AFAIK, ancient Judaism doesn't have any form of afterlife, and many versions of judaism still don't. I read a long time ago that a native american belief system held that a soul had to descend through 7 tortous levels of hell before finally finding oblivion in true death (sorry, don't remember the name, thats lame, I know.) I don't know a whole lot about religion, but these are two examples of religions that don't revolve around any kind of immortality.
How is criticizing LRH not legitimate. While I don't pretend to understand the subtleties of scientology (if they exist at all), but as I understand it, scientology does rely on the validity of LRH's personal revelation, a revelation which is inherently difficult to independently verify. In light of this, if LRH does have a history of lying, or of being a con-man, how can we possibly believe any revelation from him, particularly when those claims are as fantastic as the story of Xenu.
Incidentally, to put my thinking up front, I do not approve of scientology, butI would not call an average follower of it "evil" (though I might call them expensively, or even tragically, superstitious.)
Wow. Your post is pretty rude. Well, my PhD is in physics, not biology, but I think I have some understanding of DNA. And, believe it or not, you and your sibling do share quite a bit of DNA. They can be related through the study of something called "statistics." For example, according to NPR, it happens all the time that DNA samples from crime scenes match those of people in prison closely enough to let the police know that the crime was committed by a close relative of the person in prison. Whether this match is reported to the police is a policy that, amazingly, in at least some cases is determined by the person doing the DNA comparison at the prison.
As I understand it, they keep actual samples to allow future testing after technology has improved. This means that in 30 years, we could imagine a scenario where insurance companies deny your grandchildren coverage because of your genetic makeup. Or, less realistically, the government could decide that some set of genes were bad- for example, caused a tendency for violence- and they would have the tools ready to round people up and arrest them. I can't imagine the government doing this, but the 20th century taught us we always have to be vigilent againt totalitarian regimes developing.
Finally- remember that you don't have to be arrested for them to get your DNA. You may be a model citizen, but have a family member who, eg, because he is at an anti-war rally, gets arrested and gets his DNA taken, and then the government essentially has your DNA too.
In basic research (unlike, I suppose, in more applied research when one is trying to make some invention work on a practical scale), simply neglecting to publish, or encouraging the publishing of, a certain set of results can bias and invalidate those results, regardless of whether individually data is falsified. (A classic example of accidentally biasing your results is trying to measure the mass of something. Mathematically mass will always be positive. But if you assume that any results that find a negative mass are invalid, then on average, you will ALWAYS measure some non-zero mass- even if the mass of whatever you are tring to measure is 0.) If oil companies do research, but only publish the results they like, then they are really supporting propoganda, not research. The only purpose behind research can be the search from truth, regardless of whether you like the answer.
What set off red flags for me is that this money seems to have been offered for particular results, not further study. I'm not familiar with the sources you claim want to show that global warming is happening and is our fault(I am not an expert on this), but if they only publish the results they like, then I wouldn't trust them, either.
I certainly agree with you that Einstein was speaking towards the uncertainty principle. But I think it must also have been a philosophical statement because when Einstein made the statement, nobody knew that it would be able to be adressed in a fairly satisfactory way by experiment (Bell's theorem wasn't published until nearly half a century later.) Also, Einstein was very concerned with the philosophical nature of physics. He referred to the theoretical physicists as a kind of metaphysician who expressed his or her opinions in mathematics, and himself believe in Spinoza's pantheistic God, at least for part of his life. (Do a search on his wikipedia entry for "Spinoza"; I have read this other places as well.) So I do think Einstein was making a statement about God, if we allow the use of the term God in a larger sense than simply meaning an anthropomorphic, personal, all-powerful being.
We don't have to find where to draw the line. We just have to verify which side of it embryos used for stem cell research are on. My personal bias/belief is that we are more than a collection of cells- the behavior we exhibit is much richer than that. So I claim that if it only really makes sense scientifically to understand your behavior as the interaction of cells (versus tissues and organs and individuals in society, etc) then you certainly can't be a person. Then we don't have to carve up the mentally handicapped, but we don't have to join hands and sing songs with amoebas and bacteria, either. I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that we find it perfectly acceptable to understand the behavior of a week old embryo in a petri dish as only a collection of cells. This covers an embryo that would be used for stem cell research, I think, and puts them firmly in the "not a person" category.
I clicked submit too early...
I think your argument may be relevant to the question of how natural selection should motivate metaphysics and religion- we will have to see how the origin of life is explained. But it cannot change the fact that there is very good evidence that natural selection is a good model for understanding the origin of the species, and that while the sort of argument you are making can be good for asking new questions in science, it is very dangerous to actually draw conclusions from it.
