Christianity, Knowledge and Science

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.

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.

The problem is that this research is banned in the US for irrational religious reasons.I fully accept what you say regards not all, or even most, of those of religious conviction sharing that view but it is a religious view and it is a problem.Also in the wider sense historically speaking faith and the reliance on God for explanations has acted as a barrier to scientific understanding. I fully reccommend the Beyond Belief lectures Percy has links to in the Evolution Podcast thread. Session 2 is the main one on this topic (how do I link to this..?) if you are interested.

I understand all that you are saying and I am not accusing all those of faith of putting up barriers to stem cell research. As you point out there is at least one religious institution aiding that research.However it is undeniable that a barrier to stem cell research has been put in place by the US government on irrational religious grounds. That is the sort of the problem that the OP I think was referring to.The difference with people saying that humans cannot breathe at speeds of 60MPH is that this can be tested. The religious basis for the stem cell research objections are not testable.There is a problem and simply stating that it is not a problem for all those of faith does not change the fact that there is definitely a problem which has resulted in barriers to scientific progress (or at least the rate of said progress) in this area.

Hopefully bringing this thread back on topic......I appreciate and accept all that you say about many faiths and many of those of faith not necessarily applying irrational barriers to knowledge.However I still maintain that the OP raises a valid point. This is why -Any conclusions regarding the physical world and our place in it based on irrational and untestable thinking CAN result in barriers to the progress of scientific knowledge.These conclusions do not have to be religious in nature. Political ideologies can lead to similar forms of thinking. However political ideologies are less likely to be concerning themselves with the workings of the natural world than religious ones where issues of creation, humanity, everlasting soul etc. etc. etc. are far more prevalant and intrinsic to the beliefs in question.Religious convictions by their very nature are irrational and untestable and do, in some cases, relate to the physical world and our role in it.
When this is the case they can, and indeed have, acted as a barrier to scientific progress.
Stem cell research is a case in point (it is true I did not know it was just state funding that was banned - but although this lessens the negative effect the reason for the ruling and therefore the principle is the same)In summaryANY conclusions (religious or otherwise) that are irrational and untestable CAN act as a barrier to scientific progress.Religious conclusions regards the physical world are often by their very nature untestable (e.g. the existence of a soul in fertilised human eggs)Untestable religious conclusions have acted as a barrier to scientific progress in the past (as demonstrated adequately by the Beyond Belief seminars discussed and linked to earlier in this thread.Untestable religious convictions are acting as a barrier to stem cell research in the US now.As the OP asserts there is an issue with irrational untestable convictions forming barriers to scientific progress and religion is a (arguably THE) major purveyor of just such convictions.

Hopefully bringing this thread back on topic......I appreciate and accept all that you say about many faiths and many of those of faith not necessarily applying irrational barriers to knowledge.However I still maintain that the OP raises a valid point. This is why -Any conclusions regarding the physical world and our place in it based on irrational and untestable thinking CAN result in barriers to the progress of scientific knowledge.These conclusions do not have to be religious in nature. Political ideologies can lead to similar forms of thinking. However political ideologies are less likely to be concerning themselves with the workings of the natural world than religious ones where issues of creation, humanity, everlasting soul etc. etc. etc. are far more prevalant and intrinsic to the beliefs in question.Religious convictions by their very nature are irrational and untestable and do, in some cases, relate to the physical world and our role in it.
When this is the case they can, and indeed have, acted as a barrier to scientific progress.
Stem cell research is a case in point (it is true I did not know it was just state funding that was banned - but although this lessens the negative effect the reason for the ruling and therefore the principle is the same)In summaryANY conclusions (religious or otherwise) that are irrational and untestable CAN act as a barrier to scientific progress.Religious conclusions regards the physical world are often by their very nature untestable (e.g. the existence of a soul in fertilised human eggs)Untestable religious conclusions have acted as a barrier to scientific progress in the past (as demonstrated adequately by the Beyond Belief seminars discussed and linked to earlier in this thread.Untestable religious convictions are acting as a barrier to stem cell research in the US now.As the OP asserts there is an issue with irrational untestable convictions forming barriers to scientific progress by maintaining 'cultures of ignorance' Religion is arguably THE major purveyor of just such convictions and therefore arguably the main cause of cultures of ignorance.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And is that very feature of untestability that is the problem and the reason that religion can act as a barrier to scienceIf those in power decide, for absolutely rationally unjustifiable and untestable reasons that stem cell research is bad then there is nothing that can possibly be done to prove otherwise.So a barreier to scientific progress is in place because of an irrational untestable religious conviction.Science can demonstrate that Jews, Africans and everybody else are all perfectly equally human and therefore knowledge is the key to ending the assumption that some people are 'more human' (or whatever justification was used by those in your example) than others.Religious beliefs are not subject to such testing and demonstration and that is exactly the cause of the problem that the OP discusses!!

Political ideologies are often untestable and arguably irrational so yes, I agree, the same sort of problems can be politically based.However religious convictions such as the existence of the soul, the creation of the universe or the origins of man do generally have more to say about physical reality than do political ideologies.Therefore they more often come into conflict with science than do political beliefs.Any unprovable irrational belief CAN stand in the way of rational conclusions but religious ones by the very nature of their subject matter are more likely to come into conflict with scientific investigation.The OP is about religion putting barriers in the way of scientific progress.
Whether political ideologies do this or not is another question. Can you really claim that religious beliefs never have, currently are not, or never will?

Jar you are a highly rational believer and I do not doubt that there are many more of those such as yourself than there are those who oppose such things as stem cell research.
I am also genuinely delighted to hear that the opposition to stem cell research within the US governmental system as a whole is much less than I naively understood it to be.However it does not detract from the fact, that we both agree upon, that the religious convictions of people in power are acting as a barrier to scientific research.These convictions are irrational, they do relate to the physical world and they are untestable. That combination is not solely the domain of religion but it is a combination that is synonymous with religious belief and it is a dangerous combination.It is not coincidence that the majority of organisations that you yourself highlight as examples of the 'Culture of Ignorance' are religious in basis.I am not claiming that ALL those of faith are hindering science. I am not disputing that those rational believers such as yourself wish to aid the quest for knowledge.What I am claiming is that the combination of extreme conviction, relatedness to the physical world (and therefore overlap with science), untestability and irrationality are more prevalent in religious convictions than any other and that this combination (whether religious or otherwise) will inevitably lead to barriers to science at some point. My complaint is that the very nature of religious belief all too readily leads to cultures of ignorance amongst those more lazy, less eduacted or less fortunate than the more rational believers such as yourself.

As a more complex case study than the stem cell George W example used so far - Would you mind telling us what physical role you would attribut to God in terms of creation/Big Bang etc.This is not some sort of underhand trick question, and in your particular case I suspect I am on a hiding to nothing, but I am interested to see if I could come up with what could be argued to be a "barrier" (or even hindrance) to scientifc investigation relating to even the most rational of irrational beliefs.

The very fact that we all partake in this forum Evolution V Creation is some (limited admittedly) evidence to the fact that science and religion are more likely to come into conflict on issues relating to physical reality than are political ideologies.I have yet to see 'Socialism V Abiogenesis', 'Free Market Capitalism V Big Bang', Fascists V Artificial Intelligence' or any other such political ideology V scientific conclusions forums!!!Religious convictions are irrational, untestable and MOST directly relate to matters of physical reality.
NOTE: By physical reality I do not mean the same as (I think) you do by the "real world" in any political sense. I mean purely where it overlaps with the methodical investigation of the physical/natural world that we call science.It is true that political power is necessary to impose ANY legislatute (irrational and religious or otherwise) BUT it is the religious convictions of those in power that is the issue here.Politicians are the product of society as well as the shapers. Their views are as influenced by the established organisations and attitudes in society as any other. Do not underestimate the historical or present power of the church. The reason the US has a leader with these attitudes but the the UK (for example) does not reflects the societies and relative influences within them.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.It is undoubtably a case of religious conviction resulting in a barrier to scientific investigation and it is not the first.The OP asks whether religion stifles scienctific progress. It can, it has, it is doing and I have little doubt it will do in the future.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As I have seen from your comprehensive belief statement.
Religious it may have been but religious education of a particularly enlightened sort that many of faith are not so lucky to have experienced. It is those that are the problem and my point stands.I still maintain that the combination of irrational and untestable conclusions regarding the physical world that religious convictions undoubtably do result in, will inevitably foster the sorts of anti science cultures of ignorance we are discussing. Indeed is the main cause. Not all in depth. But I am genuinely interested enough in the position you represent to have followed up to some extent As I suspected, little to quibble with there. However I would be interested to know specifically your view on the idea of quantum fluctuations as a beginning to our universe, the potential inherent randomness this represents and Gods role (or more specifically lack of need for a role) in this process. Were it that all believers were so rational.

NoThe reasons for deciding stem cell research is a good thing are concrete, rational, testable and practically unarguable. It will aid in ending vast amounts of human suffering by providing knowledge for cures and prevention to debilitating illness. There is no faith involved in that position whatsoever.The argument for stem cell research being bad are to all intents and purposes non existent. It boils down to 'I have faith' and that in itself is no argument at all.
What single reason is there to think that anything, but particularly a few cells, has any claim to possessing an everlasting soul??? All of the KNOWLEDGE that we have exclusively indicates that stem cell research is a good thing.
There is no KNOWLEDGE to the contrary (unless you can show otherwise)Your 'don't know' position assumes the basis and knowledge pertaining to the two options are equal.
They most definitely are not.If I was part of a cult that believed that trees contain the intangible spirits of as yet unborn people before they inhabit human bodies and that cutting trees down was therefore immoral and tantamount to some sort murder would you support me in my quest to stop wood and paper being used on the basis that my unprovable claim might be correct?
How is this different?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It may well be right that moral overtones should supersede medical practices.
However any judgements made should be made based on concrete physical evidence. Not on the basis of unprovable, undetectable, untestable notions of an ethereal soul.

It would indeed be noble to sacrifice your life for that of another in the car scenario you paint.But that is not quite comparable to the story under discussion.A better analogy would beYou create a rule of the road which
You decide that if transgressed this rule requires the sacrifice of a life as payment.
Another driver breaks that rule.
Rather than punish the driver in question directly you require that the driver run YOU over so as to meet the required 'payment'
You then hold the driver in question responsible for your deathIs that a noble sacrifice? Or given that you created the rule, you set the payment and you came up with the method of payment for this particular transgression is it just a silly sacrifice which makes no real sense.