The only way to learn is through error though. There is no other way. You make a guess, back it up with precedence and experiment. There is absolutely no other way to learn new things.
That's not true, there are many things we can learn simply through observation. Normally these are simple things, like the rules of classical physics for example. However, they can be complex as well. For example, I believe Einstein figured out relativity without ever having proof, only later was it validated. This is just a general observation; the extent of it's applicability to genetics I cannot say but certainly it applies to some degree.
I agree caution should be taken [based on knowledge of previous failures!] but blindly labeling a science as bad because god tells you so is just plain stupid.
Of course I'm playing Monday morning quarterback here, but those previous failures are something we probably could have figured would happen anyway. In this case I'll liken the scientist/biologist/corporate researcher/whatever to a child who gets a new game and before completing the instructions, jumps into play only to find out they are missing something. Not smart, and in this case I question the motives and character of those who do these things. BTW, I doubt God ever told anyone science was bad and I never said anything to support that.
As for your comments on caution based on previous failures (which in this case there is ample evidence of in animal cloning), I completely agree, and this is why I feel this work is so detrimental. Cloning a human is unlike heart surgery in many ways. What is the purpose? What are the risks? I can think of no good reason to clone a person and plenty of good reasons not to.
Oversimplifications, invalid comparisons, invalid assumptions about religious people, self-centeredness, and dead wrong on a couple points; 5, Insightful?
Those who try to argue for cloning based on technical merit have already lost the battle, so why not focus the attack on the moral and ethical front with comments that on the surface might make sense to a moron, but break the surface and the absurdity becomes apparent.
Cloning attempts to make use of technology far more complex and powerful than classical physics or traditional medicine. Nobody has even successfully cloned an animal yet, and my definition of success is no adverse physical or mental side effects. How would you like to be the one who is a clone? I bet you'd change your tune pretty quickly if you knew what you were getting into. How quickly we forget of our origins. I could draw several religious paralleles but you would not understand them.
The fact of the matter is that even if cloning were technically acceptable (which for a reasonably intelligent person might not be the case for generations to come), the moral and ethical implications are grave enough to justify outlawing it altogether. Here I am talking about full cloning, as is the case with the subject article. I don't know enough about cloning body parts to make a judgment call on that but I'll follow the Church simply because they have a better track record than any other group or individual I know, and there has to be a good reason for it.
Personally I feel sorry for those who involved in cloning humans because I know that there will come the day when they are shown the folly of their decisions and it will torment their souls just as it has to those involved in performing abortions, and woe be to them if they harden their hearts. The fact that this is being allowed to happen in our country says something about the leadership of this nation as well. I pray that we adopt good sense quickly in this matter before many suffer needlessly.
Someone always pays for scientific acheivements. We learn through ERRORS not "just knowing".
Learning through error is not acceptable in the case of applied genetics. The reasons should be obvious: We don't know more than we do, and the consequences of incorrectly messing with our genetic makeup may not be realized until major extensive damage has been done. Who knows how pervasive (perhaps as a result of generational development) the problems will be. Even if we could quantify and isolate the problem, correcting it would still require knowledge that might be a loooong time coming.
An important question to ask is: Would you be willing to undergo the necessary risks and restrictions given that you knew the state of the technology and possible consequences? In the case of the "bubble boy", they decided it was. However, as one of the doctors pointed out, they really can't say they have cured the boy until many years have passed.
Honestly I'm not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision as this boy's parents if it were my child that was afflicted. However, there should be recognition of responsibility towards society at large regarding the possible consequences. I'm assuming this would mean some sort of isolation but I would need to know a lot more about the technology than I do now to determine the details.
Can you consider this "playing God"? I don't know, perhaps motive is involved in that respect, but I suspect time will tell.
...GM foods are far higher risk, and none of those have yet had an effect even approaching that caused by the transplantation of species into environments where they have no competitors.
Not exactly true:
http://www.psrast.org/insects.htm
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0899issue/0899techbus1.h tml
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well.
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
First off, please save the whole "You're young, so you don't know what you're talking about" thing. Had I snipped out that last paragraph, not much of a difference would be made and no one would say anything along those lines.
Sometimes I am lead to make judgments on the validity of a person's points based on their manner of presentation. Often times what occupies ones heart will manifest in their thoughts and words. As you show you have wisdom beyond your years, you probably realize that people are capable of comments that lead to constructive dialog and comments that are effectively an invitation to destructive diatribe. Bravo! You handled the criticism well.
The Palestenians are the only people, in this day and age, who are under occupation. Suicide bombers react harshly, with hatred (towards both the United States and Israel) and go kill innocent people. Israel retaliates. In their retaliations, they may kill innocent people. People, shocked by the death of the innocent people, become suicide bombers in moments of hatred.
And it continues.
Bingo! Evil on Earth is a consequence of more than just human limitation. Our thoughts are not entirely our own. Evil is a cancer. A small number of bad cells can stimulate explosive growth that eventually kills the body. It can be a meal concocted by individuals with evil in their hearts and unwittingly consumed by the innocent. This is one reason it is so important to make Christ the focus of one's life. There will always be those who are hell bent on destruction, but there is no need to make the path any wider than it already is.
The reason why the rest of the world hates the US is because the US fuels this.
Keep in mind that to arrive at truth often involves analyzing all sides of a story and picking out those bits of information that are valid in each. More often than not, everyone is right -- and everyone is wrong. Scan the media from each country to find out what is being sold to the peoples. Remember also, as you said, actions speak louder than words. In this way you can come to discern the manner in which the ruler of this world works.
