As medicine and science converge to reveal the artistic, human, need to argue faith over facts, a tussle has broken out between the faithful and the scientific and medical communities.  It seems, the argument goes, that nanotechnology — because it is so tiny and creative — is Godless, and that is unacceptable to those that believe in a Creator.

In a report published Dec. 7 in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, survey results from the United States and Europe reveal a sharp contrast in the perception that nanotechnology is morally acceptable. Those views, according to the report, correlate directly with aggregate levels of religious views in each country surveyed.

In the United States and a few European countries where religion plays a larger role in everyday life, notably Italy, Austria and Ireland, nanotechnology and its potential to alter living organisms or even inspire synthetic life is perceived as less morally acceptable. In more secular European societies, such as those in France and Germany, individuals are much less likely to view nanotechnology through the prism of religion and find it ethically suspect.

Does nanotechnology really challenge the idea of a single God and One Creator?

If we are able to regenerate our own stem cells to heal us, does that make us Godless or more Godlike?

4 Comments

  1. I am having a hard time understanding why nanotechnology would be any sort of affront to religion. As a practicing Jew I believe that nanotechnology was only developed with G-d’s help and that we are not anymore becoming deities by doing that than by developing antibiotics or medicine. 🙂

  2. I think the point of the dissent, Gordon, is that the nano devices are so small and so smart and so healing that they tempt the domain of God. He is the provider and the giver of life and to let a nano machine heal you means you have forsaken your faith in Him by preferring technology over the tenets of prayer and blind belief.

  3. We are of the belief that all illness is indeed of a spiritual nature but while we are without the Beis Hamikdash (Temple) of Jerusalem we rely on doctors to heal us and believe that techniques that are created to heal are just extensions of the doctor.
    I would bet that nobody in the dissent line is of the orthodox Jewish persuasion for that reason. 🙂 All of my research thusfar has shown nothing against it. 🙂