Also, one last thing, this isn't terribly relevant, but the claim in physics right now is that the universe has more or less behaved fundamentally differently throughout its history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_ene rgy
Well, first, I don't think you are accurately portraying the problem that classical EM had with the atom. We essentially did have pictures of the electron as a small object orbiting a much larger nucleus. Thomson showed us that the electron was negative. Millikan showed us that the electron was small. Rutherford showed us that the nucleus was dense and positively charged. And the atom had to be neutral. So we pretty much did have a picture of a small electron orbiting a larger nucleus.
I think, though, that I must not have done a good enough job at what the similarities between the two theories were. My point is that there is good evidence that natural selection adds a lot to our understanding of the history of the differentiation of the species. Logical arguments about whether this causes problems for understanding the origin of life (whatever life is, exactly) cannot change that anymore than the logical problems with extrapolating Maxwell to the very small could change the fact that over certain scales of size, there was very good evidence for classical EM. I should also point out that people such as Einstein proposed alternate models for for very small things such as atoms. Nobody disagreed that Maxwell was more or less right on the macroscopic scale.
We could imagine that, for example, the origin of life is a singular event, so unlikely that the most science can ever do to explain it is to say that it is a statistical anomaly. Scientists say this about strange events in experiments all the time. As I said, I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how likely this is to happen. Certainly it would be very disappointing if we couldn't say anything more interesting about the origin of life. But none of this affects the validity of using natural selection to explain the differentiation of the species.
Now some people think the concept of natural selection says something interesting about metaphysics. The claim seems to amount to something like if the miracle of life must be explained by the existence of God, and natural selection is in some sense responsible for life, the natural selection must be God. Natural selection seems to imply that the differentiation of the species is not simply contingent, but is also accidental, so we should take this as motivation that the entire universe is accidental. (Or something like that.)
There is strong physical evidence that natural selection provides a coherent and consistent picture of how the rise of the species. And it does have explanatory power- it tells us that we can consider whatever causes mutations, and the survival value of those mutations, separately. So it is a good scientific theory. Now I'm not a biologist, and don't know how well people understand the potential beginnings of life. I'm not particularly convinced by your argument, but I can't immediately come up with a counter argument either. But I'm no expert. I will say, thought, that I could make an analogous argument about electrodynamics in physics. I could claim that Maxwell's 4 equations are blatantly absurd because they can't explain how a simply hydrogen atom (or any other kind of atom) is held together- the prediction from 19th century physics is that in a the electron should fall into the proton. (I might even say that since we must test electrodynamics with things made of atoms, electrodynamics has no explanatory power because it simply pushes the wild unexplained things into the very small, though this might be taking the analogy too far.) But electrodynamics did not turn out to be wrong. It is pretty much exactly right for large things, and just required some modifications for small things. (The modifications were radical, but not in a way that jettisoned earlier knowledge, exactly.) This isn't surprising. Classical electrodynamics had to be more or less right for large things- there was strong physical evidence for it. Logical extrapolations into phenomena it wasn't developed to explain weren't going to change that. Natural selection is no different.
The Catholic church has changed very radically over the last 1500 years. It has had to change if for no other reason than the political landscape of Europe has changed radically. But the Church has changed theologically, too. The Reformation, and the reform of the remaining Church that followed, is a huge example. Or Vatican II in the last 50 years. Or forcing the clergy to become celibate. Or the influence of Augustine, and then Aquinas, and finally of Cartesian thinking.
"There is no Christianity without believing in the deity of Christ"
The deity of Christ doesn't change, but what we mean by saying that Christ is God does change. For example, do we place emphasis on the Word of God as it comes through Christ, or on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and his resurrection. Did Christ die to redeem everybody for their sins, or just a few? In what way did he redeem us? Do we focus on Christ so much that we ignore the historical Jesus (assuming, I suppose, that their was one.) Etc.
"Science has gone through a number of dramatic paradigm shifts in the last 2000 years, you know heliocentric universe, spherical earth, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, subatomic physics and all"
I suppose we have to decide what we mean by "science". By science, I sort of meant scientific inquiry since around the time of Newton. Certainly science has been through many dramatic paradigm shifts in the last 100 years, even. Again, though, I think there is a comparable shift in Christianity, although perhaps not in as short a time. There is, for example, the ethical realization that slavery is wrong. And the others I mentioned earlier.