You make some very good points here. I've also pondered the question of cultural unification and it's merits and deficiencies. I don't have too much trouble with a society in which the politics and economies are unified. However, I'm not quite sure I believe that unification of culture is a good thing. I suppose therefore, to the extent that politics and economics influence culture, perhaps unification here may also be a negative.
Some aspects of life can best be addressed in a specific manner given human limitations and capabilities. These are things we learn over time through eons of societal development and evolution resulting from analyzing what works and what does not -- and why. The application of this analysis is most appropriate, IMHO, in area of science and perhaps some aspects of politics and economics. However; this applies, to a far lesser extent, to cultural aspects of life. This is one reason, I think, that cultural diversity is important: It serves as an effective incubator for the development of good ideas and cultural variety that is valuable for prosperity and happiness. In addition, people will always have their own thoughts and ideas about food, entertainment, personal values, etc... and these things will inevitably change over time. I think I'd missing out on something if I only had cheeseburgers and fries to look forward to for the rest of my life, or if I never heard Tuvan throat singing...
I think you hit on something important when you say that problems arise when certain people develop the arrogance to believe that their preferences are more worthy than another's and thus attempt to inundate others with them. However, in the case of eco-politics today, I think the main factor influencing the current form of "globalization" is a sort of impersonal desire to "create wealth" which is often done at best in ignorance and probably worse, improperly justified and sold at the expense of others who are also supposed to benefit from this "globalization".
Intentionally or not, all kinds of evils result when one places money ahead of God. In addition, we live in a world where all it takes is a small number of evil people with a large amount of resources to incite a significant number of otherwise decent but "lost" people to return evil with evil. It is not even necessary to prove mal-intent, but only for one to give the disingenuous some amount of ammunition that can be used to portray "the West" as the root of their troubles or evil in general. It is here that I believe we are failing. To this end, history provides humanity a record of failure, but also of rebirth giving way to justice, peace, and prosperity.
...I do have a number of issues with the Catholic Church in general -- most of them having to do with Church policy (edicts) have a great deal of intertwining with political policy.
Fair enough, I occasionally question Church policy myself. For example, I did not always agree that abortion and pornography were evil. While I had little trouble understanding the evil of partial birth abortion, my thoughts were centered on a highly scientific analysis of the point in development where a fetus actually acquired the ability to feel pain. Unfortunately, I realize now, that although this question is in itself logical, it is also extremely limited. It neglects consideration of the potential psychological impact on the mother, and possibly on people involved in the procedure (which I've learned all too often is devastating). In addition, the tolerance of abortion has the effect of desensitizing us to the value of life. Where do we draw the line? I have learned of deceptive practices by abortion providers who are generally driven by the profit motive at the expense of the patient -- and from what I can tell, this describes most of those in the industry. As for pornography, while I may have thought it pleasurable and seemingly innocuous, it tends to promote negative behavior in it's patrons, negative consequences for it's participants, a devaluation of the appreciation and necessity for traditional opposite sex relationships, and leads people further into other forms of more destructive behavior. So my point is that while I may initially disagree with the Church on a particular subject, it has been my experience that this usually is the result of my taking a position based on thought centered on my own knowledge at the time. I have discovered that when I make an effort to really evaluate my positions WRT church teaching and attempt to justify the opposing viewpoint, I expose myself more deeply to the experience of others and the logic of their experiences taking into account a world view which is radically different from the one I grew into. Often times this leads me to conclude that I was wrong to begin with.
There are still some positions the Church holds that I'm not sure I'm willing to accept and I suspect that as time goes on there will be more. For example, and this may seem radical, I don't believe that one can ever justify the taking of life for any reason. This belief I hold based upon my own experience with God and His capability to correct personal error -- even for one whose heart is like stone. My own fallibility in being able to accurately analyze a situation plays into this belief as well. I will admit though, that to accept my position requires a certain degree of faith even for me, and certainly much more for one who has not experienced God personally. Given that, I may yet find myself in error on the issue.
Where we seem to part ways is that you wish to err on the side of conservancy due to the possible "dire consequences". I, on the other had, believe that any system put in place with be both (a) abused and (b) improved over time. No process is static. I firmly believe that while there are possibilities of abuse, the potential good far, far outweighs them....
Yes, you hit on one key aspect of our disagreement: The differences which arises from approaching the problem of benefit vs. loss from different perspectives. We each bring our own personal knowledge and experience into the analysis of weighting factors. However, I want to stress that in addition to potential benefit vs. consequence is the consideration of our ability to correct and contain any harmful consequence. Let me give you a more concrete example that you might find more useful in understanding my opinion. Take the case of genetically engineered corn. Monsanto, a pharmaceutical company in St Louis, has engineered a variety of corn designed to produce a natural pesticide called Bt toxin to protect against various corn eating insects. However, it has been observed that the pollen produced by Bt corn has the unintended side effect of killing Monarch butterfly catapillars. In addition, the corn itself seems to reduce the lifespan and reproductive ability of lacewings and aphids (and incidentally, this seems to me like it may be divine consequence designed to protect us unwise activity). The aphids feed directly on the corn, and the lacewings feed on insects that feed on the corn that serves to counter the original design of the corn! These are only consequences that we can observe. Who knows what effects may occur that we'll only be able to observe later on. Perhaps damage to the soil, or other creatures in the ecosystem that eat these insects. How far into the chain will the consequences be felt? How will we be able to reverse the effects once begun?
Here we are talking about a simple modification to a specific form of plant life. And if you read the links, you probably know how much faith I place in the ability industry to regulate itself, or of human nature to respond to abuse. Being able to respond to this abuse requires first that we know it is taking place. Only then can we marshal against it, which may be difficult depending on the sociopolitical landscape and the nature and prevalence of the abuse. Did you know this corn is being used in this country as I write this? Can you imagine the development of a black market for pristine food sources we once took for granted? My goodness, I shudder to think of what might happen if we start playing with the human genome. This is one reason why I feel strongly that politicians need to get moving on the issue of genetic engineering *now*.
I have more faith that human nature, while quite flawed, generally works out in the end.
I too believe that things will work out in "the end". However, I don't think it will be human nature that saves us.
"Movement at Diplomacy is controlled by written orders, which are exposed and executed simultaneously by the seven players. Each player writes his orders in secret"
Interesting. This reminds me of a Star Trek based board game I played in College many years ago. It was also a turn based combat simulation game where you had a certain number of points to allocate to various ship resources. Forgot what it was called though...
...Yes, responsibility ALWAYS must accompany choice. Where abusers get into trouble is when the have too much of the latter and not enough of the former.
Certainly, I agree.
...Following your argument we should all avoid medical treatment altogether. After all, isn't that the "natural" way? Now I hope you see the folly of such an argument.
Let me explain further:
When I talk of things naturally intended, I don't mean to imply that medicine should not be practiced. I think history teaches us that there is much good to be gained from the responsible practice of medicine. Medicine and genetic screening and/or modification are completely different in the sense that treating diseases rarely has an adverse impact on the individual or society as a whole. There is a big difference between setting a broken arm and choosing to exclude the possibility of alzheimers through genetic screening.
The fact of the matter is that we are only able to identify a very small number of markers for a very small subset of human conditions. We just don't know what the impacts of even selective screening will be upon both the individual and society as a whole. Consider that by choosing to screen out the possibility of alzheimers, we unintentionally end up screening out other positive traits that would be beneficial both to the individual and for society as a whole. Beyond this, who is to say that the one to be born with any specific affliction will not be able to overcome or even be driven by their affliction to do great things, to enjoy life more fully? Where one sees a glass half empty, another sees the same glass half full.
You don't outlaw the process, you instead educate, cajole, and influence the abuser until they either (a) stop abusing it or (b) become a niche minority that you simply must accept.
Well, there are some abuses that simply should not be tolerated at all because of the direness of the consequences. We need to identify these classes of abuse and do everything we can to prevent and discourage them. For the moment, I think it best to err on the side of conservancy when dealing with science as powerful and consequential as genetics. Remember, I never said we should outlaw the practice of pre-conception screening all together, but its application should be extremely limited. I think the best mid to long term solutions will result from serious debates on the subject by religious, scientific, and governmental bodies.
...The builders of the tower wanted to elevate themselves above God. That is not the goal of genetic screening......We have had an ability to improve ourselves through genetic selection since the beginning of the race by choosing our mate. Now we have developed that SAME ability to a much more precise point.
I hope you understand now where I am coming from. There are a couple of analogies in the story that I believe are relevant to our discussion. Reaching the top of the tower symbolizes the natural desire of mankind to wish to be like God. However, there is great folly in this idea in the first place because it's reasonable to assume that man could not exist at the top of such a high tower anyway. Assuming God could be grasped from the stars, we would run out of atmosphere trying. The analogy being that our own wisdom and capability for understanding is limited. We may think that we can identify a particular gene that causes this or that, but we may never be able to accurately model human development to the point of knowing how to accurately modify much less create. We know of genes and proteins, and perhaps more, but how do they all interact to create, grow and sustain life? We have a hard enough time with our weather which is just one aspect of our environment, and I'm willing to bet that the human body is just as complex a system as our environment, if not more so. Another analogy; God destroyed the tower to prevent the people from doing something fruitless and potentially harmful. The degree of His power was manifest in those involved in the construction and reveals how effective God can be. This gives believers confidence that God will rescue His people from the folly of poor decisions. So if I am right I shouldn't worry too much because I know that God will not long tolerate the practice of eugenics. If I am wrong, then I don't have to worry about it.
Why then should I be concerned about weather I am right or wrong? Well, free will gives us the option of screwing up, and going against God's plan for us is sin, and sin always has negative consequence. How do I know if I am right or wrong? I pray on the matter and ask for wisdom. I also review the Church's positions since there should be no other body more reliable for representing God's will for us than the Church, and I believe history proves this to be true.
Debate on this topic is critical now because the pace of scientific developments geared towards effecting change in our genetic makeup is rapidly outpacing our ability to comprehend the ramifications. Eugenics is a relatively new topic in the Church and I strongly suggest you read up on some of the Church's positions and relevant Papal encyclicals (be aware that this is challenging reading). Someone else in this thread posted the link to Evangelium Vitae, here is another you may find informative.
...If God didn't want us tinkering with ourselves, why does he allow us to do so? I'd also love for someone to find some good biblical references that say we shouldn't be doing this.
And, yes, I've seen Gattaca. I know what the consequences of genetic "super babies" might be, but that's just it -- what it MIGHT be. Here's a solution: if you want it, you should be able to have it. If you don't, don't. Your choice. That is what freedom is about, after all? Choice?
