Playing God

[cthulhumythos]

Alright, so i used to think the whole "You can't play god!" was just a line you'd hear in a old scifi flick, but recently, i've heard people say it seriously. i've heard it used when people are discussing some sort of military action like an airstrike. it's been used when we artificially lower an animal population.

so it seems to me, playing god is when you do something that involves life or death. it's generally considered a bad thing to "play god" but isn't when we call an exterminator or when we harvest crops "playing god"? each involve snuffing out life, and yet either are rarely considered "immoral". Doesn't every creature "play god" by continuing it's own existence or ending another organism's life? Does giving birth equal playing god?

or is the term only reserved for large scale life and death?

so, what i'm asking is: do you think that playing god is a practical phrase? and if so, what constitutes an act of playing god and what does not? is it bad or wrong or immoral to play god?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Morality should be a deciding factor behind science. Not the idea that we're pissing off a deity by doing his/her/it's job.

 

[rancher of monsters]

Morality should be a deciding factor behind science. Not the idea that we're pissing off a deity by doing his/her/it's job.

I don't think that was ever the point of the expression. No one died in Jurassic Park because they pissed of a diety. They died because they delt with powers they didn't fully comprehend and it came back to bite them in the ass (no pun intended).

My understanding is that there are certain branches of science where people look at all the wrong humans have done with what we know already and say "yeah, we don't really need that" or "we're not prepared for that yet." Stuff like cloning puts people on edge because we can imagine all that could go wrong and so we say that you shouldn't play God. But that's just my opinion.

 

[cthulhumythos]

Morality should be a deciding factor behind science. Not the idea that we're pissing off a deity by doing his/her/it's job.

personally i don't believe the term can mean anything as it's simply too broad, but people still use it.

and it's not only used when discussing SCIENCE! for example, i recently read someone saying that america was playing god for bombing japan. which led to me thinking what even is playing god. which led to this thread.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Morality should be a deciding factor behind science. Not the idea that we're pissing off a deity by doing his/her/it's job.

I don't think that was ever the point of the expression. No one died in Jurassic Park because they pissed of a diety. They died because they delt with powers they didn't fully comprehend and it came back to bite them in the ass (no pun intended).

My understanding is that there are certain branches of science where people look at all the wrong humans have done with what we know already and say "yeah, we don't really need that" or "we're not prepared for that yet." Stuff like cloning puts people on edge because we can imagine all that could go wrong and so we say that you shouldn't play God. But that's just my opinion.

What I mean, is that the phrase shouldn't be called 'playing god' because it's a unfitting description.

 

[viranimus]

Yeah its more than just life and death. Its when you have the ability to alter something that goes beyond the way it was intended by nature, then when it becomes an issue of morality such as life and death.

Using the crops analogy, Harvesting crops is not playing god. However, Developing, growing and harvesting crops that produce meat instead of vegetables is playing god.

Basically, It needs to go against what is normal, and what is moral.

 

[dimensional]

I think its a completely impractical phrase isnt God supposed to be all powerful an omnipotent,omnipresent,omniscient being if you like, so how are we supposed to play to compare to that even if I had the power to blink out the existence of the universe I still wouldnt be as powerful as god as long as I had some limits and so know you cant play god except in a childish sort of way like playing mommys and daddys.
I have always took this phrase as applying to someone who has taken it upon themselves to judge others and decide their fate (i.e you have sinned you will die) or someone who is disturbing the natural order of things, super intelligent monkeys the fools have they not seen the future documentary planet of the apes.
So in conclusion its taking it upon yourself to destroy or create as you see fit to correspond with your image or vision rather than the `natural` way `God` intended.

 

[La Barata]

I don't "Play God".
*sunglasses*
Playing's for children.
YEEEEAAAAH

But seriously, dicking around with nature can have some serious side effects. Perfect example: Graywich in Fallout 3. Want to dick around with the natural order? Oh, wait, you done goofed. Now the ants breathe FIRE. And everyone's DEAD.

 

[Canid117]

Morality should be a deciding factor behind science. Not the idea that we're pissing off a deity by doing his/her/it's job.

I agree and I am of the opinion that if God does exist (not sure on that and probably never will be) he/she/it would be perfectly happy to let us do its job so it can take a vacation. Why else let a species exist that can understand quantum physics and the various kinds of relativity? Or we are all alone in a dark void and there is no higher power. In that case why not anyway?

 

[Woodsey]

Well, of all the fictional things to put in the phrase, it probably makes the most sense. Telling people they "can't play Santa" is just being miserable!

But yeah, it fits. Its a pretty retarded thing to come out with - if we didn't "play God" then people wouldn't be living long enough to spit out the phrase in the first place (let's face it, they'll pray, and they'll attribute their recovery to praying, and they'll just neglect to mention the drugs they were pumped full of and the surgery they underwent), but its simply a way of saying you're messing with something that could have "unforeseen consequences", as a certain, freaky G-Man would say.

 

[aei_haruko]

Alright, so i used to think the whole "You can't play god!" was just a line you'd hear in a old scifi flick, but recently, i've heard people say it seriously. i've heard it used when people are discussing some sort of military action like an airstrike. it's been used when we artificially lower an animal population.

so it seems to me, playing god is when you do something that involves life or death. it's generally considered a bad thing to "play god" but isn't when we call an exterminator or when we harvest crops "playing god"? each involve snuffing out life, and yet either are rarely considered "immoral". Doesn't every creature "play god" by continuing it's own existence or ending another organism's life? Does giving birth equal playing god?

or is the term only reserved for large scale life and death?

so, what i'm asking is: do you think that playing god is a practical phrase? and if so, what constitutes an act of playing god and what does not? is it bad or wrong or immoral to play god?

I disagree, I HATE it when my mother says that
" genetic engineering is playing god" Uh... NO IT'S NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
The phrase is invalid, it says that because one uses anything that involves creation ( like chemistry when new compounds are " created" when this phrase is made null by the law of conservation of energy) or when one genetically engineers glow in the dark trees I.E:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827885.000-glowing-trees-could-light-up-city-streets.html
Seriously, it's not playing god to advance in science, and it's invalid because progress isn't playing God

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Morality should be a deciding factor behind science. Not the idea that we're pissing off a deity by doing his/her/it's job.

but morality is subjective. one scientist might think its moral to murder all kangaroos.
OT: well the argument ive heard for why god allowed the holocaust/epidemics/war is because he's leaving us alone to test us. therefore playing god would be abandoning all life, not prolonging species by killing predators/gm fun.

 

[Renegade-pizza]

As I see it...playing God is impossible. I am a Christian, but I look at these topics objectively. A god can do the impossible and generally do things humans can't. I.e. if you create/take a life, you're playing human.

 

[cthulhumythos]

Yeah its more than just life and death. Its when you have the ability to alter something that goes beyond the way it was intended by nature, then when it becomes an issue of morality such as life and death.

Using the crops analogy, Harvesting crops is not playing god. However, Developing, growing and harvesting crops that produce meat instead of vegetables is playing god.

Basically, It needs to go against what is normal, and what is moral.

but humans are natural, what we do is no more unnatural than a pistol shrimp killing it's prey with a snap. who are we to say what nature intended anyways?

Edit: i should have said "How do we know what nature intends anyways?"

 

[viranimus]

Yeah its more than just life and death. Its when you have the ability to alter something that goes beyond the way it was intended by nature, then when it becomes an issue of morality such as life and death.

Using the crops analogy, Harvesting crops is not playing god. However, Developing, growing and harvesting crops that produce meat instead of vegetables is playing god.

Basically, It needs to go against what is normal, and what is moral.

but humans are natural, what we do is no more unnatural than a pistol shrimp killing it's prey with a snap. who are we to say what nature intended anyways?

Except killing a shrimp with a pistol is just a way (albeit it a strange and likely ineffective way) of killing a shrimp. Now if we were to kill a shrimp by say, forcibly modifying its genetic structure, thats playing god. Its taking the rules of nature and defying them in order to do something that is either clearly or at the least borderline amoral. Killing is the amoral part (in a sense, because its really not amoral to kill for sustenance) But its killing by way of a means that defies natural rules like say, gravity, physics,genetics etc.

EDIT: Oddly enough the phrase is really more of sciences ballpark than religions.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Telling people they "can't play Santa" is just being miserable!

That's what I told the judge. Alas, sneaking into people's bedrooms at night is apparently illegal.

Of course, I don't believe in God, so I think it's a little silly. I would rather we didn't have to think about such silliness and stopping us from actually doing useful things like stem cell research.

 

[Neonit]

i see a problem with this statement. saying "you should not play god" is... well... stupid.

dont deal with forces you dont understand. yeah, but to understand a force you have to witness it. witnessing such force can lead to understanding it. just saying "dont do it" and ignoring existence of such forces, or even worshiping them leads to ignorance. (it really sounds stupid when talking about idea, and not giving an example huh?)

think about it, cave man, invents fire, and someone says to him "DONT play god!"

yep, we would still be stuck in caves with our butts frozen.

and yep, many houses were burn by fire. but thanks to understanding the workings of fire we can protect ourself (and our houses) against it.

besides, i dont see lions complaining about beavers being unnatural "because they build stuff!"

so, to make a long story short, saying "dont play god" leads to frozen butts and burned down houses. class dismissed

 

[Brandon237]

Yeah its more than just life and death. Its when you have the ability to alter something that goes beyond the way it was intended by nature, then when it becomes an issue of morality such as life and death.

Using the crops analogy, Harvesting crops is not playing god. However, Developing, growing and harvesting crops that produce meat instead of vegetables is playing god.

Basically, It needs to go against what is normal, and what is moral.

but humans are natural, what we do is no more unnatural than a pistol shrimp killing it's prey with a snap. who are we to say what nature intended anyways?

Except killing a shrimp with a pistol is just a way (albeit it a strange and likely ineffective way) of killing a shrimp. Now if we were to kill a shrimp by say, forcibly modifying its genetic structure, thats playing god. Its taking the rules of nature and defying them in order to do something that is either clearly or at the least borderline amoral. Killing is the amoral part (in a sense, because its really not amoral to kill for sustenance) But its killing by way of a means that defies natural rules like say, gravity, physics, etc.

Wait what?

I think he mentioned a pistol shrimp, not killing a shrimp with a pistol, a pistol shrimp can use concussive force to pretty much KO its food in one strike, and things significantly larger than its food to. If they could breed and spread like humans did sea-life would be screwed.

Both your de-shrimping methods involve technology that is not naturally occurring, and the creation of mixtures at the very least, that are not naturally occurring.

And I think you are confusing amoral and immoral, amoral would just mean without morals, which would be completely insignificant to the discussion in that context. Killing for sustenance IS amoral, killing unnecessarily is immoral.

Those are natural laws which cannot be broken. Since we cannot break the laws of nature, and nature has no "rules", we cannot do something unnatural, as it is completely impossible. If you take the expression as doing something unnatural, then you will never find such a thing as such a thing would also be impossible.

We cannot defy gravity, physics, chemistry et cetera, we CAN use our understanding of them to manipulate the universe in ways no other species on Earth can, but it is still natural as we can still do it and it is still within the constraints of this universe's laws and dimensions.

 

[cthulhumythos]

i see a problem with this statement. saying "you should not play god" is... well... stupid.

dont deal with forces you dont understand. yeah, but to understand a force you have to witness it. witnessing such force can lead to understanding it. just saying "dont do it" and ignoring existence of such forces, or even worshiping them leads to ignorance. (it really sounds stupid when talking about idea, and not giving an example huh?)

think about it, cave man, invents fire, and someone says to him "DONT play god!"

yep, we would still be stuck in caves with our butts frozen.

and yep, many houses were burn by fire. but thanks to understanding the workings of fire we can protect ourself (and our houses) against it.

besides, i dont see lions complaining about beavers being unnatural "because they build stuff!"

so, to make a long story short, saying "dont play god" leads to frozen butts and burned down houses. class dismissed

i suddenly feel the need to take a brief departure from seriousness and post this:

Spoiler

 

[Zantos]

There are plenty of expressions involving God that don't make sense. I often use the phrase "making more money than God", doesn't make sense in a literal sense because God doesn't make or need money, still people know what you mean.

There are very few expressions that actually stand up to literal meaning, this is just another one of them.