Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
That's technology, not science.
|
Herd patterns are not technology. Also, technology is the application of science, so I don't think the distinction is that important.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Ok, sure, some theists believe that the rules don't always apply. So what? How does that retard the growth of science?
|
By definition, all theists believe that the rules don't always apply, as god is supernatural. Imagine that you mostly believe in the justice system, but when you feel like it, you simply let a murderer go. Same concept. Science is either right or not. If you start making exceptions, then the whole of science loses it's meaning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
That's not exactly what I meant. First, I'm not sure that any of those theories have gained general acceptance in the scientific community. Second, I'm not sure that they're sufficiently distinct that moving between them constitutes a scientific revolution. But these are empirical claims, and I could easily be wrong.
|
string theory, for a time, was quite prevalent. I'm not sure how many new theories are widely accepted in their infancy, but so far as new theories go, string theory was big. Beatles big.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
First, are you aware of the reasons the Catholic Church gives for its positions on celibacy and contraceptives? I don't always agree with the Catholic Church, but they're usually pretty good about arguing for their position. You probably disagree with their reasoning in these cases (since they're natural law arguments), but given their assumptions, the arguments make at least some sense. Second, I'm not sure how teaching that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage has anything to do with retarding the growth of science.
|
If I'm misunderstanding the reasoning given for celibacy and abstinence, enlighten me. The idea I was trying to convey is that the original reasoning behind them did apply when the Bible was written, but don't apply now. Think about that. A book written hundreds and hundreds of years ago is being used to try and figure out the morality of facets of science. Instead of weighing these things on their merits, people try desperately to apply it to the old book. I've read the Bible perhaps hundreds of times, and I've never read anything about stem cells. People are so afraid of making moral decisions on their own that they have to say, "Thou shall not kill" applies, though I cannot see how. It's the production of a biological machine for the purpous of medicine, not the creation of life. And this is coming from someone with real moral qualms about abortion, and the irresponsibility of the people who have them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Okay, first, the Bible is not primarily a book about how to live a moral life. Second, yes, the story of the sacrifice of Isaac raises difficulties. Third, traditionally, Christians have believed that abortion was okay until roughly the thirteenth or fourteenth week (cf. Aquinas, cited in Roe v Wade). Fourth, embryonic stem cell research is less promising than the main-stream media would have you believe.
|
One type of stem cell treatment, a bone marrow transplant, can be used to successfully treat leukemia. Scientists that have a mush better understanding of stem cells than I do have said that stem cells will help in finding breakthroughs in treating cancer, parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, muscle damage, and a dozen other conditions. Most people alive today have lost someone they know to cancer. I, myself, lost my Aunt. It would have been nice to be able to give her a better chance because of stem cell research.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
But some of the concerns you mention don't seem to have a necessary connection to religion. Surely some moral atheists could have the sort of concern for the unborn that a lot of religious people have. Science often raises moral objections. Sometimes, in hindsight, the detractors of religion love to cite religion as having threatened to stymie research, as in the case of Galileo. Sometimes, the role of religion in ending genuinely unethical research is forgotten, as in the case of vivisection. (Consider that one of the founders of the SPCA in England was William Wilberforce, subject of a recent movie.) But all this shows is that sometimes the practices of science run close along an ethical boundary, and so ethical (or hyper-ethical) people object. So, unless you don't think scientists are able to act unethically in doing research, it seems like this is rather a good thing, not a bad thing.
|
How can anyone deny that the church jailed Galileo and destroyed his work? That's historical fact. Scientists should be monitored for their ethics, but I think that Galileo was jailed for heresy, not for being unethical.