God doesn't want us to kill people but he allows that to happen, doesn't mean it's right. We all have a free will that we can excercise in accordance with the manner that Christ taught us, or not. But we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions, and when I say "we" I mean it in a collective sense. Your decision and the decisions of others to screen out particular defects in children they have will have lasting ramifications upon society as a whole due to the absence of life characteristics naturally intended -- and I don't necessarily mean disease. Only in the most serious cases of disease where life would be short, over burdensome, and/or painful could I see justification for genetic screening prior to conception, and I don't think that the case of your grandparents qualifies. We all die of something, and alzheimers may actually be a decent way to go. Where one sees the glass half empty, another sees the glass half full.
So there is a certain degree of responsibility inherent with the freedom of choice. This responsibility extends not only to the unborn and family, but also to society as a whole. You have to factor God into the equation. If you want a biblical reference, how about the Tower of Babel? If you want something more specific to the issue of genetic screening, you won't find it in the bible. However, the topic has been, and continues to be addressed by the Church.
The Article in the Washington Post states that eggs were screened. However, the JAMA article says that it was embryos. Hmm, any takers on which source is more reliable? There is a huge difference.
I can't help but think that PGD is just bad science. Is PGD by definition, embryonic screening? Even if we could screen eggs alone, is the process itself safe for the subject egg were to be chosen for fertilization? What about the sociological impact of selective conception?
It seems to me that scientists in general are disconnected from the moral implications of the work that they do. Perhaps this is a result of the amount of time and effort required to understand extremely complex systems. The resulting affect being to strengthen ones own opinions on a matter at the exclusion of others. Little time is there for consideration of factors that are unrealized, or perhaps even unknowable within the limitations of human comprehension. This is why it's extremely important to involve others in the debate -- religious and societal sources having no small part. Unfortunately when this fails, we all have to live with the consequences, some of which can be catastrophic.
It's all too easy and simplistic to say "If we change this gene, we can prevent such and such from happening" or "We can live without this particular human characteristic or disease". But the fact of the matter is that even if we could say this with some degree of certainty, there remain unanswered questions on the implications of doing so. Even if we were just screening eggs, the consequences could have grave sociological impacts. In the case mentioned, we might unintentionally end up creating sociological imbalance in personality, physique, sex, intellect, temperament, etc...
One might well argue that the sociological impact arising from pre-conception screening would be small if such screens resulted in the prevention of a very small number of very serious diseases. Perhaps this would be valid, and something we as a society could handle given the potential benefit for the pre-conceived. However, what concerns me is that such screening could be abused, especially in the highly insular medical and scientific bodies of today. I think we need some serious analysis, debate, and importantly, legislation on this issues like this ASAP to prevent abuses from taking place.
...CO2 does not create acid rain or air pollution...
OK, as pollutants go, it appears CO2 itself does not cause acid rain or many other significant problems. However, CO2 is just one of several industrial pollutants. Many of these pollutants have been shown to cause acid rain, and air quality problems.
The problem with this principal is that in an uncertain, complex system, your actions to mitigate harm may themselves cause harm......For example, if in fact the costs of CO2 mitigation are high, they may lead to significant damage to third world economies......The correct thing to do is do a cost benefit analysis (a phrase detested by environmentalists), and to account for these uncertainties.
As other posters have pointed out, an accurate and thus useful cost benefit analysis on such a complex system as our environment would be exceedingly difficult to arrive at. I think there is a point where over reliance on analysis can blind one to common sense. We already know that CO2 is harmful to the environment due to it's role in creating acid rain, air pollution, global warming, etc... Do we need to actually put numbers on the problem before we take steps to mitigate it? I'm not advocating the elimination of technology, I'm saying that we need to recognize that technology has a big impact on our environment; therefore, we need to seriously evaluate and promote alternative technologies in order to keep our environment from further deterioration.
...but I have had some personal experiences lately that have struck me as odd.
Can you explain, or at least give me some idea as to what you experienced?
I do that that in the future, the major religions will fail, especially Christianity. Today's generation is much less religious that the previous, and I think this trend will continue.
Well, I don't think the Lord will allow it to continue much further. Hopefully, we'll realize that we can't do much in the world without His help, and adjust our behavior accordingly before we find ourselves in a huge mess.
Yet, I think something will surface as a "catch all" religion for people who would simply be Atheists otherwise. Maybe this religion will be built on things that we can observe, but not explain.
You mean like mysticism? You'd probably never be able to form a "catch all" religion involving a consensus of opinions from any significant number of people on any of a variety of unexplainable topics. That's part of the beauty of Christianity. If you think about it, It's a miracle in itself that so many people are able to agree about so much of religion. You could say that people simply accept it because that is what they are taught when they are young, but I think this view to be very limited. How many Christians leave the faith and eventually come back to it? How many Scientologists leave their faith and come back to it [well, I mean willingly anyway;)]? I think there is a lot to be said for the durability of Christianity throughout its history. If it dies in one culture, it will flourish in another and that culture too will flourish, and I don't believe this is by chance.
Have people misused and misquoted the Bible and done horrible things? Absolutely. Particularly the Catholic Church, which is held by many evangelicals to not be representative of Christianity. After all, the Catholics during the Inquisition killed untold numbers of evangelical Christians. They slaughtered the monks in Britain to force them into alignment with Rome.
I've heard a Catholic Priest say that any critisism of the Catholic Church comes straight from hell. However, I've also heard it said that one should not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance. I will assume the latter is the most appropriate initial response.
That said, I will admit that my knowledge about the details of what went on WRT the inquisition is extremely limited. However, I will say this: be it true that the Church did err, which I think is probably the case, after all the Pope has issued statements on the matter, perhaps this was of God's design, the purpose being to teach us that we are in fact all human and subject to error. Nobody single person or specific group of people holds the key to complete knowledge and truth, but we all hold a piece. This should serve to highlight the great need for people to engage in dialog and remain engaged when differnces arise.
Here I will repeat that which I have addressed in other discussions: Just because someone is proven wrong about any particular point, doesn't mean that one should discredit everthting else that person says. This is the danger that arises when you criticize, you elicit negative emotions which can be destructive and so you must be very carefull and do so with a specific goal in mind making it clear to the other party why you have levied your critisism.
I sincerely believe that the Catholic Church remains and probably will remain the best guide to truth because of the unique nature of it's ties to God through Christ. How many other other religions can hold a candle to Catholisism in soundness and unity of doctrine? In the character of it's role models?
About 85% of the US population is Christian. If I recall correctly, this is about the same as it was 30 years ago. I would venture to say that most Christians probably are born and die as Christians. Many very intelligent and very wise people are/were Christians. Do you think that you know something that they do/did not? Just because a person does not understand something does not mean it isn't true.
What do you suppose the degree of correllation is between the idealogies of people who are non-Christian is as opposed to those who are Christian? Don't you think that if a particular ideal is found not to bear in truth, that it would be discarded by those who hold it?
I suppose that if I were to approach religious belief from a purely macro and logical perspective, I would choose my religion based on the level of prosperity enjoyed by the cultures that adopted it. I wonder what religion would historically best pass this test?
Faith and science, or more appropriately, faith and reason are both required to come to a true understanding of God.
From yours truely:)...There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God...
Faith without reason is weak and subject to manipulation. Reason without faith is like trying to drive from Maine to California without a map. You might get there, but your chances are slim.
I believe in evolution. I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts. I really do hold that both beliefs can coexist in harmony.
Bingo! You nailed it! The devil loves to divide people and get them to focus on their differences. When proponents of truth (whether they understand it or not) are proven wrong on a specific point, by all means, lets throw out the bathwater and the baby!! There is no reason at all for evolution and creationism to be at odds.
When I was a small boy in Catholic school, my Sisters taught me about our environment, the delicate interaction of creatures and forces in the environment, the food chain, and about the responsibility of mankind to care for nature. Evolution occurs most noticeably as a result of human intervention in the world. However, it's also possible that God has created a mechanism within creatures such that under some certain conditions, species on our planet might evolve capabilities that would enhance or detract from their ability to survive.
My own personnal opinion on the matter is that there remain many unanswered questions. Even if we discovered exactly the mechanisms by which we are formed into our likeness, we may never be able to determine by logic alone whether we were created or not. Which came first, the chicken or egg?
Initially, my own belief that we were created came from an intellectual analysis of the probabilities of life and nature taking form in the way it has as opposed to any other way in which we might be able to imagine it might have. In addition, it's amazing to realize that everything in nature works in accordance with everything else. Given the complexity of creation, I could not explain this through any other means than it must have been designed to be so. What does one suppose the most logical explanation is for the nearly perfect geometric representations of patterns on the petals of some flowers, wings of insects, scales of fish, blah blah blah...?
Although Einstein did not believe in a personnal God like the major religions hold to, he did acknowledge that the laws of the universe were such that they must have their origin in an intelligence vastly superior to our own! I wish I could have known Einstein to find out why he didn't believe in such a God, but I suspect that he may have been turned off by something he did not like or completely understand; perhaps practices or positions held by people he knew or saw that claimed to represent God but were as unknowledgeable or fallible on the subject as he was, as most all of us are.
Sorry, this post isn't loaded with facts, sometimes I just get a little depressed and have to rant.
Well your not alone. At the start of the year the Pope had this to say about Western society:
"9. The radicalization of identity which makes cultures resistant to any beneficial influence from outside is worrying enough; but no less perilous is the slavish conformity of cultures, or at least of key aspects of them, to cultural models deriving from the Western world. Detached from their Christians origins, these models are often inspired by an approach to life marked by secularism and practical atheism and by patterns of radical individualism. This is a phenomenon of vast proportions, sustained by powerful media campaigns and designed to propagate lifestyles, social and economic programmes and, in the last analysis, a comprehensive world-view which erodes from within other estimable cultures and civilizations. Western cultural models are enticing and alluring because of their remarkable scientific and technical cast, but regrettably there is growing evidence of their deepening human, spiritual and moral impoverishment. The culture which produces such models is marked by the fatal attempt to secure the good of humanity by eliminating God, the Supreme Good. Yet, as the Second Vatican Council warned, "without the Creator the creature comes to nothing!"(7) A culture which no longer has a point of reference in God loses its soul and loses its way, becoming a culture of death. This was amply demonstrated by the tragic events of the twentieth century and is now apparent in the nihilism present in some prominent circles in the Western world."
I suspect he was referring to the US and various European countries. The devil may win a few battles, but evil by its nature is destined to fail...
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I'm playing Monday morning quarterback here, but those previous failures are something we probably could have figured would happen anyway. In this case I'll liken the scientist/biologist/corporate researcher/whatever to a child who gets a new game and before completing the instructions, jumps into play only to find out they are missing something. Not smart, and in this case I question the motives and character of those who do these things. BTW, I doubt God ever told anyone science was bad and I never said anything to support that.
As for your comments on caution based on previous failures (which in this case there is ample evidence of in animal cloning), I completely agree, and this is why I feel this work is so detrimental. Cloning a human is unlike heart surgery in many ways. What is the purpose? What are the risks? I can think of no good reason to clone a person and plenty of good reasons not to.
Oversimplifications, invalid comparisons, invalid assumptions about religious people, self-centeredness, and dead wrong on a couple points; 5, Insightful?
Those who try to argue for cloning based on technical merit have already lost the battle, so why not focus the attack on the moral and ethical front with comments that on the surface might make sense to a moron, but break the surface and the absurdity becomes apparent.
Cloning attempts to make use of technology far more complex and powerful than classical physics or traditional medicine. Nobody has even successfully cloned an animal yet, and my definition of success is no adverse physical or mental side effects. How would you like to be the one who is a clone? I bet you'd change your tune pretty quickly if you knew what you were getting into. How quickly we forget of our origins. I could draw several religious paralleles but you would not understand them.
The fact of the matter is that even if cloning were technically acceptable (which for a reasonably intelligent person might not be the case for generations to come), the moral and ethical implications are grave enough to justify outlawing it altogether. Here I am talking about full cloning, as is the case with the subject article. I don't know enough about cloning body parts to make a judgment call on that but I'll follow the Church simply because they have a better track record than any other group or individual I know, and there has to be a good reason for it.
Personally I feel sorry for those who involved in cloning humans because I know that there will come the day when they are shown the folly of their decisions and it will torment their souls just as it has to those involved in performing abortions, and woe be to them if they harden their hearts. The fact that this is being allowed to happen in our country says something about the leadership of this nation as well. I pray that we adopt good sense quickly in this matter before many suffer needlessly.
An important question to ask is: Would you be willing to undergo the necessary risks and restrictions given that you knew the state of the technology and possible consequences? In the case of the "bubble boy", they decided it was. However, as one of the doctors pointed out, they really can't say they have cured the boy until many years have passed.
Honestly I'm not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision as this boy's parents if it were my child that was afflicted. However, there should be recognition of responsibility towards society at large regarding the possible consequences. I'm assuming this would mean some sort of isolation but I would need to know a lot more about the technology than I do now to determine the details.
Can you consider this "playing God"? I don't know, perhaps motive is involved in that respect, but I suspect time will tell.
http://www.psrast.org/insects.htm
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0899issue/0899techbus1.
Bingo! Evil on Earth is a consequence of more than just human limitation. Our thoughts are not entirely our own. Evil is a cancer. A small number of bad cells can stimulate explosive growth that eventually kills the body. It can be a meal concocted by individuals with evil in their hearts and unwittingly consumed by the innocent. This is one reason it is so important to make Christ the focus of one's life. There will always be those who are hell bent on destruction, but there is no need to make the path any wider than it already is.
Keep in mind that to arrive at truth often involves analyzing all sides of a story and picking out those bits of information that are valid in each. More often than not, everyone is right -- and everyone is wrong. Scan the media from each country to find out what is being sold to the peoples. Remember also, as you said, actions speak louder than words. In this way you can come to discern the manner in which the ruler of this world works.
You make some very good points here. I've also pondered the question of cultural unification and it's merits and deficiencies. I don't have too much trouble with a society in which the politics and economies are unified. However, I'm not quite sure I believe that unification of culture is a good thing. I suppose therefore, to the extent that politics and economics influence culture, perhaps unification here may also be a negative.
Some aspects of life can best be addressed in a specific manner given human limitations and capabilities. These are things we learn over time through eons of societal development and evolution resulting from analyzing what works and what does not -- and why. The application of this analysis is most appropriate, IMHO, in area of science and perhaps some aspects of politics and economics. However; this applies, to a far lesser extent, to cultural aspects of life. This is one reason, I think, that cultural diversity is important: It serves as an effective incubator for the development of good ideas and cultural variety that is valuable for prosperity and happiness. In addition, people will always have their own thoughts and ideas about food, entertainment, personal values, etc... and these things will inevitably change over time. I think I'd missing out on something if I only had cheeseburgers and fries to look forward to for the rest of my life, or if I never heard Tuvan throat singing...
I think you hit on something important when you say that problems arise when certain people develop the arrogance to believe that their preferences are more worthy than another's and thus attempt to inundate others with them. However, in the case of eco-politics today, I think the main factor influencing the current form of "globalization" is a sort of impersonal desire to "create wealth" which is often done at best in ignorance and probably worse, improperly justified and sold at the expense of others who are also supposed to benefit from this "globalization".
Intentionally or not, all kinds of evils result when one places money ahead of God. In addition, we live in a world where all it takes is a small number of evil people with a large amount of resources to incite a significant number of otherwise decent but "lost" people to return evil with evil. It is not even necessary to prove mal-intent, but only for one to give the disingenuous some amount of ammunition that can be used to portray "the West" as the root of their troubles or evil in general. It is here that I believe we are failing. To this end, history provides humanity a record of failure, but also of rebirth giving way to justice, peace, and prosperity.
There are still some positions the Church holds that I'm not sure I'm willing to accept and I suspect that as time goes on there will be more. For example, and this may seem radical, I don't believe that one can ever justify the taking of life for any reason. This belief I hold based upon my own experience with God and His capability to correct personal error -- even for one whose heart is like stone. My own fallibility in being able to accurately analyze a situation plays into this belief as well. I will admit though, that to accept my position requires a certain degree of faith even for me, and certainly much more for one who has not experienced God personally. Given that, I may yet find myself in error on the issue.