"It is really hard to know what you are trying to say here how are personal revelation and first-hand experience different and in conflict with each-other? "
In science there is the idea that if I claim some truth, you ought to be able to use personal experience and reason to verify that statement for yourself. Science only allows claims of this sort. If I claim that I was on a road to Damascus and saw God, there is no way, even in principle, for you to verify that- you just have to trust me. That is the tension. Now you may disbelieve those personal revelations. Fine. I wasn't trying to convince you of them. But Christianity also has a place for claims of the first kind, and always has. So that tension has always existed within Christianity. It is not appropriate to characterize this as simply a conflict of religion and science. I don't know how you can saw that Catholicism doesn't have a place for personal revelation, though- probably I did a poor job of communicating what I meant. The entire Bible is simply personal revelation- a personal account by ancient authors of God which we can never, even in principle, verify.
"With religion, however, there is no research one can do to change whether or not the Pope will dictate belief in a Triune God."
Tell that to Martin Luther. Or tell that to the series of Popes who established the political power of the Papacy in the first place. Religious doctrines can be challenged, and have been. The process does differ in very important ways from that used to challenge scientific "doctrines", of course.
"Religions are at there core static and dogmatic."
Religions have changed radically over the past 5000 years. No way they are static. They simply change more slowly than scientific thought does, or at least seem to. Sure religion has its dogmatism- but, in its own way, so does science, in so much that both bodies of knowledge have certain statements so powerful that most of us don't have the intelligence, or imagination, to challenge them in an interesting way. Religion, or Christianity at least, does place emphasis, or even preeminence, on personal revelation, which science can never accept, but that doesn't make Christianity static or any more dogmatic than any other body of knowledge with 2000+ years of momentum behind it.
This tension between the authority of personal revelation (perhaps yours, but more usually someone else's who also happens to want your obedience and/or money) and that of universal reason supported by first-hand experience- this is real, and is exposed by the sort of statement made by the teacher. However, this tension has always existed in Christianity, with its Hellenic and Judaic roots.
The claim that sadism is in the human nature was separate from the following, rather long-winded, claim. ("I would also claim...") For the statement that sadism seems to be part of human nature, I would point to Abu Ghraib, Nazi Germany, many different kings throughout history- basically anybody with too much power seems to run the nasty risk of developing a good case of sadism. But I know you weren't necessarily disagreeing with me.
While I agree that it is true most posters have not had to participate in an inhumane act, I think it is wishful thinking to believe that the potential for sadism is not an inherent part of human nature. I would also claim that worrying about animal suffering is a luxury that we are just now (within the last 50 years) able to begin to enjoy, and even then only in the very richest parts of the world. But when you are sick, and need treatment, you lose the luxury of being able to refrain from the sadistic option. You choose to (indirectly) make animals suffer to save yourself or your loved one because you have to. If we had lived 100 (or especially 1000) years ago, or in a different part of the country, we wouldn't even consider the luxury of sparing animals- it would be sort of like asking someone who has been dying of thirst in the desert who has just gotten a bottle of water whether he would have preferred a different brand- ludicrous. He isn't even thinking of that issue. It is the remains of this mentality that I think you pick up on by your post. So I think it is the disconnect with suffering that allows your opinion. Now the ridiculing of people who hold an opinion like yours- I agree, that is due to the disconnect of the internet. Its anonymity seems to breed little virtual psychopaths:-(
I'm not the original poster, but if I may respond: I don't think someone someone arguing for embryonic stem cell research needs to draw a dividing line for when something acquires human dignity. I don't think there is such a line. Dead bodies deserve more respect than, say, junked cars. I believe that historically it has even been argued (widely?) that dead human bodies should not be researched for scientific purposes, presumably regardless of whether the person gave consent in life. So I agree that embryonic stem cells, if not posessing some degree of human dignity, at least deserve human respect. But what dignity is in dying from parkinson's or alzheimer's disease? Don't we have an obligation to preserve the dignity of those people as well? The embryo has no awareness, and presumably no capability for moral action. I don't think we should choose it over a living, breathing human being who does possess awarenes, and the capability for moral action.
I would also point that that I would think, ultimately, we have to use our sense to determine what does, and does not, have human dignity. A rock, for example, most certainly does not posess such dignity. The only way we know this is by belief or judgements motivated at least in part by our senses. And scientific instruments are ultimately simply amplifications to our existing senses. So I think that using them to motivate moral judgements on what does, and does not, posess human dignity is completely appropriate.
