Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity, Knowledge and Science
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 16 of 221 (375454)
01-08-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Cocytus
01-08-2007 5:08 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
Cocytus writes:
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?
You are making a big ugly mountain out of an innocent mole-hill. You have attempted to present an argument that christians consider knowledge evil. They have to get it from 'authorized' knowledge dealerships. Priests deal with spiritual things, pyschiatrists deal with mental things, doctors deal with medical things, and we like them to be 'authorized'. Prayer is not relevent here, the question seems more to be 'why would anyone ask their doctor to appraise an objet d'art?' I don't think it is necessary to ask why humans don't want to make decisions by themselves, and I think there are times when even the doctor and the pastor feel helpless.
Love thy neighbor" is wisdom, not factual knowledge,
If you are going to get all terminological here, it would be useful to know just what kind of knowledge your OP is talking about. Do you mean wisdom, or factual knowledge? Is the 'knowledge of good and evil' factual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Cocytus, posted 01-08-2007 5:08 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 221 (375455)
01-08-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Cocytus
01-08-2007 5:08 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
Enter......God's lawyer.....otherwise known as MTW, or " thou irrefutable one" (wiz of a wiz of a wiz...).
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?
Because there are wrong decisions/paths we can go down, that we think we know best. What's wrong with guidance?
Humans aren't omniscient.
I think Ana' made an important point though. It's the illicit process of the major term to suggest that religion is evil, based on viewpoints of Christianity. Or that even Christianity is evil. Or to use examples of bad Christians.
You're defining "progress" and "evil", on your own terms. Using your definition, I could logically argue that it is correct to let the poor die and decrease the surplus population, because it's wrong to stand in the way of progress and the poor slow us down. Therefore let the weak die according to evolution, as clearly science shows that this happens, so just let it happen, right?
According to your terms, selfish progress is apparently all that matters. Since when is not being selfish, evil? No offense - I don't mind progress, but what about the baba-slugs? I don't like stepping on them, because something or someone gave me a conscience.
I engaged in reductio ad absurdum at the request of my disfunctional compulsive contaminatrix that regurgitates anomolous fallacious recognition processes in random bouts of severe over-thought, thereby contained via the irrefutability cells in my left hemisphere.
So can call me Solomon if you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Cocytus, posted 01-08-2007 5:08 PM Cocytus has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 18 of 221 (375456)
01-08-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Cocytus
01-08-2007 5:08 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Cocytus, posted 01-08-2007 5:08 PM Cocytus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Cocytus, posted 01-09-2007 4:38 PM anastasia 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 221 (375755)
01-09-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cocytus
01-09-2007 4:26 PM


Cocytus writes:
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:
Oh, sorry, I thought those catholics were newer but seriously since I happen to be one of this brand, I have not felt bound in my life to accept pronouncements about the nature of reality, only those about the reality of the supernatural.
While a particular scientific idea is still in the theory stage, it is not unusual for a religious figure to make a pronouncement of how that theory clashes or conflates with their doctrine.
Obviously "spiritual truth" and "any other sort of truth" are conflated
I agreed that they may well be at times. I also gave you an example by Augustine which shows that very early on men knew that the Bible should not be researched for factual truth over spiritual truth. You called this 'proof-texting'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cocytus, posted 01-09-2007 4:26 PM Cocytus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by DorfMan, posted 01-12-2007 8:49 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 22 of 221 (375756)
01-09-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cocytus
01-09-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
Cocytus writes:
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
All life should be treated equally. You seem to imply that a living breathing individual is more equal than a comatose one. Or that an individual who uses portable oxygen or lifesupport is less equal than one who breathes on their own. Honestly, even if you did not say this or imply this, there is no way to start deciding which life is more important...the little cells included. Since we simply don't know if they are life or not I am not inclined to take a stance either way, but to sympathize with both sides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cocytus, posted 01-09-2007 4:38 PM Cocytus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 01-09-2007 10:55 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 27 by Cocytus, posted 01-10-2007 2:29 AM anastasia has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 23 of 221 (375778)
01-09-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by anastasia
01-09-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
Anastasia writes:
All life should be treated equally. You seem to imply that a living breathing individual is more equal than a comatose one.
And you seem to imply that a living, breathing, insect is more equal than a comotose human by saying all life should be treated equally. Are you a Jain or a member of the Animal Liberation Front?
There are passages in Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy that seem to imply that blood is life and therefore no blood=no life. I'm sure you know which passages those are so I won't clutter the thread with lengthy Biblical quotations like some others we know (not to name names).
My point is that since the human embryo shows no signs of a circulatory system, and therefore blood, for at least the first two weeks, there is no justification to be against stem cell research for any Biblical reason.
Such a justification must come an from extra-Biblical reason, like hatred of science or support for disease causing agents over humans because such diseases are "god's will."
Edited by anglagard, : to spel bett'n buz

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 24 by Cocytus, posted 01-10-2007 1:36 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 01-10-2007 1:39 AM anglagard 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 221 (375809)
01-10-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
01-09-2007 10:55 PM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
anglagard writes:
My point is that since the human embryo shows no signs of a circulatory system, and therefore blood, for at least the first two weeks, there is no justification to be against stem cell research for any Biblical reason.
Just supposing the majority of the christian opposition has no scientific knowledge, the Biblical law they are following is quite simply 'thou shalt not kill'.
Such a justification must come an from extra-Biblical reason, like hatred of science or support for disease causing agents over humans because such diseases are "god's will."
No, I can't imagine anyone being so callous. There are those who do not seek medical treatment for themselves because of religious views such as the above, but I have not heard of them interfering with the rights of others to seek treatment, or of science to discover cures. You could be right, of course, but I don't imagine the majority of folk to base their opposition to stem cell research on that. Since I am not a scientist I prefer to end this part of the topic here...and to hope that one of the alternative means of harvesting stem cells proves viable so that we no longer have this dilemma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 01-09-2007 10:55 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by anglagard, posted 01-10-2007 2:10 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 26 of 221 (375810)
01-10-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by anastasia
01-10-2007 1:39 AM


Supposed Morality of the Fanatic
Anastasia writes:
Just supposing the majority of the christian opposition has no scientific knowledge, the Biblical law they are following is quite simply 'thou shalt not kill'.
Kill what?
Is ignorance of science and the Bible a sufficient excuse to condemn people to an earlier death than necessary? Those precious excess embryos are simply flushed down the toilet. This is the policy of our Fundamentalist President Bush and his religious fanatic lackeys, they would rather see the embryos destroyed than aid science to cure disease.
What is the alternative? To see such extra embryos forcibly implanted? To make artifical insemination illegal?
Today they are trashed. What is the moral message?
No, I can't imagine anyone being so callous. There are those who do not seek medical treatment for themselves because of religious views such as the above, but I have not heard of them interfering with the rights of others to seek treatment, or of science to discover cures. You could be right, of course, but I don't imagine the majority of folk to base their opposition to stem cell research on that. Since I am not a scientist I prefer to end this part of the topic here...and to hope that one of the alternative means of harvesting stem cells proves viable so that we no longer have this dilemma.
What is happening right here in the USA, right now?
They are this callous, right here, right now.
Edited by anglagard, : Clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 01-10-2007 1:39 AM anastasia 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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 28 of 221 (375820)
01-10-2007 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cocytus
01-10-2007 2:29 AM


Re: Need there be an ultimatum?
I am broadly on your side.
In my opinion there is no moral dilemma relating to stem cell research and I agree that religious leaders should desist from making proclamations regarding the natural world as they are frankly not qualified to do so.
Having said that there are a lot of intelligent, well intentioned people who are very uneasy about such things as stem cell research and abortion because they genuinely do feel that human life is being compromised in some way. Not necessarily because some religious figure has told them so or because they are just brainless idiots, but because it is quite instinctive to think in those terms.
Thinking scientifically about the nature of life and humanity can only lead to the conclusion that stem cell research is a good thing.
However I do think that this scientific view is counterintuitive and I do not think that characterising those who are uneasy about this subject as brainwashed fools helps your case.
I would argue that most religious views originate from instinctive or common sense views, many of which science has demonstrated to be based on fallacies, and that whilst there is a case to be made against religions propogating these views now we are better informed, attacking people for not knowing better is not very helpful.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cocytus, posted 01-10-2007 2:29 AM Cocytus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 11:52 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 221 (375858)
01-10-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
01-10-2007 6:41 AM


On Stem Cell Research
I need to point out that folk seem to be making assumptions based on a False Dilemma.
The VAST majority of religions are NOT opposed to stem cell research. Even the Roman Catholic Church is not opposed to stem cell research.
The issue comes up over "FETAL tissue".
As I pointed back in Message 12, one of the major centers for stem cell research in the US is St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital.
The whole issue may well become moot anyway. As we learn more, for example stem cells from amniotic fluid and from umbilical cord blood may remove even the objections that revolve around the questions related to the sanctity of a fetus.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2007 6:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2007 12:22 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 221 (375863)
01-10-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
01-10-2007 11:52 AM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
Fair enough. But the OP is asking about religious convictions as a barrier to scientific progress and stem cell research is a case in point in the US.
In the wider context any willingness to accept the notion that God is responsible for any natural phenomenon, from the beginning of the universe, the evolution of the eye, the motion of the planets, the nature of consciousness etc. etc. is a potential barrier to scientific progress.
To seek to understand such phenomenon necessarily presumes that there is a natural explanation to be had so invoking God is a barrier to progress in that sense.
I think history shows this. Even the greatest scientists have ended up invoking God to explain that which they could not leaving the next stage of discovery to be taken on by someone unhindered by a supernatural explanation (Newton, Huygens et al).
The stem cell example is a different sort of barrier in that a fairly widely held religious conviction which contradicts the scientific understanding of the subject on a wholly irrational basis is directly restricting research in this area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 11:52 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 12:43 PM Straggler 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