Yes, you hit on one key aspect of our disagreement: The differences which arises from approaching the problem of benefit vs. loss from different perspectives. We each bring our own personal knowledge and experience into the analysis of weighting factors. However, I want to stress that in addition to potential benefit vs. consequence is the consideration of our ability to correct and contain any harmful consequence. Let me give you a more concrete example that you might find more useful in understanding my opinion. Take the case of genetically engineered corn. Monsanto, a pharmaceutical company in St Louis, has engineered a variety of corn designed to produce a natural pesticide called Bt toxin to protect against various corn eating insects. However, it has been observed that the pollen produced by Bt corn has the unintended side effect of killing Monarch butterfly catapillars. In addition, the corn itself seems to reduce the lifespan and reproductive ability of lacewings and aphids (and incidentally, this seems to me like it may be divine consequence designed to protect us unwise activity). The aphids feed directly on the corn, and the lacewings feed on insects that feed on the corn that serves to counter the original design of the corn! These are only consequences that we can observe. Who knows what effects may occur that we'll only be able to observe later on. Perhaps damage to the soil, or other creatures in the ecosystem that eat these insects. How far into the chain will the consequences be felt? How will we be able to reverse the effects once begun?
Here we are talking about a simple modification to a specific form of plant life. And if you read the links, you probably know how much faith I place in the ability industry to regulate itself, or of human nature to respond to abuse. Being able to respond to this abuse requires first that we know it is taking place. Only then can we marshal against it, which may be difficult depending on the sociopolitical landscape and the nature and prevalence of the abuse. Did you know this corn is being used in this country as I write this? Can you imagine the development of a black market for pristine food sources we once took for granted? My goodness, I shudder to think of what might happen if we start playing with the human genome. This is one reason why I feel strongly that politicians need to get moving on the issue of genetic engineering *now*.
I too believe that things will work out in "the end". However, I don't think it will be human nature that saves us.
Yeah yeah, but I bet they couldn't predict that the Patriots would win the Superbowl!
Let me explain further: When I talk of things naturally intended, I don't mean to imply that medicine should not be practiced. I think history teaches us that there is much good to be gained from the responsible practice of medicine. Medicine and genetic screening and/or modification are completely different in the sense that treating diseases rarely has an adverse impact on the individual or society as a whole. There is a big difference between setting a broken arm and choosing to exclude the possibility of alzheimers through genetic screening.
The fact of the matter is that we are only able to identify a very small number of markers for a very small subset of human conditions. We just don't know what the impacts of even selective screening will be upon both the individual and society as a whole. Consider that by choosing to screen out the possibility of alzheimers, we unintentionally end up screening out other positive traits that would be beneficial both to the individual and for society as a whole. Beyond this, who is to say that the one to be born with any specific affliction will not be able to overcome or even be driven by their affliction to do great things, to enjoy life more fully? Where one sees a glass half empty, another sees the same glass half full.
Well, there are some abuses that simply should not be tolerated at all because of the direness of the consequences. We need to identify these classes of abuse and do everything we can to prevent and discourage them. For the moment, I think it best to err on the side of conservancy when dealing with science as powerful and consequential as genetics. Remember, I never said we should outlaw the practice of pre-conception screening all together, but its application should be extremely limited. I think the best mid to long term solutions will result from serious debates on the subject by religious, scientific, and governmental bodies.
I hope you understand now where I am coming from. There are a couple of analogies in the story that I believe are relevant to our discussion. Reaching the top of the tower symbolizes the natural desire of mankind to wish to be like God. However, there is great folly in this idea in the first place because it's reasonable to assume that man could not exist at the top of such a high tower anyway. Assuming God could be grasped from the stars, we would run out of atmosphere trying. The analogy being that our own wisdom and capability for understanding is limited. We may think that we can identify a particular gene that causes this or that, but we may never be able to accurately model human development to the point of knowing how to accurately modify much less create. We know of genes and proteins, and perhaps more, but how do they all interact to create, grow and sustain life? We have a hard enough time with our weather which is just one aspect of our environment, and I'm willing to bet that the human body is just as complex a system as our environment, if not more so. Another analogy; God destroyed the tower to prevent the people from doing something fruitless and potentially harmful. The degree of His power was manifest in those involved in the construction and reveals how effective God can be. This gives believers confidence that God will rescue His people from the folly of poor decisions. So if I am right I shouldn't worry too much because I know that God will not long tolerate the practice of eugenics. If I am wrong, then I don't have to worry about it.
Why then should I be concerned about weather I am right or wrong? Well, free will gives us the option of screwing up, and going against God's plan for us is sin, and sin always has negative consequence. How do I know if I am right or wrong? I pray on the matter and ask for wisdom. I also review the Church's positions since there should be no other body more reliable for representing God's will for us than the Church, and I believe history proves this to be true. Debate on this topic is critical now because the pace of scientific developments geared towards effecting change in our genetic makeup is rapidly outpacing our ability to comprehend the ramifications. Eugenics is a relatively new topic in the Church and I strongly suggest you read up on some of the Church's positions and relevant Papal encyclicals (be aware that this is challenging reading). Someone else in this thread posted the link to Evangelium Vitae, here is another you may find informative.
So there is a certain degree of responsibility inherent with the freedom of choice. This responsibility extends not only to the unborn and family, but also to society as a whole. You have to factor God into the equation. If you want a biblical reference, how about the Tower of Babel? If you want something more specific to the issue of genetic screening, you won't find it in the bible. However, the topic has been, and continues to be addressed by the Church.
The Article in the Washington Post states that eggs were screened. However, the JAMA article says that it was embryos. Hmm, any takers on which source is more reliable? There is a huge difference.
I can't help but think that PGD is just bad science. Is PGD by definition, embryonic screening? Even if we could screen eggs alone, is the process itself safe for the subject egg were to be chosen for fertilization? What about the sociological impact of selective conception? It seems to me that scientists in general are disconnected from the moral implications of the work that they do. Perhaps this is a result of the amount of time and effort required to understand extremely complex systems. The resulting affect being to strengthen ones own opinions on a matter at the exclusion of others. Little time is there for consideration of factors that are unrealized, or perhaps even unknowable within the limitations of human comprehension. This is why it's extremely important to involve others in the debate -- religious and societal sources having no small part. Unfortunately when this fails, we all have to live with the consequences, some of which can be catastrophic.
It's all too easy and simplistic to say "If we change this gene, we can prevent such and such from happening" or "We can live without this particular human characteristic or disease". But the fact of the matter is that even if we could say this with some degree of certainty, there remain unanswered questions on the implications of doing so. Even if we were just screening eggs, the consequences could have grave sociological impacts. In the case mentioned, we might unintentionally end up creating sociological imbalance in personality, physique, sex, intellect, temperament, etc...
One might well argue that the sociological impact arising from pre-conception screening would be small if such screens resulted in the prevention of a very small number of very serious diseases. Perhaps this would be valid, and something we as a society could handle given the potential benefit for the pre-conceived. However, what concerns me is that such screening could be abused, especially in the highly insular medical and scientific bodies of today. I think we need some serious analysis, debate, and importantly, legislation on this issues like this ASAP to prevent abuses from taking place.
You mean like mysticism? You'd probably never be able to form a "catch all" religion involving a consensus of opinions from any significant number of people on any of a variety of unexplainable topics. That's part of the beauty of Christianity. If you think about it, It's a miracle in itself that so many people are able to agree about so much of religion. You could say that people simply accept it because that is what they are taught when they are young, but I think this view to be very limited. How many Christians leave the faith and eventually come back to it? How many Scientologists leave their faith and come back to it [well, I mean willingly anyway
express pi as a fraction
Hmm, I tend to eat them whole, so this would be a problem.
increase mass
Not a problem, see above answer.
determine simultaneously location and speed of a particle
I've met police that are extremely good at doing this.
travel faster than light
See above answer.
solve the Turing machine halting problem
I can't afford one, so the problem does not exist.
I'm sorry but you've given me nothing by which I can understand your critisism.
Here I will repeat that which I have addressed in other discussions: Just because someone is proven wrong about any particular point, doesn't mean that one should discredit everthting else that person says. This is the danger that arises when you criticize, you elicit negative emotions which can be destructive and so you must be very carefull and do so with a specific goal in mind making it clear to the other party why you have levied your critisism.
I sincerely believe that the Catholic Church remains and probably will remain the best guide to truth because of the unique nature of it's ties to God through Christ. How many other other religions can hold a candle to Catholisism in soundness and unity of doctrine? In the character of it's role models?
About 85% of the US population is Christian. If I recall correctly, this is about the same as it was 30 years ago. I would venture to say that most Christians probably are born and die as Christians. Many very intelligent and very wise people are/were Christians. Do you think that you know something that they do/did not? Just because a person does not understand something does not mean it isn't true.
What do you suppose the degree of correllation is between the idealogies of people who are non-Christian is as opposed to those who are Christian? Don't you think that if a particular ideal is found not to bear in truth, that it would be discarded by those who hold it?
I suppose that if I were to approach religious belief from a purely macro and logical perspective, I would choose my religion based on the level of prosperity enjoyed by the cultures that adopted it. I wonder what religion would historically best pass this test?
Faith and science, or more appropriately, faith and reason are both required to come to a true understanding of God.
:) ...There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God...
From yours truely
Faith without reason is weak and subject to manipulation. Reason without faith is like trying to drive from Maine to California without a map. You might get there, but your chances are slim.
Bingo! You nailed it! The devil loves to divide people and get them to focus on their differences. When proponents of truth (whether they understand it or not) are proven wrong on a specific point, by all means, lets throw out the bathwater and the baby!! There is no reason at all for evolution and creationism to be at odds.
When I was a small boy in Catholic school, my Sisters taught me about our environment, the delicate interaction of creatures and forces in the environment, the food chain, and about the responsibility of mankind to care for nature. Evolution occurs most noticeably as a result of human intervention in the world. However, it's also possible that God has created a mechanism within creatures such that under some certain conditions, species on our planet might evolve capabilities that would enhance or detract from their ability to survive.
My own personnal opinion on the matter is that there remain many unanswered questions. Even if we discovered exactly the mechanisms by which we are formed into our likeness, we may never be able to determine by logic alone whether we were created or not. Which came first, the chicken or egg?
Initially, my own belief that we were created came from an intellectual analysis of the probabilities of life and nature taking form in the way it has as opposed to any other way in which we might be able to imagine it might have. In addition, it's amazing to realize that everything in nature works in accordance with everything else. Given the complexity of creation, I could not explain this through any other means than it must have been designed to be so. What does one suppose the most logical explanation is for the nearly perfect geometric representations of patterns on the petals of some flowers, wings of insects, scales of fish, blah blah blah...?
Although Einstein did not believe in a personnal God like the major religions hold to, he did acknowledge that the laws of the universe were such that they must have their origin in an intelligence vastly superior to our own! I wish I could have known Einstein to find out why he didn't believe in such a God, but I suspect that he may have been turned off by something he did not like or completely understand; perhaps practices or positions held by people he knew or saw that claimed to represent God but were as unknowledgeable or fallible on the subject as he was, as most all of us are.
Cheers!
Well your not alone. At the start of the year the Pope had this to say about Western society:
I suspect he was referring to the US and various European countries. The devil may win a few battles, but evil by its nature is destined to fail...