likely, both.
25
posted on
02/20/2008 10:36:24 AM PST
by
KarlInOhio
(Rattenschadenfreude: joy at a Democrat's pain, especially Hillary's pain caused by Obama.)
To: MetaThought
How does one explain Europeans' animosity against genetically-modified organisms and "frankenfoods", but Americans' indifference to such concerns?
The only nanotech concerns I see would be the replacement of human body parts or bodily systems with mechanical parts. If God made the body good, cutting it up just so you can add a computer interface isn't "playing God." It's an advanced form of body mutilation, a defacement of His creation.
If the procedures are much more invasive than, say, an ear piercing, they would trigger some reactions, and rightly so.
26
posted on
02/20/2008 10:53:24 AM PST
by
Dumb_Ox
(http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
To: MetaThought
The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology,... Oh really? Are these people aware that all modern computers depend on transisters that are examples of nanotechnology? In fact all modern digital equipment requires this technology.
Do they think that computers are immoral? How about cell phones, cars, electric power plants?
27
posted on
02/20/2008 11:38:29 AM PST
by
3niner
(War is one game where the home team always loses.)
To: Dumb_Ox
Very good point. It is a bit hypocritical.
I’m all for nanotech as long is it’s not Borg drone hive-mind stuff. Then I have a problem.
28
posted on
02/20/2008 11:42:01 AM PST
by
Free Vulcan
(Don't think I can vote for you John, I'm feelin' like a maverick.)
To: MetaThought
In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature Like nylon? I say that the whole premise of the article is bogus.
To: VOA
>>>The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities.
That's about the only explanation I could find for any religiously- observant Americans having misgivings on nanotechnology, based on any sort of religional/moral objections. Bingo. Stem cells, genetic manipulation, and nanotech have all been sold with the same sort of wild-eyed predictions on the cover of publications like Popular Science, and to folks who don't pay a lot of attention to these things, they tend to blur together.
A lot of people who have no religious beliefs, or who don't apply them in their daily lives, don't object to any of the three; people who do lean on their religious convictions on such matters object to all three. The average citizen doesn't pay as much attention to these issues as the average FReeper, or the average active Internet user, for that matter.
To: D-fendr
31
posted on
02/20/2008 3:04:40 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: MetaThought
This might be a little late in the thread, but what I find troubling is that people oppose nanotech on moral grounds. The conclusions are probably bogus.
Sorry, I just posted the thread. Didn't really have time to comment on it ....
To: misterrob
I think you're absolutely right there.
That would explain the results. A lot of environmentalists (and there are plenty) thinking there's a moral problem with nanotech
To: D-fendr
Technology is neutral, its what you do with it that requires values beyond the scientific. Correct. That said, I don't want to be "chipped" as if I were a piece of government property.
34
posted on
02/20/2008 8:11:16 PM PST
by
pray4liberty
(Watch and pray.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson