Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity, Knowledge and Science
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 1 of 221 (375145)
01-07-2007 6:12 PM


Christianity has, within it's very first book Genesis, stigmatized knowledge itself as something terrible.
quote:
Genesis 3:4 - "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it [the fruit of the tree] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil..." (NRSV)
Eating of the fruit caused, of course, God's wrath, in turn causing mortality, evil and a whole host of other nastiness. All of which are not up for debate and are stipulated here to be known consequences within the context of the Bible itself.
In practical terms, the consequences of this tale have lead to various problems that are all but unavoidable. The most important of these consequences are as follows:
1) That knowledge itself, for humans, can and should only be obtained through proper channels. Those channels being, namely, God and God's vicars (Pope, priest, minister, pastor etc.)
1.a) As a corollary, all knowledge derived from other sources (namely our senses, either terrestrial or modified via technology) must not be trusted. Only God's word is real in the sense that God could change anything at any time.
2) It is therefore the position of creationists (and other Christians of the same ilk) that the whole of reality must be bound within the Bible. It is thus acceptable, within the faith, to deny any scientific finding that cannot be easily proof-texted.
3) The most important consequence is that Christians desire to stand in the way of science and scientists because their knowledge is somehow inferior to God's.
This, to me, is evil incarnate. If the world can be a better place, and science has the tools to make it so, then there should be no leap of faith that is required of any individual to stand on the side of progress (progress in this sense can be synonymous with "good," so there is an appropriate juxtaposition).
My position is largely in the realm of theory, but I believe it is important to consider whether religion itself is causing humanity to stagnate at a time when anything BUT stagnation is what we need.
This arguement thus asks the question: "Does religion make good people do bad things?" In this case "bad things" refers to standing in the way of progress.
Edited by Cocytus, : My arguement was omni-directional, unfocused and not to the point. The admin pointed this out, it is now fixed.
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 01-07-2007 6:43 PM Cocytus has replied
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 1:32 PM Cocytus has replied
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 3:34 PM Cocytus has replied
 Message 47 by Rob, posted 01-10-2007 8:47 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 3 of 221 (375173)
01-07-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
01-07-2007 6:43 PM


Re: Welcome To EvC
Original post edited to be focused on a specific question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 01-07-2007 6:43 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 01-08-2007 6:50 AM Cocytus has not replied
 Message 5 by Cocytus, posted 01-08-2007 12:03 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 5 of 221 (375345)
01-08-2007 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Cocytus
01-07-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Welcome To EvC
Title changed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Cocytus, posted 01-07-2007 7:27 PM Cocytus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminPhat, posted 01-08-2007 12:20 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 9 of 221 (375402)
01-08-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
01-08-2007 1:32 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
quote:
for a believer, it is good to pray for wisdom, but I don't think that God expects us to be helpless. We were given brains for a reason.
"Given"... heh. As if there are X^n brains just sitting around somewhere waiting to be handed out.
To respond to the point, note that all "wisdom" is a product of knowledge. I shall provide and example:
It's raining outside. You're standing outside in the rain. You go inside to get out of the rain because you might catch a cold.
The way this works is as follows: At some point in human history, someone made the correlation between lowered body temperature and the propensity of the body to aquire sicknesses when in such a state. The "knowledge" is A) rain B) being wet can lower body temperature C) colds have a higher insidence of occurance when body temperature is lowered. The "wisdom" is in providing a course of action to avoid the consequence, namely getting in out of the rain.
All wisdom is as I have have described. There are, however, instances in which there are no precedents, or the precedents are lost/unknown. In any case, all that the believer is doing when praying for wisdom is essentially asking for a course of action. If you don't think that God expects you (humans in general rather) to be helpless, then why pray for wisdom at all? You stipulate that "we were 'given' brains for a reason," so why not use them?
It seems that in the case of "praying for wisdom" you are falling into the same trap that I have laid out in my original post, though simply by replacing the word "knowledge" with the word "wisdom."
quote:
thats an extreme position, but not a majority view.
quote:
what do you mean "other Christians of the same ilk"? what ilk?
I will do my best to respond to both at once.
When I say "of the same ilk," I imagine the following: it is possible that someone (many people actually) are NOT creationists, but chose to stand in the way of progress because of their religious motivations. So by "ilk" I mean non-creationists that engage in the same types of actions that are known to be engaged in by creationists.
The example that comes to mind is, to be clich, stem cell research.
I think that we'll both agree that the majority of Christians are on the "nay" side of this issue. They are certainly the most vocal.
The issue for Christians, as I understand it, is that God has put a soul into every fertilized egg (letting go the fact that some ridiculously high percentage of fertilized eggs actually get flushed out of a womens' bodies before they attatch to the uterine wall). The REAL issue is that there is NO WAY TO KNOW if there is a soul there or not. We can't ASK the gamete, it has no ability to respond. But what Christians DO is appropriate "knowledge" (however biased in this case) from the sources mentioned in my first post is USE that knowledge to stand in the way of progress.
I don't think that 1.a in my first post is at all an extreme position. Scientifically, the knowledge we have about gametes is that they are nothing more than a cluster of cells. There is, very scientifically, no possible way that the gamete can have any sort of consciousness. Yet Christians choose to reject this knowledge out of hand in favor of some ephemeral idea of a soul.
Of course, not ALL Christians are this way, but it is most certainly the case that the exception does not prove the rule.
quote:
so what do we do? Outlaw religion?
THAT question is one that I'm not sure is on-topic and one that I don't think I want to try to answer. It is most interesting though that you immediately see the potential consequences of my argument being "right." Not to say that it IS right, but if it were taken to be true, your question would be most appropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 1:32 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 3:55 PM Cocytus has replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 4:09 PM Cocytus has not replied
 Message 221 by Larni, posted 04-10-2007 10:22 AM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 13 of 221 (375437)
01-08-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anastasia
01-08-2007 3:34 PM


quote:
The newer sects that have sprung up are more centered around prophesying the end of the world and causing their adherents to react like crazies over physical events rather than dwell on spiritual life. These type of sects are 100% SURE of themselves because the Bible says so, no matter that no one else sees it. The thought they alone possess this TRUE superior knowledge of the Bible adds even more fuel to the fire.
Newer sects?
quote:
"By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth."
The above quote is from Pope Pious XII in 1953. Note that this is DOCTRINAL, not simply DOGMATIC. IT also make NO DISTINCTION bewtween spiritual truths and secular/sensorial truths. I would assume you don't think that Catholicism is a "newer sect."
quote:
I do not see a direct link from Gen 1 to the idea that ALL knowledge is evil.
How do you not see it? The gatekeeper of the first learning event is presided over by what is widely accepted to be the devil himself. The devil (serpent is synonymous with devil in this case right?) is the one that convinces Eve to eat of the fruit. Humans are delving into God's realm: good and evil (though the specifics are murky because "evil" can't actually exist, theologically speaking, until AFTER the event).
Maybe you don't understand theology (in this case theodicy), so let me clarify what it is that you HAVE TO BELIEVE in order to be a Christian. This isn't even up for debate, it's dogmatic. To be a Christian you have to believe that 1) there was perfection in the garden (earth) 2) perfection means that there was no such thing as evil on earth 3) this is the case because God (as infinite as he/she is) cannot CONTAIN, and therefore cannot CREATE, evil 4) evil was created my humans because they ate of the tree of knowledge.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
quote:
I have a big problem with this further lumping together of christianity. There may be some sects and individuals who claim to have all the secrets of earth and heaven bottled up, but please, for the most part, the only secret knowledge christian leaders seek to give out is of the spiritual kind. I would like to hope that some day all christians will not be confused with fundie preachers of Biblical creation science.
Please tell me you're joking. Christian leaders are rife with explatives in all spheres (political, scientific, name it). They're everywhere. I'll try to find a link to the New York Times Op-Ed piece where an Archbishop lambasts Richard Dawkins concerning evolution. It exists, but I don't know if I can get to it since I don't pay for the online version of the Times.
Also, see above concerning lumping together Christian denominations. There are fundamental (pardon the pun) tenets that are REQUIRED for one to believe in order to be a Christian. I can comfortably lump Christians together in this argument (save for obvious exceptions like the Hutterites).
quote:
Have you ever put together a list of what christians HAVE accmplished in the way of progress, or do you just dwell on the tiny minority who profess christianity to be incompatible with it?
I know I started this usage of the word "progress" and I'm kicking myself for doing so. It's a loaded term and implies many things that aren't necessarily included in its usage. I tried to limit how it was used in the context of this argument. I think I was trying to say something about this particular progression: bad --> not so bad --> good. In terms of how we all live our lives on this planet (morally, maybe, but I'm thinking specifically about the appaling conditions that most of the planet lives in).
And I trust that I don't need to post repetitive examples of Christians standing against science. Galileo's life is but a grain of sand in the desert of ignorance that defines Christian history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 3:34 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 5:48 PM Cocytus has replied
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2007 1:32 AM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 14 of 221 (375438)
01-08-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by anastasia
01-08-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
quote:
Praying for wisdom is obviously not shunning knowledge. It is asking for the best course of action based on current knowledge, or asking for enough knowledge to plan a course of action that will benefit the good.
It obviously IS shunning knowledge! Refer to my post about proper channels. Why... this always boggles me... why would anyone choose to not rely on their own merits (knowledge) or the knowledge of their peers and instead choose a channel that is either A) obviously incredibly biased (pastors, priests etc.) or B) simply doesn't exist (God speaking)? I mean, truly, if God DID exist, why would God want you to pray to him/her for guidance when he/she gave you all the facilities to make decisions yourself?
"Love thy neighbor" is wisdom, not factual knowledge, and it again boggles my mind that someone might consider a pre-conscious mass of cells to be their neighbor while at the same time ignoring the social and political fires that are destroying the entire African continent (for example).
Edited by Cocytus, : Needed to clarify what kind of knowledge I was talking about in the last paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 3:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 6:26 PM Cocytus has not replied
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 01-08-2007 6:41 PM Cocytus has not replied
 Message 18 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 6:50 PM Cocytus has replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 19 of 221 (375731)
01-09-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by anastasia
01-08-2007 5:48 PM


Cocytus writes:
Newer sects?
Yes, there are plenty of newer sects which have a specificly themed belief which rejects 'progress' via denying to it members medical attention, voting rights, political affiliation or participation, use of the internet, etc.
The above quote is from Pope Pious XII in 1953. Note that this is DOCTRINAL, not simply DOGMATIC. IT also make NO DISTINCTION bewtween spiritual truths and secular/sensorial truths.
Of course it doesn't. No one in their right minds would think a church was using the word 'truth' in anything but a spiritual sense.
I think you entirely missed the point. The point was that Catholicism is NOT a new sect (there are close to a billion Catholics on the planet today) and makes pronouncements about the nature of reality. The POPE, the CURIA, and the CARDINALS which all Catholics are BOUND BY DOCTRINE to accept pronouncements from, say, things like the following:
quote:
"Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."
- Cardinal CHRISTOPH SCH—NBORN, NY Times Op Ed, July 7, 2005. Full article can be seen at this link
The FACT that there is no distinction made between spiritual truths and truths of a sensorial/factual nature, only serves to further prove that religion, in this case, sticks its nose where it most certainly does not belong. And, to wit, that the followers of this particular brand of Christianity HAVE TO BELIEVE these pronouncements and have to LIVE THEIR LIVES according to such as these are infallably the words of GOD being uttered from their mouths.
This isn't me talking from left field; all assertions that I have made are doctrinal in the Catholic church.
