Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity, Knowledge and Science
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 221 (376313)
01-11-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
01-11-2007 6:23 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
It is impossible to prove or disprove GWs position on stem cell research exactly because it is untestable and religious. Even his political decisions will ultimately be put to the test in some sense (e.g. the US economy will benefit from his policies or it will not) but his attitude to stem cell research is rationally unfounded and untestable.
The interesting thing about Stem Cell research is that they've been in the testing phase for over ten years. People think this is a new development, but it really isn't. It has just been under the genral public's radar until recently.
Adult stem cells have been used to ameliorate disease for upwards of fifteen years now with marked success. The only problem is they are generalized to specific cells, whereas fetal stem cells have multipotent abilities. The theoretical aspects is what first piqued researchers interests. But so far, embyonic stem cells are too radical and tend to form malignant tumors instead of healing anything.
There has obviously been a considerable amount of backlash over the ethical concerns of such an endeavor. Pro-life movements see it as the destruction of human being, whereas the Pro-choice movement see it as nothing more than a blastocyst. In an attempt to make everyone happy, some researchers have proposed a cloned fetus implanted in the uterus in order so that no created fetus was made. This opens even more concerns though with the topic of cloning. So as it stands, we are currently a stand still with Bush's veto.
What does everyone else think about this? Should moral overtones supersede medical practice or vice versa?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 6:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 221 (387675)
03-01-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
01-13-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Is it religion?
We both agree that cultures of ignorance can act as a barrier to science.
Very true, but why must "religion" (an ambiguous term at best) get the sole ownership of abject misery in the world? By what mechanism do you measure "progress?" I think you might be willing to agree that for every time some one bastardized any given religion, that the original intent of said tenet was a great moral good. Would you be inclined to agree with that?
The fact that the very nature of religion is irrational and untestable means that -
A) Religion lends itself well to forming the basis of cultures of ignorance in exactly the same way poitical ideologies do.
Then you can't conflate the issues when it then becomes apparent that it is man's own innate desires that foster ignorance.
The fact that religion invariably has something to say about the physical world (creation death etc. etc.) means that
B) Religion more directly and regularly comes into conflict with science than other equally irrational and unprovable non religious ideologies such as the political ideologies you specify
But science has EVERYTHING to say about the physical world. Would you then indict all of science as culpable for all of the problems in the world? I would sincerely hope not.
This forum only exists because of the fact that religion is the basis of more anti science cultures of ignorance thinking than anything else!!!
Well, tell that to RAZD, Jar, Jazzns, and the person who made it possible for you relay that to us-- Percy, all of whom are theists. Every one of them believe as you do concerning science. I've yet to meet anyone on this forum, creationist, evolution, or otherwise, who was "anti-science." They may subscribe to "bad science," but in no sense does it mean they are anti-science.
The fact that I argue that the nature of religion LENDS itself well to fostering cultures of ignorance does not therefore mean that I am claiming ALL religion to BE a culture of ignorance. I am saying that religion is PRONE to this sort of abuse because of it's irrational and untestable nature.
Human nature is prone to ignorance. Or are you so arrogant that you honestly believe that you know every seminal aspect of life?
Political ideologies LEND themselves to this sort of abuse for exactly the same reasons but that does not necessarily mean ALL political ideologies result in cultures of ignorance either.
What then does not lend itself to ignorance in your view?
The same religion in the hands of rational enlightened believers will not result in such a culture whilst in the hands of the ignorant, pedantic or just plain stupid it very likely will.
Here's the problem Straggler. When you speak about others being ignorant, you no doubt exclude yourself from ignorance. And so you set yourself up as the judge and deliberator on what is ignorant and what is not. A cozy place for you, but not entirely in keeping with truth. Is it then possible that you are ignorant? Or are you immune to it? If so, why?
But it is NOT particularly religion. Look at the major purges of intellectuals recently and you find Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.
Exactly. So then religion or politics isn't the issue, is it? What is the issue?
All are cultures of ignorance in one way or another. Indisputably. But did any of these ideologies come into direct conflict with scientific conclusions or was it just knowledge and intellect in general that was attacked?
You make it so that your gnosis is strictly secular and exculpatory from any ill-thinking, almost has if you have some sort of esoteric advantage over people.
I know what you are saying, but to me, religion is the front-- its the mouthpiece used when people feel differently about any one thing. For instance, even in radical Islam, the belief in Allah is not the cause of the violence. Its just the mouthpiece. Their are many internal reasons and forces at work, such as societal perception, moral implications, political beliefs, etc.
There would have been less cultures of ignorance without that unholy trinity too.
????? Can you expound, please?
Purely in terms of cultures of ignorance that directly conflict with scientific thinking (as per the OP) - How do these compare in terms of longevity, scope and effect with comparable religious examples
(e.g. the Islamic example in the Beyond Belief series, the persecution of Galileo, IDism, creationism etc.)
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking what the implications are if religion were to persist unchecked or without secular interjection?
In the same way that attributing to God the stability of the solar system, arguably, stopped Newton developing pertubation theory.
Here is my view. I do not think that God controls every affair in the universe. I believe for the most part, God lets what will be, be. If we were to hastily ascribe every little thing that happens to God, we would have a micromanaging god who has nullified our own freewill. In this way, I happen to agree with Newton.
However, this is where a purely secular train of thought fails, IMO. If we were to try and figure out what exactly what love is, we might want to study the brain. When we flash images of loved one's on a screen in front of a subject in a CT scan, we might notice various parts of the brain lighting up with activities as endorphines are rushing around and synapses are firing, sending and receiving impulses. From this study, we might conclude that this process IS love. But is it? Or is it simply the vehicle, or the mechanism, or the medium through which love is animated? If we were to confuse mechanisms with causation, I think we would be lapsing in to that state of ignorance you deride.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 7:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 221 (387884)
03-03-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
03-03-2007 8:36 AM


Re: Is it religion?
