Jump to content

Theistic Scientists


Recommended Posts

So you don't drive cars, eat anything, drink anything, use any household appliance, move, or breath? Because all of those things kill, and, unlike stem cell research, they kill things that are actually alive.

Obvious Straw Man statement. Notice I was only stating my personal beliefs. And not doing half the things you listed would kill anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 608
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How many people need to ask you before you realise it's a valid question? Anyway, imagine we were having this conversation a couple of thousand years ago (I think- history isn't my forte) in Scandina

Well, then, it's clear that you're here in the hope of someone reinforcing your irrational idea that- following a religion and studying science are two activities which don't contradict. They complete

500th reply! Fortunately, I speak Iggtalian. This means, "I agree with iNow's answers on your oversimplified, unemotional and annoyingly controlling little test. So you're wrong, it's not just on

Posted Images

From the first source, here is what I found on overpopulation:

 

So, I don't see how that source is relevant.

That the pope who wrote humanae vitae, which is still a document used for practice, says procreation is the purpose of marriage and sex isn't relevant to religious ideas on overpopulation? That the very last sentence of the part you quoted says that pope doesn't accept the claim of overpopulation isn't relevant? Odd.

 

Again, my point was you are isolating religion by taking one small part of it.

Again, no true Scottsman fallacy. The topic is just religion, not religions that don't do what I say they don't do.

 

That isn't even a part of the point or relevant. In fact, this is what we refer to as a straw man argument.

Not a straw-man, unless you are arguing that those things are not alive. I only took the idea that snuffing a life is absolutely wrong to its conclusion. Human life wasn't a constraint.

 

EDIT: Just to make sure, you should read the sources you find first because titles can be misleading.

I agree, as should everyone. Luckily I make a habit of doing just that. Like any human, though, I may misunderstand the what is written, though if I did I would gladly accept you showing me where.

 

Obvious Straw Man statement. Notice I was only stating my personal beliefs. And not doing half the things you listed would kill anyone.

Yes it would, but it would kill less than doing those things. Why is it an obvious straw-man, please point out which part of my example made a different position based on the text that was quoted. My point was that we accept the certain deaths are acceptable for various reasons, again you didn't make the distinction of human life.

 

If you did make that distinction I would have pointed out that stem cells are not alive and, therefore, cannot be killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That the pope who wrote humanae vitae, which is still a document used for practice, says procreation is the purpose of marriage and sex isn't relevant to religious ideas on overpopulation? That the very last sentence of the part you quoted says that pope doesn't accept the claim of overpopulation isn't relevant? Odd.

 

 

Again, no true Scottsman fallacy. The topic is just religion, not religions that don't do what I say they don't do.

 

 

Not a straw-man, unless you are arguing that those things are not alive. I only took the idea that snuffing a life is absolutely wrong to its conclusion. Human life wasn't a constraint.

 

 

I agree, as should everyone. Luckily I make a habit of doing just that. Like any human, though, I may misunderstand the what is written, though if I did I would gladly accept you showing me where.

 

 

Yes it would, but it would kill less than doing those things. Why is it an obvious straw-man, please point out which part of my example made a different position based on the text that was quoted. My point was that we accept the certain deaths are acceptable for various reasons, again you didn't make the distinction of human life.

 

If you did make that distinction I would have pointed out that stem cells are not alive and, therefore, cannot be killed.

Yes, I read the source and I stick with what I stated. The source is irrelevant. What the pope stated about procreation and it's relevance to marriage has nothing to do with this current debate(which is actually about theistic scientists, but to this point what he said was only relevant to procreation and the sacredness of marriage according to Catholic teachings).

 

 

 

Again, no true Scottsman fallacy. The topic is just religion, not religions that don't do what I say they don't do.

Actually, the topic is about Theistic scientists.

 

 

 

Not a straw-man, unless you are arguing that those things are not alive. I only took the idea that snuffing a life is absolutely wrong to its conclusion. Human life wasn't a constraint.

You seem to not know the definition of straw man argument, which that is not up to this debate, but here is a definition for you:

 

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

 

 

 

I agree, as should everyone. Luckily I make a habit of doing just that. Like any human, though, I may misunderstand the what is written, though if I did I would gladly accept you showing me where.

I did, though it is up to you to see the flaw within the source at which I pointed it out.

