Tonight, I went to a rather enjoyable lecture by Dr. Schaeffer from the Chemistry Department on the above title. As an English major, I rather questioned going to anything with the word “science” in it, or, to be more specific, given by a prof in quantum mechanics. However, the Lewis aspect convinced me. Regardless, it was really quite interesting, as Schaeffer defined scientism (as far as I understood it) as the proclivity by some (many who are not actually scientists) to take science, and strip it of any traditional/objective values, or the things that many argue are the characteristics that make us uniquely human, and instead take as our supreme point the continued existence of the species, without any moral reason to do so.
I’m describing it badly. Schaeffer discussed that Lewis was concerned what might be done in the name of science if objective values were rejected. Schaeffer pointed to Carl Sagan as an example of this scientism, quoting Sagan: “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”
Schaeffer also quoted the illustrious Richard Dawkins defining love as: “…a product of highly complicated…nervous equipment or computing equipment of some sort.”
Pleasant, isn’t it? Schaeffer argued that many scientists have actually rejected scientism, but that it is still functioning in many academic disciplines, including biology, sociology, etc.
There is, for instance, the question of using human embryos for the continuation of the human species without questioning the moral aspect.
Regardless of anything else, I’d say this general outlook is remarkably stunted as it refuses to acknowledge very real aspects of humanity, simply so that a certain type of intellectual can keep the blinders firmly affixed to their mental eyes. As soon as you’ve defined love as a matter of computer mechanics, you’ve begun to sacrifice everything worth having to your fear of the existence of God.
Apologies, first, for being an incorrigible English teacher (but what else would I be?). That out of the way, what precisely are the moral aspects of the cloning debate? I can guess at what you might mean, but I’d prefer to read it.