Fritz Haber is the reason Scientists should respect God / Religion

I think the main question is emotional detachment (again) , Oppenheimer could arguably be excused from being a monster because he admitted the horror of the bomb and felt guilt, if Haber was detached from the results of his work then he was a monster. Terms like God and Religion are meaningless unless specifically defined.

Originally posted by e4chris
I posted that barking dog earlier because if it could talk it could explain why 'death is death by any means' is wrong... an animal could tell you that.

If so (death is death by any means) then why is haber worse than anyone else?

I do find the whole idea of some weapons being worse than others so we wont use them quite comical.

The more inhumane, grotesque and frightening the weapon the less likely it is
to be used. Politicians have a hard enough time explaining casualties who
have died "quickly and painlessly" ... can you imagine the US and UK justifying
their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan if every death was one of incredible
suffering?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If so (death is death by any means) then why is haber worse than anyone else?

I do find the whole idea of some weapons being worse than others so we wont use them quite comical.

The more inhumane, grotesque and frightening the weapon the less likely it is
to be used. Politicians have a hard enough time explaining casualties who
have died "quickl ing
their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan if every death was one of incredible
suffering?

Its all well and good until its pointed at you, or your clearing up after it.

Thats why a bit of religion is good, I think jesus tried to work on a philosophy that really is all well and good if its pointed at you, some of the ideas are old fashioned now but at the time, it was compassionate. And Islam could interesting to include in an ethics course, somehow they never struggled with galileo type ideas. Its not about converting anyone, just providing perspective, particularly on what types of science religions consider good or bad, and it needn't be religious, just there opinions see noteworthy. I don't like the stephen dawkins way of thinking, i think it encourages scientific recklessness.

Originally posted by e4chris

Thats why a bit of religion is good,

What? 😲

How can you draw that conclusion?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What? 😲

How can you draw that conclusion?

Whats yours?

Originally posted by e4chris
Whats yours?

I cannot draw any conclusions from this mish mash of posts.

However you have drawn a conclusion and I was merely asking you to
substantiate it, but obviously you cannot.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I cannot draw any conclusions from this mish mash of posts.

However you have drawn a conclusion and I was merely asking you to
substantiate it, but obviously you cannot.

if yout still arguing death is death etc then maybe you have missed the point of this thread. do you really believe that?

Originally posted by e4chris
Discuss!




For me, If you read a book on him it will have you reaching for the bible so quick, if nothing else you could hit him on the head with it.

I think Dawkins and co are very wrong to try and rule our religion when you have scientists like Haber (the inventor of the glass landmine, invisble to x ray, amoung other things) about.

Your thoughts?

I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins.

I respect him much more than annoying little trolls who disrupt intelligent discussions on science with stupid 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' posts while obviously progging his games. That shows their character and disrespects/insults the god they profess to love.

Originally posted by kaminsky
I think the main question is emotional detachment (again) , Oppenheimer could arguably be excused from being a monster because he admitted the horror of the bomb and felt guilt, if Haber was detached from the results of his work then he was a monster. Terms like God and Religion are meaningless unless specifically defined.

Yes I think he was a monster.

Immagine an evil Sheldon, from the big bang theory, what would / could he do? I was thinking of having a lighter hearted ethics thread on it.

I think your point about detachment is true, same kind of detatchment that caused the credit crunch to my mind, to a banker thats a graph not a person.

Re Richard Dawkins, I think he's an interesting character, this is my crude criticism of him; You had Darwin, who not his fault but that led to Eugenics, You had Nietzsche with god is dead / super humans . And the 2 contributed to a very ugly form of fascism, tho probably neither intended it. I think Dawkins plays devils advocate, but I wouldn't want him to win.

Originally posted by e4chris
if yout still arguing death is death etc then maybe you have missed the point of this thread. do you really believe that?

What is the point of this thread?

You have given no decent argument to support any conclusion.

to be honest, if you don't want to post an opinion, i'd rather you stayed out of my threads.... sometimes i suspect there is a train of thought with you ... e4chris posts something controversial ... checks wikipedia.... not in wikipedia ... posts dumb question at e4chris ... thats what it sounds like to me... A coment / opinion is more then welcome... This is a forum, you don't publish references or an appendix with a post...