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many religious people have you gotten to know on a personal level? The way you have worded the last sentence seems to add bias to your argument. From what I have gathered from a brief overview of your posts in this thread, you appear to have an intense dislike for theistic people.

I think there's a huge difference between knowing people but disliking them just because they're religious, and disliking what some people are doing for religious reasons. I don't get into religious discussions with religious people I know personally. I have no interest in their beliefs until those beliefs become detrimental in some way to me.

 

So I really don't care what you believe as much as how you believe it. You want to give a tenth of your income to the church? OK. You want to use the teachings of your religion to make yourself a better person, I think that's great. But when you demand that public schools, where my child goes to be educated in reality, start teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, well now we have a problem. When you demand that the government, which is supposed to be separate from any church, give money to religious endeavors under the guise of faith-based initiatives, you have introduced your supernatural beliefs into my tax dollars and that is WRONG.

 

Personally, I dislike abortion as a source of stem cells for research, as I believe that is snuffing out a life. But not a sentient life which is only marginally better.

When you would put so many actual, living human adults in so much danger to save a clump of cells that might end up human, in essence giving rights to an unborn blastocyst that are superior to that of the host mother, you have ignored reality in favor of your beliefs.

 

Even your morals should tell you that if we adopted the "life begins at conception" argument, it would cause far more harm to living humans than it would save. Every pregnancy would be a possible murder charge.

 

Prosecutor: "Is it true you worked out at the gym on the day of your miscarriage, Miss Smith?"

 

Reality tells us that when abortion was legalized, 18 years later the crime rate went down significantly. Reality tells us that unplanned and unwanted children often turn to crime.

 

Make no mistake, I would do everything I could to avoid an abortion in any case where I had some say in it. I hate that it's necessary, but I can't judge everyone else by my feelings. I think making abortions available is necessary to our society. Is it possible for a theistic scientist to see the benefits past the kneejerk, "babykiller", all-life-is-sacred argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a huge difference between knowing people but disliking them just because they're religious, and disliking what some people are doing for religious reasons. I don't get into religious discussions with religious people I know personally. I have no interest in their beliefs until those beliefs become detrimental in some way to me.

 

So I really don't care what you believe as much as how you believe it. You want to give a tenth of your income to the church? OK. You want to use the teachings of your religion to make yourself a better person, I think that's great. But when you demand that public schools, where my child goes to be educated in reality, start teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, well now we have a problem. When you demand that the government, which is supposed to be separate from any church, give money to religious endeavors under the guise of faith-based initiatives, you have introduced your supernatural beliefs into my tax dollars and that is WRONG.

 

When you would put so many actual, living human adults in so much danger to save a clump of cells that might end up human, in essence giving rights to an unborn blastocyst that are superior to that of the host mother, you have ignored reality in favor of your beliefs.

 

Even your morals should tell you that if we adopted the "life begins at conception" argument, it would cause far more harm to living humans than it would save. Every pregnancy would be a possible murder charge.

 

Prosecutor: "Is it true you worked out at the gym on the day of your miscarriage, Miss Smith?"

 

Reality tells us that when abortion was legalized, 18 years later the crime rate went down significantly. Reality tells us that unplanned and unwanted children often turn to crime.

 

Make no mistake, I would do everything I could to avoid an abortion in any case where I had some say in it. I hate that it's necessary, but I can't judge everyone else by my feelings. I think making abortions available is necessary to our society. Is it possible for a theistic scientist to see the benefits past the kneejerk, "babykiller", all-life-is-sacred argument?

Well, one thing about the law that is really strange is how, according to law, if a murderer killed a woman that was pregnant it is consider two deaths instead of one, while with an abortion if the mother dies during the process then it merely counts as one(whether intended or unintended).

 

Also, there are pros(unbias) and cons. Here is a link to some information about benefits and downsides:

 

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/

 

EDIT: Though these statistics could be due to women ignorantly walking into an abortion clinic without even knowing what they are up against, but there various things to take into account.

 

 

Reality tells us that when abortion was legalized, 18 years later the crime rate went down significantly. Reality tells us that unplanned and unwanted children often turn to crime.

I know this is probably getting annoying, but could you please cite this so I can take a look at the statistics?

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you are talking about the Catholic church during the Dark ages, I would agree to an extent.

