Isn't science supposed to contradict religion?

nozzferrahhtoo

Vampireskiss wrote: »

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

No not at all. Science does not contradict religion per se, it merely contradicts many of the arguments FOR it.

A lot of the arguments for religion are based on finding things we do not have answers for and to then suggest that "god" is the only answer. This is a weak argument but in my experience accounts for more than the majority of religious standpoints.

Science therefore does not constitute a contradiction of religion but an erosion of the ground upon which it stands.

The common mental exercise upon which to question this point is the following dialectical question.....

How many areas of human knowledge can you name for which the best answer was a religious one but for which now the best answer is a scientific one.

having answered that one.... at great length I can imagine....... now ask.....

How many areas of human knowledge can you name for which the best answer was a scientific one but for which now the best answer is a religious one.

If you can name one I am AGOG to hear it.

None of this proves religion wrong however, and anyone who claims it does will suffer my little wrath but what it does is that it leaves a hell of a lot of less places of religion to hide.

CDfm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No not at all. Science does not contradict religion per se, it merely contradicts many of the arguments FOR it.

Science therefore does not constitute a contradiction of religion but an erosion of the ground upon which it stands.

None of this proves religion wrong however, and anyone who claims it does will suffer my little wrath but what it does is that it leaves a hell of a lot of less places of religion to hide.

Religion should not obstruct science.

Scientific research should be regulated in some areas where it is required to make ethical judgements.These should be exceptions rather than the rule.

nozzferrahhtoo

CDFM,

I am not sure what part of my post you are replying to Maybe you can help me?

I was replying to the opening post.... is it possible you replied to me in the context of the current place of the thread?

Help me out

CDfm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

CDFM,

I am not sure what part of my post you are replying to Maybe you can help me?

I was replying to the opening post.... is it possible you replied to me in the context of the current place of the thread?

Help me out

Just on the current piece of the thread.

My view is so what if a shoegazing astromoner investigates the strars he is looking at stuff. So totally unrestriced here.

You might have some regulation for say stem cell researchbut thats a societal issuse with overlaps.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ick. Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated.....

but given the bad spelling and grammar in your reply... coupled with the fact that I was replying to the opening post and you are replying to the thread as it is NOW.... I am afraid we are totally out of touch with each other.....

I am not saying however that this is a wrong or uninteresting position.... no sir.... it is just possibly a bad idea that you allow me to catch up with you here and now. IF you have a point to make on what I JUST said you could reply to me now here.... if you have a general point on the thread maybe you should just accept I missed it and accept I can be a little behind sometimes..... or PM it to me at length so I can give it the consideration it clearly deserves.

CDfm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ick. Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated.....

but given the bad spelling and grammar in your reply... coupled with the fact that I was replying to the opening post and you are replying to the thread as it is NOW.... I am afraid we are totally out of touch with each other.....

typical atheist:D

MatthewVII

CDfm wrote: »

I am saying it was a private hospital. Like you dont get meat dishes in a vegetarian resteraunt.Couldnt they run the tests at a public or a secular hospital or was that alternative not open to them.

I dont know enough on this incident to discuss it.

What are you suggesting we close down all catholic hospitals?

Why should we conduct drug trials on public hospitals and not private? What makes the patients fundamentally different apart from their relative socio-economic groups?

What makes Catholic and secular hospitals different? They don't reject patients based on their religious persuasion so why should they have a problem?

I have no idea where you drew your conclusion from. Quite frankly I have no idea what we're arguing about.

whitneysegura

Science does contradict religion, but most people do not view it as such. Evolution is a fact, the bible is a myth.

CDfm

MatthewVII wrote: »

Why should we conduct drug trials on public hospitals and not private? What makes the patients fundamentally different apart from their relative socio-economic groups?

What makes Catholic and secular hospitals different? They don't reject patients based on their religious persuasion so why should they have a problem?

I have no idea where you drew your conclusion from. Quite frankly I have no idea what we're arguing about.

On the same basis that we don't force medical treatment on people who have the capacity to refuse it ie we dont force Jehovah Witnesses to have blood transfusions or the terminally ill to have painfull treatment that "may or may not" cure them.

Socio economic groups doesn't come into it - its a private hospital. We dont force private individuals to do stuff in Ireland.

If the ethics committee came to a decision that it was improper use of the hospitals resources then its an issue for them as it is a private matter between a hospital and a drug company.I was involved in a charity where to help a particular client group we needed to go to the high court for authority to do so as the founding documents written by the donors in 1870 precluded our proposed actions and we would have been liable as individuals for any expenses and claims.WE needed to have approval of the courts to do so.

So it is not a simple issue their are protocols and legal issues that have to be attended to. What if any of the study group being surveyed sued on the basis that it was a catholic hospital?

