A brilliant scientist creates life

Post Reply New Topic

Hypothetical question (for the moment anyway). Suppose a brilliant scientist creates life in his laboratory and this life is intelligent. After his Nobel prize ceremony, he demands that his newly created life forms bow down before him and worship him. Is this reasonable?

How do we define reasonable?

It makes sense for him to ask that if he likes being worshiped.

It makes sense for his creations to distrust worship of him, because now that this has been done, anyone can replicate this, not only that, but they have no reason to consider him greater than a creator and perhaps originator of a creation process.

It also makes sense for his creations to worship him. He seems greater than they must seem to themselves, as he is brilliant, powerful enough to create life, possessing loads of resources, and their relationship would be a comfortable master-servant relationship.

It would be very reasonable for that scientist to demand worship. But then two lab interns and a janitor would come over and demand worship, and pretty soon all the little Kewpies or whatever the scientist calls them are killing each other over who's worshiping the right human.

So you'd have pretty much what Earth is, only with all gods being real, but only one all-powerful. So really, after the scientist returned and saw what was happening, he'd totally have to kill the interns and the janitor in front of the kewpies* to return them to him as followers. And then he'd have to slaughter the non-believers to prove his point.

Of course after a long time, the kewpies would learn that they were created not by divine power but by a more advanced version of their own science. This revelation would destroy their power structure, resulting in yet more war, which would probably lead to the destruction of the holding cell. The outbreak would reveal the world to them, which would certainly lead to mass apostasy.

Even worse, as the apostates learned more about science, they would begin to hate their creator, and would kill him. Having killed their creator, they would probably go to war with all beings like him and kill them.

Then, having run completely out of things to do, they'd sit around smoking pot.

*I heard the word "Kewpie" in a book called Steel Beach, where it was used to mean miniature humans created to be pets and dolls, possessing only a fraction of a real human's intelligence. I figured it'd apply here.

Only matters of life and death are worth being deadly serious about. I just started laughing at the concept and ran with what was popping into my head.

Never having worshiped anything I can't imagine why anybody would like to be worshiped. I would say your scientist is totally nuts. That seems to jibe with the general description of the God of the Christians and Jews as well.

Worship to some degree would come natural,

but other then that, no, each would be of their own individual with their own perceptions of reality and what they think of it.
like many of our world, many blame god and hate god for creating their miserable little lives, just because you created them does make them obligated to worship you.

If this scientist truly is so brilliant that he can convince his creations to worship them by useing rational arguments, without:
>lies or unprovable claims
>relying on their ignorance / stupidity
>relying on his status as their creator
>threats
then sure go for it: draw up a contract detailing the rituals of worships, defining sins and virtues and what he gives his followers in return for worship. If this convinces them then by definition they're getting a good deal.

If the best he can come up with is "I created life, I truly am great so you must worship me" then that would seriously throw doubt onto his brilliance both in terms of weather he is brilliant enough to deserve worship and weather he is brilliant enough to live up to his end of the god / worshiper social contract.

I wouldn't be so sure, while I agree that God is both monstrous and infantile I wouldn't judge everyone who requires worship on so little evidence. Consider if you will that his need for worship is the result of a genuine mental disorder but apart from that a truly brilliant and caring person.

lets back up a little and ask,
for what reason, or why, were these life forms created.
whats their purpose.

Ah...so much new stuff to read today. Thanks for they hypothetical, Tallyman. I am with AG on the word 'reasonable' stumping me a bit. Reasonable/justified? Reasonable/fair? Reasonable/rational? I think I have no idea on any of those points. But, yes, I think the scientist would have this right, but I think they would also have the right to patent thier new life form and sell them as pets if they so wished.

Edit: I like your new avatar. It makes me wonder what you are thinking.

Just how intelligent is this hypothetical life-form supposed to be?

Only enough to know when to eat, sleep, drink, and wipe itself?

Or intelligent enough to know when it's being played for a fool?

From what you're saying, the scientist is god and the life are all the creatures on the planet.
The difference is god doesn't seem to care wheather or not we worship him - he doesn't give us any displays of his displeasement.
Ethically, it is only slightly wrong. I'd guess that they'd worship him anyway. Of course, they may instead just treat him like an all-loving father. Still, I guess demanding worship is unethical, although it certainly is deserved.

Worship also rings of religion.

god created men, therefore its god that the new life forms should worship, for without god the man could not have existed to create them, without god man could not have been created in his image enough to have the intelligence or likeness to create the new said life forms.