 

In fact, here is more information on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

 

I do not see how in this case religion had stood in the way of scientific progress when they introduced the scientific fields to other parts of the world, in which increased the amount of scientific progress.

So, still the dark ages then?

Because here's the church interfering with the progress and dissemination of science.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14929

 

And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

wasn't in the dark ages either.

 

Since you asked,

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, John. He'll just rationalize and hand wave that one away, too. Let's be serious. His beliefs and preconceptions are not going to be easily altered by facts and reality, no matter how many of his hoops we successfully jump through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, still the dark ages then?

Because here's the church interfering with the progress and dissemination of science.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14929

 

And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

wasn't in the dark ages either.

 

Since you asked,

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

Here is the problem with the first source:

 

 

A bishop in South Africa, where estimates of the HIV infection rate range as high as 22%, says that condoms are not a solution to the AIDS epidemic.

“I think the international community is always arrogant toward us Africans,” says Bishop Xolelo Thaddaeus Kumalo of Eshowe, a town of 5,000 in Zululand, which is located in the eastern part of the nation. “They come with readymade solutions. They don’t ask. They know what is right for us as Africans and the condoms are part of that arrogance.”

First of all,I would agree condoms are not the solution from preventing AIDS. Can it work? It may. Will it work all the time? No.

 

Also, this is also a cultural issue, as he states that “They come with readymade solutions. They don’t ask. They know what is right for us as Africans and the condoms are part of that arrogance.” That has nothing to do with the religious indications.

 

About the Galileo affair. Here is something from a source I just presented:

 

 

 

Found "suspect of heresy" in his own time, Galileo was later hailed a hero by the Catholic Church.
Now, onto your source, which I just read.
Within the source, it states that the reason why the increase in abortion led to less crime is due to the fact that there were less children that went through the ordeals of poverty that would become criminals.
I feel this article is relating to the document you provided.
The abortion procedure was not the cause, but was a factor involved. Of course if children are born in high parts of society they are less likely to be involved in crime. That does not mean that abortion is the sole cause of crime rate decreasing.
Link to post
Share on other sites


 

Now you are beginning to judge all religions based on a certain few of them, which is way more ignorant.

As Ringer has already pointed out to you, you are engaging in the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy. Further, the argument was that religion often hampers scientific progress, and is frequently an obstacle to science. Examples were given. You can pretend those don't exist, but ignoring a facts doesn't magically make them vanish or become irrelevant to the discussion.
Link to post
Share on other sites


 

As Ringer has already pointed out to you, you are engaging in the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy. Further, the argument was that religion often hampers scientific progress, and is frequently an obstacle to science. Examples were given. You can pretend those don't exist, but ignoring a facts doesn't magically make them vanish or become irrelevant to the discussion.

No you are simply avoiding the points I had given. Do some religions hamper scientific progress? Yes. Do all of them? No. We are dealing with the generalized sense of religion, not just specific ones, unless you want to make a topic about a specific religion that hinders our ability to make progress in science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you do not see the point I was trying to make.

How many religious people have you gotten to know on a personal level? The way you have worded the last sentence seems to add bias to your argument. From what I have gathered from a brief overview of your posts in this thread, you appear to have an intense dislike for theistic people. Now I won't pretend that I know you nor your upbringing, these are just merely observations I have made from a limited look into your posts. And I am not being disingenuous because I'm not pretending that you know less than I do about this particular subject.

Personally, I dislike abortion as a source of stem cells for research, as I believe that is snuffing out a life. But not a sentient life which is only marginally better.

I recommend you not judge a member with more than 13,000 posts so soon, especially given that you only have 2 or 3 yourself. I dislike ignorance, and religion just happens to overlap tremendously with ignorance in many ways. I don't dislike theistic people. I said as much in this very thread (though, admittedly that was split off).

 

Finally, when I mentioned being disingenuous, it was not in context of pretending to know more than me on this topic or on the topic of abortion. My point was that you sought to separate morality from religion. While I agree that morality in general does not stem from religion, it is very much untrue to suggest that religion is not a major influence on the moral beliefs of religious people. Does that make sense to you, and are you tracking my position accurately?

 

Religion has a major impact on the moral thinking of religious people, even though religion is not the source of human morality. It's disingenuous to suggest that (for theists) religion and morality are somehow isolated and independent of one another.

 

EDIT: I may have misread your original post. Is this roughly the same thing you were saying?

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, John. He'll just rationalize and hand wave that one away, too. Let's be serious. His beliefs and preconceptions are not going to be easily altered by facts and reality, no matter how many of his hoops we successfully jump through.

 

!

Moderator Note

Attack the arguments that have been made, not ones that haven't. And attack the arguments, not the person making them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you are simply avoiding the points I had given. Do some religions hamper scientific progress? Yes.

Ergo, when folks like me claim that religion often serves as an obstacle to science, you don't disagree. Why are you continuing to argue the point? You've just stipulated its accuracy.

Attack the arguments that have been made, not ones that haven't.

I tend to agree, but you might notice I was precisely correct in my prediction, as evidenced by the very next post and others that followed. Apologies for responding to the modnote.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ergo, when folks like me claim that religion often serves as an obstacle to science, you don't disagree. Why are you continuing to argue the point? You've just stipulated its accuracy.

As I just pointed out, specific religions act as obstacles, not all. Vaguely pointing at religion saying that it is an obstacle in the rigor of science is an incorrect assertion. Specific religions, not all. In fact, these religions aren't really relevant to the topic because we are debating "Theistic scientists", not just the religions that deny scientific observation.

 

EDIT: Just realized the contradiction in this sentence.

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I just pointed out, specific religions act as obstacles, not all. Vaguely pointing at religion saying that it is an obstacle in the rigor of science is an incorrect assertion. Specific religions, not all.

Which specific religions don't, in your opinion? Can you cite them, please?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which specific religions don't, in your opinion? Can you cite them, please?

Sure, if you want me to.

 

  1. Catholicism-(as I presented evidence)
  2. Islam-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy("Islam’s obligation towards knowledge...")
  3. Judaism-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution("Conservative Judaism strongly supports the use of science as the proper way to learn about the physical world in which we live")
  4. Buddhism-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science("Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and Buddhism has entered into the science and religion dialogue.[1] The case is made that the philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought.")
  5. Hinduism-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution("Most God-believing Hindus accept the theory of biological evolution. They either regard the scriptural creation theories as allegories and metaphors, or reconcile these legends with the modern theory of evolution.")
  6. Mormonism-http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Science_and_Religion(Source explains itself stating that many religions, especially mormonism, have an attraction towards science).

Here are just the few religions. If you wanted me to list all the religions that do support the scientific endeavor, then it will take a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Unity,

you don't mind if I persecute you today just as long as, when it's perfectly obvious to everyone that I was wrong to do so, I apologise (long after you are dead of course)?

 

Get a grip.

At the time, Galileo was stopped from doing science by the Catholic church and they are still in the business of preaching anti-science.

 

"Also, this is also a cultural issue, as he states that “They come with readymade solutions. They don’t ask. They know what is right for us as Africans and the condoms are part of that arrogance.” "

To be blunt, a condom doesn't know what colour penis it's on. They work just as well in Africa.

They do a demonstrably good job of reducing transmission of infection (and keeping unwanted pregnancies down isn't a bad thing either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some points to make with the article and the document:

 

 

 

Nevin[edit source | editbeta]

Rick Nevin suggests an alternative explanation for the correlation observed by Donohue and Levitt. His study, which included several other countries in addition to the United States, suggests that variations in estimated early-childhoodblood lead levels (from exposure to leaded gasoline and paint) can better explain the variation in violent crime rates over the years.[14][15][16] For example, it better explains why crime rates rose in the first place, and continued to rise in the UK (who continued to use leaded gasoline after the USA phased it out) even though abortion was legalized. It also explains why New York (especially NYC) and California (which legalized abortion before Roe) saw crime rates drop earlier than the rest of the nation, since they were also more proactive in reducing lead exposure. The theory is biologically plausible, given that lead is a known neurotoxin which has long been linked to impulsivity, delinquency, violence, and reduced IQ. However, neither Nevin's nor Donohue and Levitt's hypothesis can explain the differences in timing of the drops in crime between the US and Canada.[17]