Firstly I am not claiming that conclusions about the physical world are evil, that science has all the answers to everything or that I personally am a fountain of all intelligence, knowledge and wisdom. I am not sure why you feel that I am claiming any of these things but the fact is that I am not.
You don't ordinarily come off as particularly arrogant or hostile, but in this thread it exuded these inequalities.
My points remain and you have failed to refute any of them.
How can one refute talking points that are basically opinions? You speak about your opinions as if they were fact.
A) ANY ideology or faith that is by nature irrational and unprovable is going to be easier to be usurped by those fostering cultures of ignorance than one based on objective evidence.
If its easier to usurp then where is the concern? Some people are gullible and don't know it. Other people think they aren't gullible and don't know otherwise. Some people think they are really sharp and have it all together when they really don't. Such thins are going to be, whether it be religious dogma or something more seemingly benign.
Therefore, I feel compelled to ask why the indictment falls on religion to be the primary offender in spreading the "cult of ignorance."
B) The vast majority of such cultures of ignorance have been caused by just such ideologies/faiths (whether political or religious)
Can you pinpoint this to any particular religion or denomination as a reference?
C) Can you give any example of a culture of ignorance that is not rooted in just such an ideology or faith?
I'm still unclear on what qualifies as a "culture of ignorance," because we all are ignorant in some respects.
D) Cultures of ignorance that arise as a result of religious faith based thinking are more likley to conflict with science exactly becuase both are making conclusions about the physical world. They are competing over the same terriotory.
They aren't competing over the same territory, they are simply viewing the conglomerate of nature differently from one another. One group says that everything came to be from absolute nothingness. The other group that says that breaks the very scientific laws we all must adhere to. It is by God who animates and creates the universe. The other group counters by positing that it is untestable and unprovable. The other group responds by saying something cannot come from absolute nothingness. The other group says, "then where did God from?" And around and around it goes in a big circle. I'm not sure why either group is more or less informed. Perhaps we should consider who and what are informing us.
Political ideologies are geneally less concerned with physical relity than religious ones (creation of life, creation of the universe, existence/nature of the soul are all physical and potentially scientific questions)
That's probably because political ideologies are more concerned with politics and sociology.
E) Therefore religion, in the form of the cultures of ignorance it has at times fostered, has acted as a barrier to science as per the OP question.
Why a "barrier?" I defer to Thomas Edison who said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent." He was probably even understating our own ignorance. I still don't see why you assert that religion, which could mean any number of things, fosters ignorance. The way I see it is no matter what we ascribe, we foster ignorance in some capacity.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 191 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 12:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 221 (388126)
03-04-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Straggler
03-03-2007 2:44 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Stalin and Mao fostered such cultures by actually going so far as exterminating those educated and/or brave enough to oppose their view of society.
The beyond belief seminars discusses medieval Islam in terms of the suppression of science. It also highlights the persecution of Galileo and Christianity at the time of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton as less violent examples of cultures of ignorance. In these latter examples it is the desire to find a role for God and reluctance to continue asking questions that acts as the barrier to increased scientific knowledge. Faith based barriers.
First of all, Newton was himself a Christian. In fact, his views on nature and religion mirror my own as I'm hesitant to ascribe too heavily to all natural or all supernatural explanations. So was Copernicus. So was Galileo. It sounds as if your beef is with highly organized religion that often looses sight of the big picture by becoming too rigid and too legalistic. If so, I couldn't agree more. But you can't simply erase history to suit an agenda that religion is the root cause of man's own atrocity. The singular factor between all of the misery in the world is man himself. This pervades culture, religious affiliations, belief systems, economic status, etc. It is man's own inner turmoil that is the cause of this all. If you are willing to pardon the religious expression, it is man's sin. I hope you would be willing to overlook that word because the concept of sin is understood even by the irreligious. I think you should recalculate your assessment.
In the broadest sense political doctrines probably have the more extreme examples of fostering cultures of ignorance.
However in the context of this thread the question directly relates to barriers to scientific knowledge in particular rather than knowledge in general.
I think man's disposition is a complex one. Assigning only a few characteristics or reasons to it would be folly. Suppression, warring, devisiveness, duplicity, immorality, etc has always been with us. The only thing religion and politics do is give us a clear scapegoat for a much broader problem.
Here, because of the common terriotory, (or as you put it "viewing the conglomerate of nature differently from one another") those cultures of ignorance that are religiously based have more direct barriers to science than do political ones.
How so? Especially when you have to consider all of the philanthropic efforts that have spawned from religion as well. Can we fairly only point out the bad things without recognizing the good as well?
1) Religious convictions are based on the irrational and untestable
2) Irrational and untestable belief systems are more easily used to create cultures of ignorance than are those based on reason, evidence and pragmatism
3) Religious based cultures of ignorance more directly come into conflict with science and create barriers to scientific progress than do those based on politcal ideologies because religious assertions have more to say about the physical world which is the domain of science.
Which of these do you actually disagree with?[/qs]
I agree with parts of each insomuch that it deals with a much larger disposition. This pervades all areas of humanity. My issue is that you seem to indict "religion" as the culprit when its really man's own heart and mind. Call that whatever you will, be it psychology, sociology, or whatever, but this certainly seems to be the case.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 2:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2007 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 9:43 PM Hyroglyphx 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