"Playing God"

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I need to ask, what constitutes "playing God"? And furthermore, why is it bad?

I mean, couldn't something as simple as starting a fire be construed as playing God? After all, God ais "let there be light", and there was light, and when you make a fire (or turn on a light bulb), you do much the same, making light where there was none with little more than a whim.

"Playing God" is a phrase slung around very pointlessly in arguments to try and have a religious high-grand, in such a way as to say "what you're doing is something I don't like, and God wouldn't like it either."

On the very far end of the scale, simply building a house is playing God, because you're making something that wasn't there before. Or putting animals in a zoo - obviously God put those animals in nature, and yet here we are "playing God" to move them around. Another common instance is when doctors are doing something that's a bit controversial, and suddenly they're "playing God for interfering with His divine plan."

In fact I think that was the plot for one of the Trauma Center games.

edited 20th Jan '12 12:27:30 PM by HeavyDDR

I hear it most often referred to in the contexts of genetic engineering (look at any sci-fi show that involves cloning or the creation of an entirely new creature and you'll likely hear a variation of "We're tampering in God's domain!") and end-of-life issues (e.g.: euthanasia, life support, stuff like that).

But is crossbreading crops playing God as well if genetic engineering is? How about getting a horse and a donkey to shag to make a mule?

Don't worry. You're right.

This is why the term has no meaning. Its used by people who at best are simply not thinking about how hypocritical it is to accuse a genetic engineer of playing god while they meanwhile defy hundreds of "natural laws" on a daily basis.

I think what people are intending to mean is life that is sentient, not just life in general.

Not really. The problem is playing God is hilariously ill-defined and tends to just be a buzzword for 'what you are doing conflicts with my morals so I will justify why I can force you to not do it via religion"

I always laugh when people complain about genetic engineering. I mean, it's kinda one of the first things humans discovered.

Oh, I'm talking in the context of genetic engineering, not the term in general. I should've clarified, sorry.

whats funnier is the people who discovered it and first applied it heavily as a scientific process were CHRISTIAN MONKS

Because we all know it's rediculous that Christians would care about science, right?

Well, the people who started advancing it toward what we have today were Christian ones, but I'm pretty sure the overall science predates Christianity. Doesn't it go back to the first time someone said "hey, maybe if I let my strong dogs breed instead of my weak ones, I'll get stronger dogs?"

edited 20th Jan '12 12:57:32 PM by INUH

Thats not what I meant. My point was how ironic it is that the "playing god" debate was started by scientific inquiry performed by devoiutly religious people.

Granted, but I meant the first serious scientific inquiry into it was done by monks.

edited 20th Jan '12 1:01:52 PM by Midgetsnowman

Yeah, the phrase doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny anymore, and is pretty much a kneejerk reaction. Even I know better than to use it - although I might whip it out when we 'birth' a human without benefit of a womb...

Eh, the term "Playing God" is most definitely misused most of the time, and to be honest, probably doesn't even have a proper use.

I think it has some credence though, when you apply it to Brave New World type cloning. The thing is however, such technology isn't even close to existing yet.

You guys are taking the term far more literally than it's ever used. The "playing God" card is shorthand for "I think you are messing with things that are bigger than you and shouldn't be messed with."

which is subjective to the person and mostly deals with what they personally feel is moral or not.

On the term "playing God" I have a quote for the issue.

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks—those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."

Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

edited 20th Jan '12 1:19:44 PM by Ailedhoo

Is there anything wrong with that?

Yes. Its a terrible excuse for an argument.

Just because I personally think something is immoral and awful doesnt mean I should be granted legal force to enforce it.

"Playing God" is an objectively meaningless argument, I'd say. The value of it as a subjective argument could take up countless books, but I don't care to deal with that...

I mean, couldn't something as simple as starting a fire be construed as playing God? After all, God ais "let there be light", and there was light, and when you make a fire (or turn on a light bulb), you do much the same, making light where there was none with little more than a whim.

Actually, if God delegated the responsibility of taking care of the environment to humans, then that wouldn't apply.

Playing God is basically trying to do what's reserved for God, and it's used for messing with something fundamental or sacred about humanity etc. The interpretation can be subjective, though.

I'd say anything involving one's faith delves into objectively meaningless territory.

Like axioms?

Everyone has faith in certain axioms, you know.