I agree with you, though, that the Bishop's opinion is presumably a serious one that deserves consideration. Oh and also, I just skimmed over it, I have to admit:-) But I read your entire post...
As an argument for fetal stem cell research, it may be a straw man. However, it works very well as a commentary that many of the same people who seem unwilling to even consider the idea that in some sense we might be morally obligated to sacrifice embryos to save fully grown human beings are not only able to discuss that we might be morally obligated to kill certain lives in Iraq, presumably to save other lives. (What other justification could there be for killing?) Again, many people I have heard seem unable to have a discussion beyond repeating "save the children- even the unborn ones." Why is fetal stem cell research so clear cut, while the war in Iraq is morally ambiguous enough to deserve discussion.
It seems like you don't address my assertion at all. My claim is that we assume that an embryo is human person, or at least posessing human dignity, because it is more comfortable to us, at the cost of sacrificing ill people, whom most certainly are people, because we are afraid to face the uncertainty associated with considering that an embryo may not be a person. All your response seems to state is a) am embryo is a person (with no evidence given) and b) we should be very afraid to consider an embryo not a person. But what you state is perfectly consistent with my claims.
The problem is that considering things to be human persons that are not human persons can also be disastrous. Restricting stem cell research will prevent cures for real people in the future. You suggest we sacrifice those people for things- embryos- that may or may not be people. This feels to me too analogous to human sacrifice to false gods. Historically, as I understand it, religion demanded large populations sacrifice their first-born sons to an anthropomorphized nature in return for prosperity. Religion moved beyond this as embodied in, for example, the story of Abraham. I worry that now, another tradition has anthromorphized the embryo, and is asking us to sacrifice people to it, in return for moral assurance. Questioning the personhood of the embryo is also questioning the limits of our human dignity, and that is scary- what if we don't have such dignity at all? What if, as you describe, we are first forced to conclude that 8 month old fetuses have no such dignity? And then 17 year old adolescents? And then the elderly? I think, though, all this ignores the physical fact that embryos have very little to make them human besides human DNA. The people you feel morally obligated to sacrifice (although I don't think for a moment you want them to die, or to be ill) are certainly human, and I think this means they should get the benefit of the doubt.
I think ID means many different things to many different people. Your statement "Evolution occurs because it was guided by God to give humans as the final outcome" can itself mean many different things. It could be stating that evolution is more or less correct as a scientific theory, but should motivate a theistic world view. Or it could be stating that we will never be able to understand the beginning of life, and that this should motivate a theistic world view. Or it could mean that we cannot completely understand the entire history of the differentiation of the species within the framework of evolution, and that this should motivate a theistic belief. What is more, the phrase "random evolution" is also very vague. "Random" does not necessarily mean "accidental." I think what you are objecting to is something like the idea of accidental evolution, which I suppose would motivate an atheistic world view. But the scientific theory of evolution doesn't, in and of itself, claim to motivate a theistic or atheistic world view. I think that if ID were only concerned with whether evolution should motivate a theistic or atheistic (or deistic, etc) world view, it wouldn't have anything to say about how evolution is taught in science class, since evolution as a scientific theory doesn't have anything to say about that anyway.
I'm sorry about your macular degeneration, and I apologize if I seemed to make light of the condition of not being able to see. I actually have macular degeneration in my family (although it hits us at old age), and the disease scares the hell out of me. I know that doesn't compare with, you know, actually having the disease, but I do take blindness seriously. I thought I was following the tone of the original poster, who made reference to his "ghetto rigged pictorial variety" of depth perception. I probably shouldn't have made the post, though.
Yes, well, if you were the poster, I would send my heartfelt, genuine apologies for a joke that was evidently in bad taste in so far as it made you feel bad. As it is, you are AC, so I really don't care what you have to say.
No, I think my statement would still be true, just grotesquely irrelevant. The US wouldn't be able to object to a treaty that allowed other countries to "build themselves up" with slaves because it was unfair to the US; rather, it would be able to object out of moral outrage that slavery still be allowed at all. However, I am personally of the opinion that emitting CO2 and slavery are very different in that slavery is evil in and of itself, while CO2 emission is only produces immoral, or at least unwanted, results when done in sufficient quantities.
Instead of hoping for an advancement in science to give you two good eyes, you should be concentrating on finding a place where everyone is blind. I've heard places like that look for someone like you to make their king...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, ancient Judaism doesn't have any form of afterlife, and many versions of judaism still don't. I read a long time ago that a native american belief system held that a soul had to descend through 7 tortous levels of hell before finally finding oblivion in true death (sorry, don't remember the name, thats lame, I know.) I don't know a whole lot about religion, but these are two examples of religions that don't revolve around any kind of immortality.