In Levitt's reply[18] in his Freakonomics blog at the New York Times, he notes that while a 2007 study by Jessica Reyes also found that lead had a large effect on violent crime, the same study found that the effect of legalized abortion remained similar in magnitude to that in Levitt's study, and statistically and practically significant (albeit as a lesser factor), even after controlling for blood lead levels and several other possible confounders.[19] Reyes: "This paper shows a significant and robust relationship between lead exposure in childhood and violent crime rates later in life. The estimates indicate that the reduction in lead exposure in the 1970s is responsible for a 56% drop in violent crime in the 1990s and will likely produce further declines in the future, up to a 70% drop in violent crime by the year 2020. The legalization of abortion, as identified by Donohue and Levitt, remains an important and significant factor. Thus, two major acts of government, the Clean Air Act and Roe v. Wade, neither intended to have any effect on crime, may have been the largest factors affecting violent crime trends at the turn of century." (p. 35). "By the year 2020, when the effects of the Clean Air Act and Roe v. Wade would be complete, violent crime could be as much as 70% lower than it would be if lead had remained in gasoline, and as much as 35-45% lower than it would be if abortion had never been legalized. At the same time, history suggests that other unknown factors would have increased crime by perhaps 3-5% per year." (p.33).

Here is one of my points with the article. As this person states, there are many factors in the data sets that were involved in the Abortion Less Crime document. For example, during those years, it may have been coincidental that the crime rate dropped. For example, laws change, economic status differentiates. There are many factors involved. These are not counter-arguments, but things to keep in mind.

 

Another thing to point out is that of course the crime rate is going to drop if abortion increases. First of all, there will be less people to commit the crimes. Two, as they explained within the paper, children born into poverty are most likely going to enter a life crime(though not all). The problem with this argument is it assumes that abortion is the main cause for the crime decrease, and it may look like it is but it is not(though you can argue against this). If these children were not born in a poverty state, they are less likely to enter a life of crime, which abortion did not solve.

So, Unity,

you don't mind if I persecute you today just as long as, when it's perfectly obvious to everyone that I was wrong to do so, I apologise (long after you are dead of course)?

 

Get a grip.

At the time, Galileo was stopped from doing science by the Catholic church and they are still in the business of preaching anti-science.

 

"Also, this is also a cultural issue, as he states that “They come with readymade solutions. They don’t ask. They know what is right for us as Africans and the condoms are part of that arrogance.” "

To be blunt, a condom doesn't know what colour penis it's on. They work just as well in Africa.

They do a demonstrably good job of reducing transmission of infection (and keeping unwanted pregnancies down isn't a bad thing either.

By the first sentence, I am confused about what you mean. Long after I am dead?

 

Second, as I presented with a statement, I will present it again.

 

 

 

Found "suspect of heresy" in his own time, Galileo was later hailed a hero by the Catholic Church.

And I present this evidence again because you brought it up again. I am not trying to present evidence again and again because it is redundant to do so.

 

 

 

They do a demonstrably good job of reducing transmission of infection (and keeping unwanted pregnancies down isn't a bad thing either.

The durability and quality of the condom is based on the quality of the brand. Just to bring out a point, people with less money or in areas that are not as well of as others do not have as good quality condoms or education on the use of a condom as others do, though you are right that condoms have a good ability to do so: http://www.thebody.com/content/art713.html

 

But still my point is they are not as good of solution as actually finding a cure for AIDS(though this is a far off point).

 

Though, here is something that would be a part of my argument:

 

 

 

The Catholic Church is the largest private provider of care to HIV AIDS patients in the world. In relation to the sexual transmission of the disease, the Church holds that sexual-abstinence before marriage and monogamy inside marriage are a better means of limiting the spread of the epidemic than is the use of condoms. In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI characterized condom use as not a "real or moral solution" to the spread of AIDS, but potentially a "first step" in the direction of moralization and responsibility, when used with "the intention of reducing the risk of infection".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

 

EDIT:

 

 

At the time, Galileo was stopped from doing science by the Catholic church and they are still in the business of preaching anti-science.

Look at the evidence I presented about what religions that don't obstruct science(Catholicism is on the list).

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Impact of Legal Abortion on Crime is a valid paper, imo. The controversy it created is obvious, but I find none of the refutations offer compelling enough objections to cast doubt on the Donahue-Levitt paper (unless you really suspect leaded gasoline was the cause of all that extra pre-1990 crime).