AS I say I dont know enough on this case but I did see some articles on it a few years back and remember thinking that some wildcat doctor was pulling a fast one and screaming in the public interest when found out.

However, if the hospital is in receipt of funding from Government and it is a condition of the funding that it participates in such research it is a different matter or if the hospital recieved a proposal that provided a good source of income they could take the nesscessary steps at law to allow them to do so.

I take your point but think this particular example was an exception and not the rule and was very badly handled.

It seems to have been a legal issue and not nescessarily a catholic one.

Any research scientists out there that have a view?

CDfm

whitneysegura wrote: »

Science does contradict religion, but most people do not view it as such. Evolution is a fact, the bible is a myth.

Catholics accept evolution. So what is your point?

Flamed Diving

Science contradicts that life/earth/universe was created, all in one pop, and that humans are somehow superior/central to everything else on earth/universe.

So that would be most religions, then.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Science contradicts that life/earth/universe was created, all in one pop, and that humans are somehow superior/central to everything else on earth/universe.

So that would be most religions, then.

Thats a sweeping generalisation - can you be specific about religions in Ireland and start with Catholics.

AS the believer here I need things made simple for me.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a sweeping generalisation - can you be specific about religions in Ireland and start with Catholics.

I'm at work. I only have time for sweeping generalisations. In any case, each individuals take on their own religion is different, and is in an ever-changing state of flux. It would be impossible to cover everything.

Thats the problem with personal beliefs.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm at work. I only have time for sweeping generalisations. In any case, each individuals take on their own religion is different, and is in an ever-changing state of flux. It would be impossible to cover everything.

Thats the problem with personal beliefs.

It seems to me that you are avoiding the issue and being lazy- so come back later when you can

I would like to hear an Irish take and not some guff about Lousiana or Tehran

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a hospital thing and the terms of reference of the research may have been inadequete. Surely it was a Drug company resposibility to ensure the hospital could conduct the trials.

My understanding is the terms were more than adequate. The participants needed to be sure they would not get pregnant during the trial. Simple really.

CDfm wrote: »

Surely - the drug company had enough of a sample size and alternatives to cope?

I don’t know, drug testing is not my area of expertise. Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. Either way, the woman in that particular hospital lost the opportunity to test a drug which may have saved their lives because religion block scientific research.

CDfm wrote: »

Now,I am not condoning it, I just dont know enough but you can read too much into these things and hospitals are a host of little fiefdoms.

There was a requirement to discuss contraception with potential participant of the trial. The hospital refused to do this as it went against the catholic ethos of the trial and the trial was cancelled. How can you read too much into that?

CDfm wrote: »

That said its unrealistic not to research contraception use with a sample group in a survey of this type.

What? They were not researching contraception use. They were testing a breast cancer treatment drug, already shown to be very effective in other countries, which works in a way which would be disastrous to a developing embryo. The research has to know if the women were likely to get pregnant during the trial because if they were they would not be allowed on it.

CDfm wrote: »

The point on deaths is hypothetical as it was a drug test.

Which was already tested elsewhere and shoen to be very effective, so not really hypothetical.

CDfm wrote: »

I dont know enough on this incident to discuss it.

Doen’t seem to be stopping you.

CDfm wrote: »

What are you suggesting we close down all catholic hospitals?

Don’t be stupid. You have said religion does not get in the way of scientific research. It has been pointed out that it does. No one has suggested they get shut down.

CDfm wrote: »

Religion should not obstruct science.

But it does.

CDfm wrote: »

Scientific research should be regulated in some areas where it is required to make ethical judgements.These should be exceptions rather than the rule.

That is what ethics committees are for, I believe. I personally think they should be secular in operation.

CDfm wrote: »

On the same basis that we don't force medical treatment on people who have the capacity to refuse it ie we dont force Jehovah Witnesses to have blood transfusions or the terminally ill to have painfull treatment that "may or may not" cure them.

Not really the same though, is it? A person deciding whether or not they accept a particular treatment is slightly different to a person not been able to get a particular treatment simply because the hospital they happen to be in does not agree with the treatment.

How would you feel if you were in a car accident and were taken to a hospital that worked under a Jehovah Witness ethos? Do you think it would be right for them to refuse you a blood transfusion even though you were bleeding out? An extreme, and obviously impossible example, but it illustrates a point.

CDfm wrote: »

Socio economic groups doesn't come into it - its a private hospital. We dont force private individuals to do stuff in Ireland.

I may be wrong, I am sure Matthew can confirm, but I don’t think anyone is forced into a drug trial. So I am not sure why you raise this point.

CDfm wrote: »

If the ethics committee came to a decision that it was improper use of the hospitals resources then its an issue for them as it is a private matter between a hospital and a drug company.

It had nothing to do with an improper use of resources. It simply came down to the fact that discussing contraception was against the catholic ethos of the hospital.