How is criticizing LRH not legitimate. While I don't pretend to understand the subtleties of scientology (if they exist at all), but as I understand it, scientology does rely on the validity of LRH's personal revelation, a revelation which is inherently difficult to independently verify. In light of this, if LRH does have a history of lying, or of being a con-man, how can we possibly believe any revelation from him, particularly when those claims are as fantastic as the story of Xenu.
Incidentally, to put my thinking up front, I do not approve of scientology, butI would not call an average follower of it "evil" (though I might call them expensively, or even tragically, superstitious.)
Wow. Your post is pretty rude. Well, my PhD is in physics, not biology, but I think I have some understanding of DNA. And, believe it or not, you and your sibling do share quite a bit of DNA. They can be related through the study of something called "statistics." For example, according to NPR, it happens all the time that DNA samples from crime scenes match those of people in prison closely enough to let the police know that the crime was committed by a close relative of the person in prison. Whether this match is reported to the police is a policy that, amazingly, in at least some cases is determined by the person doing the DNA comparison at the prison.
As I understand it, they keep actual samples to allow future testing after technology has improved. This means that in 30 years, we could imagine a scenario where insurance companies deny your grandchildren coverage because of your genetic makeup. Or, less realistically, the government could decide that some set of genes were bad- for example, caused a tendency for violence- and they would have the tools ready to round people up and arrest them. I can't imagine the government doing this, but the 20th century taught us we always have to be vigilent againt totalitarian regimes developing.
Finally- remember that you don't have to be arrested for them to get your DNA. You may be a model citizen, but have a family member who, eg, because he is at an anti-war rally, gets arrested and gets his DNA taken, and then the government essentially has your DNA too.
In basic research (unlike, I suppose, in more applied research when one is trying to make some invention work on a practical scale), simply neglecting to publish, or encouraging the publishing of, a certain set of results can bias and invalidate those results, regardless of whether individually data is falsified. (A classic example of accidentally biasing your results is trying to measure the mass of something. Mathematically mass will always be positive. But if you assume that any results that find a negative mass are invalid, then on average, you will ALWAYS measure some non-zero mass- even if the mass of whatever you are tring to measure is 0.) If oil companies do research, but only publish the results they like, then they are really supporting propoganda, not research. The only purpose behind research can be the search from truth, regardless of whether you like the answer.
What set off red flags for me is that this money seems to have been offered for particular results, not further study. I'm not familiar with the sources you claim want to show that global warming is happening and is our fault(I am not an expert on this), but if they only publish the results they like, then I wouldn't trust them, either.
I certainly agree with you that Einstein was speaking towards the uncertainty principle. But I think it must also have been a philosophical statement because when Einstein made the statement, nobody knew that it would be able to be adressed in a fairly satisfactory way by experiment (Bell's theorem wasn't published until nearly half a century later.) Also, Einstein was very concerned with the philosophical nature of physics. He referred to the theoretical physicists as a kind of metaphysician who expressed his or her opinions in mathematics, and himself believe in Spinoza's pantheistic God, at least for part of his life. (Do a search on his wikipedia entry for "Spinoza"; I have read this other places as well.) So I do think Einstein was making a statement about God, if we allow the use of the term God in a larger sense than simply meaning an anthropomorphic, personal, all-powerful being.
We don't have to find where to draw the line. We just have to verify which side of it embryos used for stem cell research are on. My personal bias/belief is that we are more than a collection of cells- the behavior we exhibit is much richer than that. So I claim that if it only really makes sense scientifically to understand your behavior as the interaction of cells (versus tissues and organs and individuals in society, etc) then you certainly can't be a person. Then we don't have to carve up the mentally handicapped, but we don't have to join hands and sing songs with amoebas and bacteria, either. I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that we find it perfectly acceptable to understand the behavior of a week old embryo in a petri dish as only a collection of cells. This covers an embryo that would be used for stem cell research, I think, and puts them firmly in the "not a person" category.