 

By the first sentence, I am confused about what you mean. Long after I am dead?
He means it's not exactly evidence that the Catholic Church is benevolent towards science just because they later extolled Galileo's genius. They persecuted him at the time, and that's what matters. John Cuthber was asking if it's OK if he persecutes you similarly, as long as he promises to extol your greatness after you're dead.
If the church at the time would have listened to Galileo, don't you think science would have benefited? If so, then it's clear the Catholic Church was an obstacle to science.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Impact of Legal Abortion on Crime is a valid paper, imo. The controversy it created is obvious, but I find none of the refutations offer compelling enough objections to cast doubt on the Donahue-Levitt paper (unless you really suspect leaded gasoline was the cause of all that extra pre-1990 crime).

 

He means it's not exactly evidence that the Catholic Church is benevolent towards science just because they later extolled Galileo's genius. They persecuted him at the time, and that's what matters. John Cuthber was asking if it's OK if he persecutes you similarly, as long as he promises to extol your greatness after you're dead.
If the church at the time would have listened to Galileo, don't you think science would have benefited? If so, then it's clear the Catholic Church was an obstacle to science.

 

Well, it just seems to me the paper(though valid) should be more of an "inconclusive" rather than a solid conclusion that can be made. I mean, it just seems like it would be like saying that somehow the increase in sun flare activity increase the amount crimes that occurred or the Moon's gravitational effects upon the Earth caused more crimes(and if these are true I am going to lose this one laugh.png ).

 

And in response to that then, I would say it was more politics than anything towards that point. Corrupt authorities within a Catholic church(which is why I don't encourage theocracies) changed the face of the Catholic religion. During that time, they defaced the Bible and stated that it said something that it didn't even say at all(for example, there were many times when the King would take advantage of the powers of the Catholic church, such as one king, I forget his name, who changed the idea of marriage so he could get what he wanted), which led to the Protestant move.

 

EDIT: Of course, these events don't excuse some of the past issues, such as the Crusades, which was in fact more political than religious, though the leaders carried out their deeds "in the name of religion."

 

And in response to John's request, I don't know what would benefit you by persecuting me.

 

 

 

If the church at the time would have listened to Galileo, don't you think science would have benefited?

Well, that really depends on the era and what the understanding was of the Universe. It is like asking if someone never existed. Would it have changed the advancement of science? No one really knows.

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, if you want me to.

Here are just the few religions. If you wanted me to list all the religions that do support the scientific endeavor, then it will take a while.

 

 

I asked you to which specific religions don't, in your opinion often lead to interference with science and which don't often lead their followers to oppose science on religious grounds or teachings.

 

Please don't move the goal posts. I was not asking which religions have supported the scientific endeavor in various ways, so that's a bit of a red herring, really.

 

Now, to clarify... With those you've cited above... Is your position that they have never led their followers to oppose various scientific endeavors in the historical past, or that they simply don't often lead their followers to oppose various scientific endeavors in the present?

 

It seems plainly obvious to me that both are remedially false, especially given the information at the link I alerady shared above to http://ncse.com/ , but I'd like to give you a chance here.

 

Once I'm clear on what specific claim you are making, I will begin dismantling it and showing you why those of us who argue that religion often stands in the way of scientific progress actually have a valid point.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I asked you to which specific religions don't, in your opinion often lead to interference with science and which don't often lead their followers to oppose science on religious grounds or teachings.

 

Please don't move the goal posts. I was not asking which religions have supported the scientific endeavor in various ways, so that's a bit of a red herring, really.

 

Now, to clarify... With those you've cited above... Is your position that they have never led their followers to oppose various scientific endeavors in the historical past, or that they simply don't often lead their followers to oppose various scientific endeavors in the present?

 

It seems plainly obvious to me that both are remedially false, especially given the information at the link I alerady shared above to http://ncse.com/ , but I'd like to give you a chance here.

 

Once I'm clear on what specific claim you are making, I will begin dismantling it and showing you why those of us who argue that religion often stands in the way of scientific progress actually have a valid point.

I have already provided you with the information needed to answer the question the best way I could. You ignored it completely. I answered your question.

 

Based on the question, I have provided an amount of a majority of religions(by the teachings of their scripture or basis) that do not interfere with science.

 

And, you must be a bit more specific as to what you request.

 

 

 

 

Now, to clarify... With those you've cited above... Is your position that they have never led their followers to oppose various scientific endeavors in the historical past, or that they simply don't often lead their followers to oppose various scientific endeavors in the present?

