The 9th Ordinary meeting of the 165th session of the Literary and Scientific society took place on the 28th of November in the Senate Room. It was attended by 55 members.
President Kydd reminded members of our upcoming Christmas Dinner (on the 18th!) and informed the House that we will be represented in the next rounds of both the Mace and the Times. Since it was Thanksgiving, President Emeritus Andy Carruthers asked President Kydd what he was thankful for which was food and pocket watches…wonderful.
The motion was This House Believes Science Has Damned Us All.
Matthew Allen opened the debate with a very interesting account of past philosophers and anthropologists (I think). He said that religion plays a crucial role in science. He ended by reading a lovely poem to the House in its native Swedish before swiftly leaving the debate. Yes.
Fionn Rodgers then opened the case for the opposition. He argued that science hasn’t damned us but rather people have. He said there is no need for conflict between science and religion as science deals with facts while religion with values so the two go hand in hand. He advised the House to ignore the extremists who create conflict as they are not a fair representation of either side.
Stephen Goss, pipe in hand, literally, continued for the proposition. He said that science draws us from God which in His eyes would also damn us. He brought up scientific theories that have been widely accepted but which have since been disproven and asked if it was worthwhile condemning ourselves for this.
Nick Millington countered this by saying science is the study of what is, not what could be. He compared this to religion and how the study of science gives reliable results whereas religion asks for faith. As well as this he argued that heaven, the option other than being damned, has been raised in people’s minds but that in reality it may not be so wonderful.
James McAlister worked under the assumption that Christian law and the ten commandments are true. From this he argued that developments in technology have damned us in the eyes of God as it has made it possible for us to idolise celebrities. He compared our society’s way of life to that of the Amish who follow the bible for guidance and concluded that we will inevitably be damned by our advancements. However, he also said that we should just roll with it and be damned.
Dr David Timson, our guest speaker, closed the debate. He said that science is good, that it has enhanced our lives in many ways. He said that if anything, it will be science that saves us from global warming and that it was science that developed the bullet proof glass that protects the Pope. He argued that if science has damned us then God help the Vatican who sponsor science.
The debate then went to the floor. Questions were heard from Brendan Kelters, Connor Hogan, Alex Philpot, Jonny Finlay, Andrew Carruthers, Cormac Ó Mainnin, Ben Murphy, Henry Adams, Malachy McCrudden and Kim Campbell.
Both sides summarised, the proposition in Swedish and we went to a vote. The motion was defeated n_n