No, Muslims and Christians are both right. Muslims go to Christian Hell, and Christians go to Islamic hell. :-)
I clicked submit too early... I think your argument may be relevant to the question of how natural selection should motivate metaphysics and religion- we will have to see how the origin of life is explained. But it cannot change the fact that there is very good evidence that natural selection is a good model for understanding the origin of the species, and that while the sort of argument you are making can be good for asking new questions in science, it is very dangerous to actually draw conclusions from it.
e rgy
Also, one last thing, this isn't terribly relevant, but the claim in physics right now is that the universe has more or less behaved fundamentally differently throughout its history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_en
Well, first, I don't think you are accurately portraying the problem that classical EM had with the atom. We essentially did have pictures of the electron as a small object orbiting a much larger nucleus. Thomson showed us that the electron was negative. Millikan showed us that the electron was small. Rutherford showed us that the nucleus was dense and positively charged. And the atom had to be neutral. So we pretty much did have a picture of a small electron orbiting a larger nucleus.
I think, though, that I must not have done a good enough job at what the similarities between the two theories were. My point is that there is good evidence that natural selection adds a lot to our understanding of the history of the differentiation of the species. Logical arguments about whether this causes problems for understanding the origin of life (whatever life is, exactly) cannot change that anymore than the logical problems with extrapolating Maxwell to the very small could change the fact that over certain scales of size, there was very good evidence for classical EM. I should also point out that people such as Einstein proposed alternate models for for very small things such as atoms. Nobody disagreed that Maxwell was more or less right on the macroscopic scale.
We could imagine that, for example, the origin of life is a singular event, so unlikely that the most science can ever do to explain it is to say that it is a statistical anomaly. Scientists say this about strange events in experiments all the time. As I said, I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how likely this is to happen. Certainly it would be very disappointing if we couldn't say anything more interesting about the origin of life. But none of this affects the validity of using natural selection to explain the differentiation of the species.
Now some people think the concept of natural selection says something interesting about metaphysics. The claim seems to amount to something like if the miracle of life must be explained by the existence of God, and natural selection is in some sense responsible for life, the natural selection must be God. Natural selection seems to imply that the differentiation of the species is not simply contingent, but is also accidental, so we should take this as motivation that the entire universe is accidental. (Or something like that.)
There is strong physical evidence that natural selection provides a coherent and consistent picture of how the rise of the species. And it does have explanatory power- it tells us that we can consider whatever causes mutations, and the survival value of those mutations, separately. So it is a good scientific theory. Now I'm not a biologist, and don't know how well people understand the potential beginnings of life. I'm not particularly convinced by your argument, but I can't immediately come up with a counter argument either. But I'm no expert. I will say, thought, that I could make an analogous argument about electrodynamics in physics. I could claim that Maxwell's 4 equations are blatantly absurd because they can't explain how a simply hydrogen atom (or any other kind of atom) is held together- the prediction from 19th century physics is that in a the electron should fall into the proton. (I might even say that since we must test electrodynamics with things made of atoms, electrodynamics has no explanatory power because it simply pushes the wild unexplained things into the very small, though this might be taking the analogy too far.) But electrodynamics did not turn out to be wrong. It is pretty much exactly right for large things, and just required some modifications for small things. (The modifications were radical, but not in a way that jettisoned earlier knowledge, exactly.) This isn't surprising. Classical electrodynamics had to be more or less right for large things- there was strong physical evidence for it. Logical extrapolations into phenomena it wasn't developed to explain weren't going to change that. Natural selection is no different.
The Catholic church has changed very radically over the last 1500 years. It has had to change if for no other reason than the political landscape of Europe has changed radically. But the Church has changed theologically, too. The Reformation, and the reform of the remaining Church that followed, is a huge example. Or Vatican II in the last 50 years. Or forcing the clergy to become celibate. Or the influence of Augustine, and then Aquinas, and finally of Cartesian thinking.
"There is no Christianity without believing in the deity of Christ"
The deity of Christ doesn't change, but what we mean by saying that Christ is God does change. For example, do we place emphasis on the Word of God as it comes through Christ, or on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and his resurrection. Did Christ die to redeem everybody for their sins, or just a few? In what way did he redeem us? Do we focus on Christ so much that we ignore the historical Jesus (assuming, I suppose, that their was one.) Etc.
"Science has gone through a number of dramatic paradigm shifts in the last 2000 years, you know heliocentric universe, spherical earth, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, subatomic physics and all"
I suppose we have to decide what we mean by "science". By science, I sort of meant scientific inquiry since around the time of Newton. Certainly science has been through many dramatic paradigm shifts in the last 100 years, even. Again, though, I think there is a comparable shift in Christianity, although perhaps not in as short a time. There is, for example, the ethical realization that slavery is wrong. And the others I mentioned earlier.