But that wasn't what you asked before, but here is what I will say anyways. The religion itself does not lead the people of those faiths away from the scientific endeavors. It is the known "leaders" of such religions, who may corrupt the ways of such religion as I specified within the response towards Phi for All. And, who are you talking about when you refer to someone as "they"? I cannot answer the question completely if you just say "they".

 

 

It seems plainly obvious to me that both are remedially false, especially given the information at the link I alerady shared above to http://ncse.com/ , but I'd like to give you a chance here.

I do acknowledge your source and I have refuted against that link by providing multiple sources, not just one. Actually include the article instead of the website. That way I actually can see what specific claim the article is making that you are trying to convey.

 

However, here is what I will say about the NCSE link you provided, which seems to bring up how states have had "anti-science" legislation within the education system. The Christian Churches/Catholic Churches do not have a say within the state government of what is and what is not taught. If you have learned the way government works within the United States, you would realize this. It is up to the state and the state's citizens of what is taught in schools, not any religious authority.

 

 

 

Once I'm clear on what specific claim you are making, I will begin dismantling it and showing you why those of us who argue that religion often stands in the way of scientific progress actually have a valid point.

If you feel so assure of yourself, then I will be waiting. If this statement is meant as an intimidation, then by all means I am not intimidated.

 

Also, if they would like to argue their points they can. It does not matter whether you may represent a certain amount of those who state that religion is often standing in the way of scientific progress.

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I read the source and I stick with what I stated. The source is irrelevant. What the pope stated about procreation and it's relevance to marriage has nothing to do with this current debate(which is actually about theistic scientists, but to this point what he said was only relevant to procreation and the sacredness of marriage according to Catholic teachings).

 

Actually, the topic is about Theistic scientists.

If the topic is about theistic scientists I find it odd that no one has mentioned much in the way of theistic scientists. In fact the only mention that seems to be even close are the first couple posts. That aside, what about theistic scientists is under debate right now?

 

You asked for citations, since you didn't clarify and my examples were anecdotal I gave evidence that was within the same realm. Denial of overpopulation problems and climate change problems.

 

You seem to not know the definition of straw man argument, which that is not up to this debate, but here is a definition for you:

 

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position[/size]"

What part did I misrepresent? Are you saying that any of those things do not end life? I already clarified, again in the same post you quoted, that if human life was the only one that one cares about the argument is different. Though it's still easily argued against.

 

I did, though it is up to you to see the flaw within the source at which I pointed it out.

The flaw were you quoted the part were it states that the pope didn't agree overpopulation was happening/a problem? That doesn't seem like much of a flaw since my entire point was to point out an example of religion denying overpopulation being a problem, which you asked for in the post before my links.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the topic is about theistic scientists I find it odd that no one has mentioned much in the way of theistic scientists. In fact the only mention that seems to be even close are the first couple posts. That aside, what about theistic scientists is under debate right now?

 

You asked for citations, since you didn't clarify and my examples were anecdotal I gave evidence that was within the same realm. Denial of overpopulation problems and climate change problems.

 

 

What part did I misrepresent? Are you saying that any of those things do not end life? I already clarified, again in the same post you quoted, that if human life was the only one that one cares about the argument is different. Though it's still easily argued against.

 

 

The flaw were you quoted the part were it states that the pope didn't agree overpopulation was happening/a problem? That doesn't seem like much of a flaw since my entire point was to point out an example of religion denying overpopulation being a problem, which you asked for in the post before my links.

I am actually wondering the samething. This topic was meant to be about Theistic scientists, not about what ever has been going on for the last few posts.

 

Well, then let us examine this overpopulation issue. Are certain countries overpopulated? Yes, we would agree to that within Asian countries such as China are overpopulated. Is the world overpopulated? That is debatable depending on your views of the overpopulation(is it that there are more people than land or is there more land used up that allows less people to live in).

 

And, I am not going to keep debating about the straw man argument because you did misrepresent his opinion and he even clarified within his post why.

 

And on a further note of the argument, the Pope is human and though is leader of the Catholic church his opinions are not a representation of either half of the Catholics that exist in the world. However being humans, a majority of the belief is still there. And this isn't an avoidance attempt, as I presented the refutation of your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.