Of course it doesn't. No one in their right minds would think a church was using the word 'truth' in anything but a spiritual sense.
Obviously "spiritual truth" and "any other sort of truth" are conflated (e.g. when religious leaders make statements about the "reality" of science), QED. I really don't think you wish for me to mention Haggard and his clan of ~40,000 in Colorado Springs.
Certainly not, I asked for repetitive examples of christians helping science, or at the very least some evidence that all scientists are non-christian.
Go to this link http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ and watch the first part of session 2 with Neil Tyson (his talk is ~18min long, it's the first part of that session). He'll cite some things that will deflate you.
I am willing to amend my original statement that
quote:
Christianity has, within it's very first book Genesis, stigmatized knowledge itself as something terrible.
thusly:
Christianity has, withing it's very first book Genesis, stigmatized knowledge of a specific nature as something terrible. That is, knowledge that comes from any source other than its ascribed proper channels (bible, priest, pastor, God himself), channels that vary somewhat based on specific denomination, is inherently untrustworthy, Godless and not worth considering.
I admit that I wasn't clear. I'll take the blame for that one.
Oh, please don't proof-text at me. You only serve to further justify and/or prove my previous statement that
quote:
2) It is therefore the position of creationists (and other Christians of the same ilk) that the whole of reality must be bound within the Bible. It is thus acceptable, within the faith, to deny any scientific finding that cannot be easily proof-texted.
Richard Bach had something to say on this same issue (proof-texting) in his children's book Illusions written in the '70s. It was something along the lines that you could concievably pick up any written document, hold a question in your mind, open the document to a random page and get some sort of answer. By proof-texting all you are doing is, again, limiting your argument to the bounds of the Bible (or, perhaps, to Biblical exegetes that you find acceptable, e.g. Augustine).
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.
Edited by Cocytus, : URL failure and typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 5:48 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 01-09-2007 6:04 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 20 of 221 (375738)
01-09-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by anastasia
01-08-2007 6:50 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
Do you have evidence that those against stem cell research have been shown to offer less support to African nations? I don't like statements like this which increase the scope from one topic to the entire African continent. It is good to remember that there are issues in the world which we forget about too easily, but I don't think it is fair to look for a 'winner' amoung the 'piles of cells', the folk in dire need of a cure for disease, and the people of Africa
IT was a rhetorical point aimed at answering this:
I think we all have the same knowledge that christians are using here. That knowledge is called 'love thy neighbor'. The Bible does not anywhere mention when a soul appears, but christians have a better safe-than-sorry mentality in defense of the value of human life which conflicts with the scientific study inasmuch that science is ALSO trying to serve fellow man and save life.
But you seem to imply in the first cited quote that you find a mass of a few hundred cells to be equivalent, in terms of how they should be treated, to a living, breathing, thinking individual who is starving (or who has to live in constant threat of being the next murdered victim in continuing genocide) in Africa (or, to be fair, anywhere in the world). Or, forget Africa, it was (again) a rhetorical point. You seem to be saying that someone who has a disease that is potentially curable through advances in stem cell research has the exact same rights as an unconsicous mass of a a few hundred cells. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that the knowledge imparted to you through your faith has led you to feel that it is more moral to let someone die of a disease, let thousands, maybe millions, die of diseases that can be potentially cured and instead protect a mass of cells that is not even guaranteed to make it to the end of the first trimester? Please clarify, because I really hope this isn't what you're saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by anastasia, posted 01-08-2007 6:50 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 01-09-2007 6:17 PM Cocytus has replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 24 of 221 (375808)
01-10-2007 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
01-09-2007 10:55 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
zomg, support. Am I not alone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 01-09-2007 10:55 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 27 of 221 (375811)
01-10-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by anastasia
01-09-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
All life should be treated equally.
Why?
More importantly, you are explicitly stating that "life" means anything that has a cell in it. You won't (I'm sure) say that an amoeba has the same rights as a Human. In the same vein, how can YOU be so callous as to assume that a couple of cells that MIGHT be a human (eventually, if nothing catostrophic happens) have the same rights as a HUMAN that has already expressed its HUMANITY?
The only way you can even think this might be a viable position is if you reject science (and the knowledge it provides) and instead accept some other form of knowledge that has no basis in reality (e.g. any Deo-centric fallacy that you might come up with).
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 01-09-2007 6:17 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2007 6:41 AM Cocytus has not replied
 Message 31 by anastasia, posted 01-10-2007 12:39 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 33 of 221 (375887)
01-10-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
01-10-2007 12:43 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
I'll respond to other posts later, but I want to address this comment now:
The issue is not religion versus science, but rather some sects versus the rest of the world, scientists and theists alike.
On the contrary, I think it IS an issue of religion v. science. It is an issue of where people put their "faith" with regard to the channels through which they recieve knowledge. Here's what I'm talking about:
Scientists state that, through further study of the properties of stem cells, certain diseases and injuries might become curable or treatable. Scientists further explain what stem cells are (various types, but some come from gametes). That's about it from scientists. I, as an atheist, have no reason to think that there SHOULDN'T be research in this field. Sounds like a winner to me.
Now, for the religious, other types of information enter the equation. Somehow the idea that the gamete is a full human being, or might (MIGHT!) have a soul (a SOUL, btw, is improvable, invisisble, and for all intents and purposes, NON EXISTANT) so there is a reason to think that maybe research in this field is immoral.
From whence the difference?
And please, do not go down the road that religion somehow makes people more morally strident.
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 12:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 1:48 PM Cocytus has not replied
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 01-10-2007 2:00 PM Cocytus has replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 36 of 221 (375893)
01-10-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
01-10-2007 2:00 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
Scientists state that, through further study of the properties of stem cells, certain diseases and injuries might become curable or treatable. Scientists further explain what stem cells are (various types, but some come from gametes). That's about it from scientists. I, as an atheist, have no reason to think that there SHOULDN'T be research in this field. Sounds like a winner to me.
But I as a Christian agree with you.
So where is the problem?
Would that you were representative of the entire religious community throughout the world!
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 01-10-2007 2:00 PM ringo has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 37 of 221 (375897)
01-10-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
01-10-2007 2:00 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
Scientists state that, through further study of the properties of [Jews], certain diseases and injuries might become curable or treatable.
Why resort to this? That isn't an argument. Even if it was, I've never stated that science was INFALLABLE. Take this elsewhere... away from me.
You are making a false dichotomy of religion versus science. There is a continuum - scientists who don't believe in God, scientists who do believe in God, believers who accept science, believers who don't accept science... and every nuance in between.
No, I'm not. Here's your dichotomy:
X = The best result that can be hoped for
Y = Some not-so-good result
A = Scientific Knowledge
B = Religious knowledge
If either A or B cannot come to the conclusion, either X or Y, then one of them HAS to be different. It is my contention that A is superior to B because it aims for X. A does not self-define Y and aim for it at all cost, regardless of evidence stacked against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 01-10-2007 2:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 01-10-2007 2:48 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 39 of 221 (375905)
01-10-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
01-10-2007 2:42 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
I linked to the Beyond Belief lectures (and pointed to session 2 in particular) in an earlier post in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2007 2:42 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Cocytus
Junior Member (Idle past 6286 days)
Posts: 19
From: Kansas
Joined: 01-07-2007


Message 44 of 221 (376011)
01-10-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
01-10-2007 4:56 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
In the US there is a vast movement encouraging Cultures of Ignorance. That includes all of the Young Earth Creationists, most of the Intelligent Design folk and many major political figures including the President of the US.
There is a vast movement of a culture of ignorance in the Islamic faith as well. The question might be asked: is it religion itself that causes these phenomena?
Edited by Cocytus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 4:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 7:59 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024