"It is really hard to know what you are trying to say here how are personal revelation and first-hand experience different and in conflict with each-other? " In science there is the idea that if I claim some truth, you ought to be able to use personal experience and reason to verify that statement for yourself. Science only allows claims of this sort. If I claim that I was on a road to Damascus and saw God, there is no way, even in principle, for you to verify that- you just have to trust me. That is the tension. Now you may disbelieve those personal revelations. Fine. I wasn't trying to convince you of them. But Christianity also has a place for claims of the first kind, and always has. So that tension has always existed within Christianity. It is not appropriate to characterize this as simply a conflict of religion and science. I don't know how you can saw that Catholicism doesn't have a place for personal revelation, though- probably I did a poor job of communicating what I meant. The entire Bible is simply personal revelation- a personal account by ancient authors of God which we can never, even in principle, verify.
"With religion, however, there is no research one can do to change whether or not the Pope will dictate belief in a Triune God."
Tell that to Martin Luther. Or tell that to the series of Popes who established the political power of the Papacy in the first place. Religious doctrines can be challenged, and have been. The process does differ in very important ways from that used to challenge scientific "doctrines", of course.
"Religions are at there core static and dogmatic."
Religions have changed radically over the past 5000 years. No way they are static. They simply change more slowly than scientific thought does, or at least seem to. Sure religion has its dogmatism- but, in its own way, so does science, in so much that both bodies of knowledge have certain statements so powerful that most of us don't have the intelligence, or imagination, to challenge them in an interesting way. Religion, or Christianity at least, does place emphasis, or even preeminence, on personal revelation, which science can never accept, but that doesn't make Christianity static or any more dogmatic than any other body of knowledge with 2000+ years of momentum behind it.
This tension between the authority of personal revelation (perhaps yours, but more usually someone else's who also happens to want your obedience and/or money) and that of universal reason supported by first-hand experience- this is real, and is exposed by the sort of statement made by the teacher. However, this tension has always existed in Christianity, with its Hellenic and Judaic roots.
The claim that sadism is in the human nature was separate from the following, rather long-winded, claim. ("I would also claim...") For the statement that sadism seems to be part of human nature, I would point to Abu Ghraib, Nazi Germany, many different kings throughout history- basically anybody with too much power seems to run the nasty risk of developing a good case of sadism. But I know you weren't necessarily disagreeing with me.
While I agree that it is true most posters have not had to participate in an inhumane act, I think it is wishful thinking to believe that the potential for sadism is not an inherent part of human nature. I would also claim that worrying about animal suffering is a luxury that we are just now (within the last 50 years) able to begin to enjoy, and even then only in the very richest parts of the world. But when you are sick, and need treatment, you lose the luxury of being able to refrain from the sadistic option. You choose to (indirectly) make animals suffer to save yourself or your loved one because you have to. If we had lived 100 (or especially 1000) years ago, or in a different part of the country, we wouldn't even consider the luxury of sparing animals- it would be sort of like asking someone who has been dying of thirst in the desert who has just gotten a bottle of water whether he would have preferred a different brand- ludicrous. He isn't even thinking of that issue. It is the remains of this mentality that I think you pick up on by your post. So I think it is the disconnect with suffering that allows your opinion. Now the ridiculing of people who hold an opinion like yours- I agree, that is due to the disconnect of the internet. Its anonymity seems to breed little virtual psychopaths :-(
I'm not the original poster, but if I may respond: I don't think someone someone arguing for embryonic stem cell research needs to draw a dividing line for when something acquires human dignity. I don't think there is such a line. Dead bodies deserve more respect than, say, junked cars. I believe that historically it has even been argued (widely?) that dead human bodies should not be researched for scientific purposes, presumably regardless of whether the person gave consent in life. So I agree that embryonic stem cells, if not posessing some degree of human dignity, at least deserve human respect. But what dignity is in dying from parkinson's or alzheimer's disease? Don't we have an obligation to preserve the dignity of those people as well? The embryo has no awareness, and presumably no capability for moral action. I don't think we should choose it over a living, breathing human being who does possess awarenes, and the capability for moral action.
:-) But I read your entire post...
I would also point that that I would think, ultimately, we have to use our sense to determine what does, and does not, have human dignity. A rock, for example, most certainly does not posess such dignity. The only way we know this is by belief or judgements motivated at least in part by our senses. And scientific instruments are ultimately simply amplifications to our existing senses. So I think that using them to motivate moral judgements on what does, and does not, posess human dignity is completely appropriate.
I agree with you, though, that the Bishop's opinion is presumably a serious one that deserves consideration. Oh and also, I just skimmed over it, I have to admit
As an argument for fetal stem cell research, it may be a straw man. However, it works very well as a commentary that many of the same people who seem unwilling to even consider the idea that in some sense we might be morally obligated to sacrifice embryos to save fully grown human beings are not only able to discuss that we might be morally obligated to kill certain lives in Iraq, presumably to save other lives. (What other justification could there be for killing?) Again, many people I have heard seem unable to have a discussion beyond repeating "save the children- even the unborn ones." Why is fetal stem cell research so clear cut, while the war in Iraq is morally ambiguous enough to deserve discussion.
It seems like you don't address my assertion at all. My claim is that we assume that an embryo is human person, or at least posessing human dignity, because it is more comfortable to us, at the cost of sacrificing ill people, whom most certainly are people, because we are afraid to face the uncertainty associated with considering that an embryo may not be a person. All your response seems to state is a) am embryo is a person (with no evidence given) and b) we should be very afraid to consider an embryo not a person. But what you state is perfectly consistent with my claims.
The problem is that considering things to be human persons that are not human persons can also be disastrous. Restricting stem cell research will prevent cures for real people in the future. You suggest we sacrifice those people for things- embryos- that may or may not be people. This feels to me too analogous to human sacrifice to false gods. Historically, as I understand it, religion demanded large populations sacrifice their first-born sons to an anthropomorphized nature in return for prosperity. Religion moved beyond this as embodied in, for example, the story of Abraham. I worry that now, another tradition has anthromorphized the embryo, and is asking us to sacrifice people to it, in return for moral assurance. Questioning the personhood of the embryo is also questioning the limits of our human dignity, and that is scary- what if we don't have such dignity at all? What if, as you describe, we are first forced to conclude that 8 month old fetuses have no such dignity? And then 17 year old adolescents? And then the elderly? I think, though, all this ignores the physical fact that embryos have very little to make them human besides human DNA. The people you feel morally obligated to sacrifice (although I don't think for a moment you want them to die, or to be ill) are certainly human, and I think this means they should get the benefit of the doubt.
Let me also say that what you are thinking of may not be "Intelligent design", but what is sometimes referred to as theistic evolution.
I think ID means many different things to many different people. Your statement "Evolution occurs because it was guided by God to give humans as the final outcome" can itself mean many different things. It could be stating that evolution is more or less correct as a scientific theory, but should motivate a theistic world view. Or it could be stating that we will never be able to understand the beginning of life, and that this should motivate a theistic world view. Or it could mean that we cannot completely understand the entire history of the differentiation of the species within the framework of evolution, and that this should motivate a theistic belief. What is more, the phrase "random evolution" is also very vague. "Random" does not necessarily mean "accidental." I think what you are objecting to is something like the idea of accidental evolution, which I suppose would motivate an atheistic world view. But the scientific theory of evolution doesn't, in and of itself, claim to motivate a theistic or atheistic world view. I think that if ID were only concerned with whether evolution should motivate a theistic or atheistic (or deistic, etc) world view, it wouldn't have anything to say about how evolution is taught in science class, since evolution as a scientific theory doesn't have anything to say about that anyway.
I'm sorry about your macular degeneration, and I apologize if I seemed to make light of the condition of not being able to see. I actually have macular degeneration in my family (although it hits us at old age), and the disease scares the hell out of me. I know that doesn't compare with, you know, actually having the disease, but I do take blindness seriously. I thought I was following the tone of the original poster, who made reference to his "ghetto rigged pictorial variety" of depth perception. I probably shouldn't have made the post, though.
Yes, well, if you were the poster, I would send my heartfelt, genuine apologies for a joke that was evidently in bad taste in so far as it made you feel bad. As it is, you are AC, so I really don't care what you have to say.
No, I think my statement would still be true, just grotesquely irrelevant. The US wouldn't be able to object to a treaty that allowed other countries to "build themselves up" with slaves because it was unfair to the US; rather, it would be able to object out of moral outrage that slavery still be allowed at all. However, I am personally of the opinion that emitting CO2 and slavery are very different in that slavery is evil in and of itself, while CO2 emission is only produces immoral, or at least unwanted, results when done in sufficient quantities.
Instead of hoping for an advancement in science to give you two good eyes, you should be concentrating on finding a place where everyone is blind. I've heard places like that look for someone like you to make their king... :-)