CDfm wrote: »

I was involved in a charity where to help a particular client group we needed to go to the high court for authority to do so as the founding documents written by the donors in 1870 precluded our proposed actions and we would have been liable as individuals for any expenses and claims.WE needed to have approval of the courts to do so.

That is really interesting.

CDfm wrote: »

So it is not a simple issue their are protocols and legal issues that have to be attended to. What if any of the study group being surveyed sued on the basis that it was a catholic hospital?

What are you talking about?

CDfm wrote: »

AS I say I dont know enough on this case but I did see some articles on it a few years back and remember thinking that some wildcat doctor was pulling a fast one and screaming in the public interest when found out.

What?

CDfm wrote: »

I take your point but think this particular example was an exception and not the rule and was very badly handled.

OK, so you don’t know the details about this particular case or what was involved, but you think it was the exception and not the rule? Ok.

MrP

mickeydevine

CDfm wrote: »

Catholics accept evolution. So what is your point?

So you agree Genesis is a load of cobblers. Take the next step, its all cobblers. Your half atheist i reakon.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

It seems to me that you are avoiding the issue and being lazy- so come back later when you can

I would like to hear an Irish take and not some guff about Lousiana or Tehran

When you give me an all-encompassing definition of what Catholicism in Ireland is, I will give what you want.

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

My understanding is the terms were more than adequate. The participants needed to be sure they would not get pregnant during the trial. Simple really.

I don’t know, drug testing is not my area of expertise. Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. Either way, the woman in that particular hospital lost the opportunity to test a drug which may have saved their lives because religion block scientific research.

There was a requirement to discuss contraception with potential participant of the trial. The hospital refused to do this as it went against the catholic ethos of the trial and the trial was cancelled.

Don’t be stupid. You have said religion does not get in the way of scientific research.


It had nothing to do with an improper use of resources. It simply came down to the fact that discussing contraception was against the catholic ethos of the hospital.


OK, so you don’t know the details about this particular case or what was involved, but you think it was the exception and not the rule? Ok.

MrP

Sorry Mr P - thats my 10c.

A Catholic hospital is different to a private hospital like the Blackrock Clinic or the Clane Hospital and I am not saying its right just putting down my understanding.In that way it will be accountable to the owners in the way a private company is to shareholders.If its owned by a religious order the religious order will have a say.

I also thought it might be helpful to put down my experiences without mentioning the charity just to illustrate that the situation is common and that there are protocols and legal mechanisms which need to be observed too.This is part of the wider issues.

It maybe a wider issue than ethos and may have been legal or even personal in the hospital internal politics. These things are known to happen too.

You know me Mr P - if an issue is wooly and I dont understand it - I will ask questions no matter how stupid they are and I am not afraid of making a point which may undermine a relgious argument as the same courtesy is extended to me on A & A.

On this - I happen to agree that the study was worthwhile and I am Catholic.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Religion should not obstruct science.

CDfm wrote: »

We dont force private individuals to do stuff in Ireland.

You are arguing to contradicting things here

Religion does obstruct science, but it can (as you have) be argued that it has a right to in relation to private members of that religion choosing to obstruct science.

But that doesn't make it any less obstructive.

Religion obstructs science simply be getting into the heads of believers and manipulating them into obstructing science. You can argue all you like that this is fine, they have a right to do this, but that is not the same thing.

There is a difference between religion having a right to obstruct science, and religion not obstructing science.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

You are arguing to contradicting things here

Religion does obstruct science, but it can (as you have) be argued that it has a right to in relation to private members of that religion choosing to obstruct science.

But that doesn't make it any less obstructive.

Religion obstructs science simply be getting into the heads of believers and manipulating them into obstructing science. You can argue all you like that this is fine, they have a right to do this, but that is not the same thing.

There is a difference between religion having a right to obstruct science, and religion not obstructing science.

We are humans and have free choice.

For example,if you say at a very general level that Christianity has obstructed stem cell research then I agree. Thats a wider issue then Christianity. Green activists and farmers groups obstruct GM crop research. So its not exclusively religious but part of a general debate.

Do we have a right to have opposing views -well its a democracy. Its what you get.You may well have an objection to an issue that may be a personal opinion but by definition will put you in a particular grouping.

So you will get disagreements as you will between farmers groups and GM crop people and industrialists and local populations. Part of life I would say-special interest group politics.Some of them will be wacko's.

But would I support a general proposition that to be Catholic is to be anti-science - naw- thats not the case. In the same way- if a Catholic told me that there is some kind of global anti Catholic scientific conspiracy going on -I would tell them to seek help.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

We are humans and have free choice.

And a lot of religious humans freely choose to obstruct science based on their religion beliefs ....

CDfm wrote: »

For example,if you say at a very general level that Christianity has obstructed stem cell research then I agree. Thats a wider issue then Christianity. