Interview with Satan: Are Scientists Clueless?

[mickeymystro]

Reporting Exclusively from the Gates of Hell - Mickey Mystro…


Mystro: Good morning, Satan.

Satan: Good morning, Mickey. It’s a pleasure as always.

Mystro: Before we get to the topic at hand, I have to tell you that Hell is much hotter than I expected.

Satan: Yes, it is very hot down here, but that’s not the whole story. Hell is a place of extreme despair, loneliness and hopelessness. Tormented souls abound and the stench of death fills the air. It’s a lot like Texas.

Mystro: That bad, huh? Now for the topic at hand. As you may know, a new map of the universe created with data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has confirmed that the universe is, indeed, full of mysterious dark energy. Surprisingly, scientists are the first to admit that they are still clueless as to what exactly dark energy is.

Satan: The “scientific method” is a miracle of human thought, and using it, scientists will eventually figure it out. But there are many other mysteries of the universe that science has yet to explain. For example, science cannot yet explain dark matter, the origin of life, or Michael Jackson. But they are making progress on the first two.

Mystro: Isn’t it surprising that science admits to being clueless about anything?

Satan: Not at all. Scientists are always learning more and more about the universe at large. A mystery today is not likely to be a mystery tomorrow. And besides, the scientific method is way better than the “superstitious method”.

Mystro: The superstitious method?

Satan: Before the advent of scientific thought, every mystery of the universe was solved through superstitious beliefs and supernatural explanations. For example, scientists now know that cancer is caused by damage to DNA that results in dangerous genetic mutations. But 2,000 years ago, people thought that cancer was caused by demonic curses or the actions of pissed-off Gods!

Mystro: Were these types of explanations widespread?

Satan: Sure! Why do volcano’s erupt? God’s angry. Why do hurricanes wipe out entire cities? God’s angry. What’s up with Michael Jackson? God’s angry. (OK, it is true that I frequently get the blame for Michael Jackson, but I am innocent. Now don’t get me wrong – I have a dark side. For example, I had a small part to play with that whole Tom Cruise/Brook Shield’s fiasco last year. And, yes, I had something to do with the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. Oh yeah, and I gave ‘career development’ advice to Anna Nicole Smith. But Michael Jackson? I am not THAT evil!)

Mystro: How is the track record for the scientific method?

Satan: The benefits of science are obvious. Men and women can travel from New York to Paris in the time it takes to get a good night’s sleep, they can communicate instantly with people on the other side of the planet, and they can watch tumors disappear under the glow of a laser beam.

Mystro: And what about the superstitious method?

Satan: All the superstitious method has given mankind is tarot cards, crystal balls, creationism and Benny Hinn! Not a stellar track record!

Mystro: Are you saying that ancient people, such as the writers of the Bible, were not capable of scientific thinking?

Satan: These people did not know crap about the universe! They were ancient, primitive and superstitious. Jesus and his clan wore sandals because they had not even invented shoelaces! You could fit the entire population of scientifically-inclined Biblical-era thinkers into the back of a Mazda Protégé and have room to spare! I would not trust these brainiacs to clean my toilet let alone solve the mysteries of the universe!

Mystro: You are on the verge of sacrilege…

Satan: Look at my name tag - does it say “Mother Teresa”?

Mystro: Uh, actually it does.

Satan: Sorry – wrong name tag! Scientists are far from clueless. They will solve the mystery of dark energy very soon - all they need is a little time.

Mystro: Will science figure out all mysteries?

Satan: I doubt that they will figure out Michael Jackson.

Reporting exclusively from the Gates of Hell: Mystro Mystro.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12801391/

/satire

[lvx35]

1. Ahh science...thank God for it.

It carried us from the primitive era of walking around outdoors in sandals to the modern age of reason, where we sit staring at screens that bombard us with carcenogens worrying about global warming whether or not we are going to be nuked. All hail progress!

[mickeymystro]

3. Yes, Science Has A Down-Side, But...

I agree with you that science has a down side. But thanks to modern medicine, my father recently conquered a form of cancer that would have doomed him just 20 years ago.

A simpler life wearing sandals does have a certain appeal, however, as long as I can keep my 'puter.

[lvx35]

10. Yeah.

On a serious note, I think that appeal to a simpler life is important, because it lays behind most models for sustainabilty...Humans are not meant to deal with world as it is now, it is far too complex. People want to do the right thing, but they can't. Religious or "mythological" thinking is natural to human thought though, and it should be accepted and worked with. That's my belief.

[lvx35]

12. Oh BTW

my dad is in the same spot. He got Leukemia, and some good medication. But the interesting thing or this topic is what he probably got it from: benzene exposure, probably pollution related. Science seems to be creating the diseases and the cures.

[Evoman]

14. Science created smallpox, polio, diabetes, sickle cell anemia,

the flu, and infections?

Wow. Fucking science.

[lvx35]

16. Um, no.

Those diseases are not caused by carcinogens from industrial processes, which that response was about.

[trotsky]

21. Then you should use more precise words.

You said:

Science seems to be creating the diseases and the cures.

Of course in your haste to blame science and progress for all our ills, you ignore how it was also science that discovered when things were harmful. Politicians and greedy people are more to blame for the problems you ascribe to the evil demon science.

[mickeymystro]

22. "Smallpox, polio, diabetes," created by science?

The statement, "Science created smallpox, polio, diabetes, sickle cell anemia," is not accurate. These conditions existed long before scientists came around and found (or is seeking) cures.

Is it true that modern living can lead to increases in the occurrence of certain diseases? Sure. But I can also tell you that ancient living (along with the resulting ignorance) lead to a GREATER increase in many more deadly diseases. One of the main reasons the Black Death spread so quickly in the 14th century was because of the high level of ignorance about how the disease was spread. Of course, millions of people living in rat-infested, crap-strewn, squatter's camps did not help either.

No, science did not invent these diseases. And thanks to science we are living much longer than our ancient ancestors. I will take modern industrial pollution (and my anticipated 75-year life span) over ancient pollution in the form of feces running down the streets any day of the week.

We see the past with rose-colored glasses. Believe me, the past was not all it is cracked up to be!

[lvx35]

24. see post #23 nt

[trotsky]

4. Let's put you on the spot.

In which era would you rather live? The one in sandals with a life expectancy of what, 30 years if you're lucky?

[mickeymystro]

6. The Choice is Obvious

I would, of course, have no desire to live in ancient times. For me, a simpler life in sandals would mean sitting by a Rocky Mountain campfire, under the stars and in my sandals, but with my iPod blasting GORILLAZ in my ears and my wireless internet blazing on my laptop while I am transferring photos from my 8 mega-pixel camera.

I often think, however, that it would be nice if ancient superstitions would also be a thing of the past. But when guys like Pat Robertson still claim that the planets are held in their orbits by the hand of God, it becomes clear that superstitions are, sadly, here to stay.

[lvx35]

8. God, you are telling me the world was filled exclusively with...

...lovely young people under 30??? It keeps getting worse and worse!!! :)

[Evoman]

9. If by lovely you mean

dirty, smelly, diseased, igorant, wrinkled, beat up and smelling like shit, then yes, the world was filled with lovely people

[lvx35]

11. I don't buy that at all.

I was riding my bike today absolutely choking on air pollution. I think it must have really been something to be in a world with 0 air pollution and crystal clear streams, vast stretches of unspoilt nature.

[Evoman]

13. That is true

as long as you weren't living with other humans nearby, it would have been great. Of course, imagine that you got a scratch one day walking down the woods. 3 days later, your dead from infection.

Good times.

[lvx35]

15. Sounds like how I've been living much of my life.

Not be able to pay for health care...But I think we've been sold a lot of shit that's not true about how great modern life is, like the idea if we don't use Neosporin™ and a Band-Aid™ we will die from a scratch.

[Evoman]

17. My brother in law

Did almost die from a scratch. He fell on concrete, and just got a small scratch on his elbow. He didn't put neosporin or anything much else on it. Half a week later, he is in the hospital getting IV antibiotics because his arm is about 3 times the size its supposed to be. They cut it open and had to continously drain the cheesy infection for about 3 days. Lol..one of the doctors almost passed out it was so gross.

Why do you think people used to die after 30 years? Even with pollution and other science-made sickness, the average human is many times healthier than ever before. The mortality rate for kids and pregnant mothers was very high. One in three kids survived passed 3 (kind of like in Africa right now). And if the infection didn't get you, smallpox or malnutrition or a busted appendix did.

[lvx35]

18. Yeah, I'm sure there was a lot of infant mortality...

But I don't think everybody died at 30, the apex of healthy adulthood. Its an average of some kind if that number is significant.

And yeah, probably not the time I would want to have a cheezy infection! :)

but the bigger picture is that those times were sustainable, sustainable population, development, etc. Its true that medicine helps and people live longer. All this medicine is leading us ever up in population growth, but nobody wants to think about the future, where this trend must be stopped or reverse. We can't go on like this forever.

[Evoman]

19. Ah there I agree with you

But science really doesn't have anything do with economic policy or with social will. The fact is, we could very VERY conceivably have things like medecine, and computers, and scientific progress without all the social ills. For example, science has also come out with something called birth control. We have the ability to control our populations. We just don't have the social will..and thats not the fault of science. The truth is, there were already social problems and over-population before science came on to the scene.

Over population is THE problem. The BIG problem. The consumer culture is another problem. Science is not responsible for either of these things. Like I said, its not scientists who are stopping people from taking birth control. If anything, its the scientists that our REALIZING the problems that the earth faces. I don't know one scientist who doesnt believe in global warming. A lot of the scientists I know, are in fact, environmentalists who care deeply about nature. Its not science that has the "go forth and be fruitful" mentality.

We could fix the problems. There is no reason we couldn't have that old clean earth back.

[lvx35]

23. "But science really doesn't have anything do with..."

"...economic policy or with social will"

And that sir, is the problem. Science doesn't take responsibility for these things. It just gives us the atom bomb, and how that shapes society is up to whoever is in charge. So naturally, you have our governments freaking out while more and more nuclear technology is proliferated into the hands of theocrats in the middle east who essentially see a nuclear attack as a mass exodus in which they will be sorted and put on appropriate planes of heaven, an ideology which made them very strong when combat was done with swords but could be disasterous now.

The dirty truth is that we either need to leave the science behind, or science has to TAKE control of social will and economic policy...and institute this better world you speak of...because right now its not happening. But if science is going to take some responsibilty and control, it can't stand around denying religion, it has to work through it in a positive way, because people are not going to drop it.

[Evoman]

26. But science CAN'T take social control or economic control

Science is naturally amoral. Science is science. Science is not a person, or even a community. Science is simply a way of knowing. If science has some way of testing or predicting behaviour in economics or social life, then maybe we could say that science could have something to do with the economic sphere. But to think that science could either take responsibility for anything or even control something is completely misunderstanding what science is itself.

Scientists COULD conceivably take responsibility for things like the atom bomb...but thats kind of like asking all white people to take responsibility for killing jews in the holocaust. Or asking North American Muslims to take responsibility for genocide in the Darfur. Besides, once a scienist becomes a politician, then he really is no longer a scientists, i.e. someone who does science.

And you can't "leave science behind" without killing every rational scietist out there. And because science can not any way, shape or form, take control of social will, what your advocating is that we need to get back to dark age thought, where we did not need evidence for anything, where a man could say that woman is guitly of witchcraft without any proof, where believing something made it true.

[lvx35]

28. Mr President please understand, it really is that bad.

The things I'm talking about, these issues, are the MAJOR things the world is facing! Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons ARE the issue today, and they are completly created by immoral science acting without responsibility. Science is a weapon, a deadly one. You're sitting here talking about killing rational scientists like its some fantasy scenario...but we are ALREADY THERE. Here, have a read:
http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet/News/fasttrack/20020504/UMURDN?section=Science

"Eleven microbiologists mysteriously dead over the span of just five months. Some of them world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others, experts in the theory of bioterrorism."

Sitting around coming up with world-killing virii and not worrying about the morailty is not going to fly with some of the powers that be. It IS to the point of killing scientists.

Perecles said: "Just because you don't take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."

And science had better damn well start taking an interest in politics and religion before creating another WMD to put in the hands of religious and political leaders.

[Evoman]

29. YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND WHAT SCIENCE IS!!!!

This is stupid...science CANNOT be involved in the political. Science is a way of knowing. Science is not a weapon. Science CAN be used to engineer weapons, but science is, again, A WAY OF LEARNING BASED ON EVIDENCE AND SELF CORRECTION. The research into things like weapons CANNOT be constrained by science...they can be constrained by individuals and by goverment and laws (i.e. We will not fund scientists who want to study laser weapons).


You do not even know what science is. Your position is based on ignorance.

I am a scientist. I have a huge interest in politics. Many INDIVIDUAL scientists have interests in politics. I am very concerned with certain aspects of morality..I for example, do not advocate research into new weapons. IF i was head of a government, I would not allow funding for development of biological weapons. But I am an individual who recognized science is not a culprit, science is completely amoral. Science, if you missed in the first time, CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTROL. And why the hell are you getting personal by calling me Mr. President. Cut that shit ou.

[lvx35]

30. Hehe! Sorry I called you Mr President.

Now THAT was a low blow. (FYI, I was was listening to this NOFX song "reeko" when I wrote you which is where it was coming from. You can look up the lyrics if you care.) I take it back, Iwouldn't ever compare anybody here to Bush! :)

No, I do know what science is. Its a method of knowing, using the scientific method. But its also a culture, and this is what scientists are loath to admit. The scientific community is a culture just like religious or political communities. Many scientists want to think of themselves as above the game, looking down on it all but they are not, they are IN the game. Every respectable scientist I have meet for instance tells me that global warming is real, threatening, and that they have known it for years. Yet the absolute powerlessness of the scientific commnity to get goverments and individuals to do anything about it is astounding....Yet they have the know how, through science, to apply techniques to create change within the realms or politics and religion, but they don't. They are afraid to actually get their hands dirty. Therefore, they create the latest gadget of mass control and hand it to whatever political or "religious" entity was brutal enough to grab power, and the problems grow.

The cause of this is elitism, plain and simple. 80% of the scientific community has to sit around bitching about religion while republican forces infaltrated and took over the Southern Baptist convention and turned it into massive political tool we know as the "religious right". So what I am saying here, is scientific people need to work WITH religion to help keep it positive and healthy for the believers and the world, and that requires love and tolerance for your fellow human past and present.

[Evoman]

31. *slaps head*

" Yet the absolute powerlessness of the scientific commnity to get goverments and individuals to do anything about it is astounding....Yet they have the know how, through science, to apply techniques to create change within the realms or politics and religion, but they don't. They are afraid to actually get their hands dirty"

That is a ridiculous comment. First of all, there are hundreds of different scientific displicines, for example, things such a plant physiology, plate tectonics, and insect phylogenetics. Why would you think these scientists would have any more idea than you how to change politics and religion? Do you think biologists like me are in constant communication with physicists or engineers making mind-control machines? What do you want us to do...introduce "rationality" genes into the populations?!!!!

"But its also a culture, and this is what scientists are loath to admit. The scientific community is a culture just like religious or political communities. Many scientists want to think of themselves as above the game, looking down on it all but they are not, they are IN the game."

The scientific community is not some monolithic entity with power. In fact, the amount of time I spend communicating with other scientists is really not all that much, other than colleagues who do the same sort of work I do....Insect phylogenetics!

You know, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that some atheist expect liberal christians to somehow take over the religious right. I would never say that. But to say that the religoius right took over because scientists were to buy doing science is amazingly ignorant. Science can not work with religion...again, I don't think you have a firm grasp on either the idea of Scientific thought or culture. At this point (maybe once we figure out the brain, who knows?) science can not say anything about morality or ethics. Scientists as individuals can and do, but not the scientific community.

But this conversation has gotten ridiculous. I'm thinking that your trying to lead me on or something. Anyways, I gotta go do some science. Excuse me.

[lvx35]

32. Its not rocket science, buddy.

Politics is not rocket science. For instance, if "Scientific" atheists would agree to work with religious moderates without condemning them repeatedly on political forums, they would represent a block of voters that is larger than religious fundamentalists, and could pass legislation that both helped issues recognized by science and issues of religious tolerance and moderation. But by repeatedly condemning them, you divide the opposition to the religious right, and their political power will continue unabated, as it has.

But go, study those insects while you have a chance. No telling what global warming will wipe out in the insect world.

[Evoman]

33. Thats enough of your baiting

I study insects...but at the same time I have no car, I share an small, enviromentally friendly apartment, and ride my bike. I, with the very little money I have as a student, have still found the funds to support various enviromental groups in Canada. My studies of insects helps us understand the effects enviroment has on them and us! What the hell are you doing?

AND WHO THE FUCK IS CONDEMNING WHO? We have had posts..liberal posts, condemning atheists, saying we scare away christians...we have had people advocating PURGING ATHEISTS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. And now..politics is not rocket science. Politics is NOT SCIENCE period.

[lvx35]

34. Alright, lets wrap this up.

To answer your question, I also live in a small apartment and ride my bike for almost all transportation, and I'm working on logistics software that will hopefully reduce oil consumption. Which reminds me that we both have way better things to be doing instead of arguing with each other. But regarding the condemnation, its everywhere. Just read the board:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=214

Its hard to find posts that are not mocking Christianity:
Interview with Satan: God Spoke to Pat Robertson?
Or condemning it as unhealthy:
Christianity and the War Against Pleasure...
or about the way people Bash it:
I'm Really Tired Of People Comparing Faith In God To Santa Claus
or people saying it shouldn't exist:
ALTERNET - Sam Harris: Why Religion Must End

All these posts were randomly grabbed from the top 10 stories. What I don't see is a single post telling atheists to convert, a single post of Christians or ANY people of ANY faith sharing their beliefs in a forum that is supposed to be about religion and theology. That should give you a good idea of WHO THE FUCK IS CONDMENING WHO.

[Turn CO Blue]

36. Surely you can't be offended by the post mocking Robertson?

I don't know any people, especially not any "true"/truly devout Christians, who think that Pat Robertson actually teaches sound doctrine, or that he hears "a word from the Lord" or that he has been granted the ability to prophesy. That man and his show do great harm to the Christian faith AND to the science of reason, imnsho.

[lvx35]

37. Fair enough.

But take a look at a lot of those other posts. If I were to change the word religious/christian to "atheist" the response would be just as bad or worse, Imagine the uproar that would accompany this one:

AlterNet: Why Atheism Must End.

[lvx35]

35. Alright, lets wrap this up.

To answer your question, I also live in a small apartment and ride my bike for almost all transportation, and I'm working on logistics software that will hopefully reduce oil consumption. Which reminds me that we both have way better things to be doing instead of arguing with each other. But regarding the condemnation, its everywhere. Just read the board:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=214

Its hard to find posts that are not mocking Christianity:
Interview with Satan: God Spoke to Pat Robertson?
Or condemning it as unhealthy:
Christianity and the War Against Pleasure...
or about the way people Bash it:
I'm Really Tired Of People Comparing Faith In God To Santa Claus
or people saying it shouldn't exist:
ALTERNET - Sam Harris: Why Religion Must End

All these posts were randomly grabbed from the top 10 stories. What I don't see is a single post telling atheists to convert, a single post of Christians or ANY people of ANY faith sharing their beliefs in a forum that is supposed to be about religion and theology. That should give you a good idea of who is condemning who.

[trotsky]

20. So are you going to answer the question?

Just curious if all you're going to do is provide a snarky reply.

[lvx35]

25. But snarky replies are so much more fun, trotsky! but okay...

...you want a real reply to the question? The truth is that I believe as far as pleasure and pain goes it would be around equal. For instance this morning I woke up a little sore, so I sat down and did some stretching excercises. I did not miss the Voclo Stretch-O-Matic machine from the year 2206AD which would have done it fo me instantly, because it does not exist yet. Similarly, somebody in 20AD does not miss a car when they have to walk through the unpolluted woods to their destination. In all times we will have worries and will be able to find pleasure in the world all around us.

And yes, I LOVE this invention I am communicating with you through. This time is nice in its way, it has a lot to offer. But I take issue with the idea that humanity is emerging from this dark scizophrenic past into this enlightened period we find ourselves in. I look at Shakespeare vs American Idol and I'm just not seeing it! :)

[trotsky]

27. In that same vein,

I guess people didn't "miss" democracy or civil rights or freedom or religion either. But I sure do appreciate them now, and would MUCH rather live in a free society with all this technology.

I think you are over-romanticizing the past. Sure, there's pollution now. But that person on 20AD walking to their destination may have passed by markets full of rotting carcasses, channels filled with raw sewage, and burnt who-knows-what where the latest fire got out of control.

Even if you lived out in the pristine woods by yourself a million years before humans existed, you'd still have to deal with pollution - your own waste, etc. The same science that you want to blame for the pollution that might give you cancer also enables you to live long enough TO get cancer. In all likelihood, back in your romantic view of the past, IF you made it out of the womb and IF you made it out of infancy and IF you somehow survived childhood, yeah, you might expect to live to be 30 or so. People just didn't live long enough to experience conditions like cancer, heart disease, etc.

So if you want to blame science for giving us longer lives than evolution prepared us for, go right ahead.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Touche'!

[Random_Australian]

7. Meh. If everyone died tomorrow, we would still live as long on

average as back then (I know, I know, near enough dammit! It was poetic license and not a stone's throw further than a near spit from the truth.)

[SPKrazy]

44. LOL n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

2. kick

[Dogmudgeon]

38. Not bad, Mickey ...

... but just because you marked it as "satire", you're not off the hook.

You've certainly enraged somebody, and you will pay!

:evilgrin:

--p!

[mickeymystro]

39. Thanks.....I Think....

Thanks for the luke warm, better-watch-your-back, endorsement. But check out my new interview, "Interview with Satan: God Spoke to Pat Robertson?". I seriously doubt that anybody but Pat's mother takes him seriously.

No wait! - millions people take him seriously. Now THAT is scary.

[Dogmudgeon]

40. Actually, it WAS funny. And the Robertson piece, too.

Satan is one difficult bugger to satirize effectively. Many have set their hand to the task, and most have failed. You did not.

The Robertson piece wasn't the first one I've seen, but it was also a keeper, one of the few. I myself wrote a satiric piece about him from a photo-op he did with John Kerry, John Edwards, and John McCain. He was "Liquor Officer Robertson", which is what they called him during his brief stint in the military (he was a rich, but incompetant, junior officer, and they used to send him on beer and liquor runs). If I find it, I'll re-post it.

I tend to tune into Rev. Pat when he's at his best, just by accident. Good "Patma", I guess. I caught both his call for assassinating world leaders AND this (last?) week's threat of hurricanes. I watch very little TV, so doubtless it was the hand of God that directed me to his channel just as he was winding into a major invocation of The Deity. (Okay, maybe it was the hand of Satan.)

Look at the kind of responses you got -- an entire section of three-part flaming in the middle there. And forty replies in the whole thread! Don't let them tell you that quality isn't appreciated around here.

Besides ... "DU" and "lukewarm" are not two words that appear together too often.

Take a bow! (But watch your six anyway.)

--p!

[mickeymystro]

41. Liquor Officer Robertson?

Thanks a bunch.

Please post the "Liquor Officer Robertson" piece if you can find it!

[Proud_Democratt]

42. This is just plain immature and dumb!!!!!

[mickeymystro]

43. Thanks!

When I began these interviews on AOL a few years back, I was called much worse. "Stupid", "ignorant", "evil", are just a few of the choice words. I was told many times that I would rot in Hell.

Fortunately, none of these put-downs have come from God himself. When THAT happens, I will be worried. But I don't expect that to happen.

Thanks for your input. Have a great day!