Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Galileo is a special case, I think. From what I know (and I don't know much), if Galileo had been a better politician, the Church wouldn't have been after him nearly as much. But it's hard to deny that in this case, the church acted in a way that, at the very least, was likely to retard scientific development. But all that shows is that in one case, the Church acted to retard scientific development. Your claim is that it is essential to religion that it generally retard scientific progress. The one is barely even evidence for the other.
|
What I've asked myself about Galileo is:
why did the church retard scientific development? I'm sure their decision wasn't made to slow science. I'm sure they thought that their actions were taken to protect the church and thus god, and to punish those who would question their interpretation of god. It's in that thought process that I find the most danger. Now, to be clear, the slowing of science by religion is just an afterthought. The real reason I am an atheist is simply because it's clear to me that god doesn't exist. whether or not religion slows or negatively effects science is secondary to that in my mind....but you have to see that there is danger in the idea that god supersedes the scientific method. Galileo made very strong cases for his discoveries in his writings. Had the church not felt their power threatened, I'm sure that the church wouldn't have cared (as you said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
if Galileo had been a better politician, the Church wouldn't have been after him nearly as much
|
). The church, and by extension religion, does feel that they are threatened from time to time. When they feel that way, and they have the power, they can lash out. Galileo was unlucky to be born in a time where the church had near absolute power.
I also think you're missing one of my most important points in my argument about the slowing of science: god is not supported by science. So long as people believe in the absolute existence of god, the clear fact that god probably doesn't exist will be held back. It is that function of faith that has always and will, as long as it is around, slow science in at least one way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
All current treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells, which do not involve the destruction of embryos. Embryonic stem cells are more plastic than adult stem cells; many scientists believe that for this reason, they will ultimately prove to be more useful. But there's also a fair amount of evidence that this makes them much more difficult to use, since it makes it hard to turn them into what you want them to. There are also greater difficulties with rejection in the case of embryonic stem cells than with adult stem cells, at least with respect to some treatments, since adult stem cells can be harvested from the adult requiring the treatment.
|
Ah, but we can't explore the possibilities of the application of embryonic stem cells until people allow it. If someone wants to make an argument based on purely ethical thoughts, god and the Bible aside, I'd be fine. The problem is that when people are asked to make their arguments, they quote scripture. That's scary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
How familiar are you with the criminal justice system? Believe me when I say that the 'rules' that apply there have nothing like universal validity, and are rife with exceptions. Just today I was working with case law that postulates an exception "when in the interest of justice". Now, I'm glad that there are these exceptions. The law must be somewhat flexible. I'm just saying that there are no laws in the sense in which science has laws.
|
Ah, but when there are exceptions to the laws of science and law, there are reasons for them. Normally, the burden of proof is on the state, but when a defendant pleads insanity, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. It makes perfect sense because the claim is normally made by the state (proving you're guilty), but in an insanity case the claim is made by the defendant (proving I'm insane). Likewise normally DNA passes genetic information from generation to generation, but a year or two back, French scientists found that RNA can as well (contradicting Mendel's laws). This can bypass broken or damaged DNA.
There is not a similar reason for the exception to science for god that I am aware of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
You say string theory was prevalent, but that's different from gaining general acceptance. But the more important part of my claim is that these theories don't represent incommensurate systems the way that Newtonian and Einsteinian physics do.
|
You'd be surprised. They work on very, very different principles, but I don't have the time or the training to get in to them. I'd say that this is less important a point to discuss here, so if it's alright with you I'd like to agree to disagree on this in order to avoid moving off topic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Regarding the Bible and morality (and I think this is quickly becoming a red herring): to a certain extent, I look to the Bible for guidance on how to live my life. But I also look to other moral teachers (like Nietzsche). The Bible mostly tells us what we must do to be saved (believe in Christ and trust in him alone for our salvation), not what it means to live a moral life. The general principle "Life ought to be preserved" is indeed a Biblical principle. But it's a principle common to all systems of morality. I, and many Christians I know, think social policy ought only be determined by these sorts of general principles, not principles which are peculiar to Christianity.
|
I like the mental image I got of your book shelf with the Bible next to Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. Sort of like having "god is real" next to "god is dead".
It should be made clear that many (more than half, almost certainly) Christians find their moral code mainly from the Bible, just as the Jews do from the Torah and the Muslims do from the Qu'ran. I don't think it's a strawman just because you don't just find your morality in the Bible.
I think that morality should be something ever monitored and ever growing, and as such looking to morality that's hundreds of years old is like teaching trepanation to first year surgeons. It doesn't make sense.
I must say I find this debate very enjoyable.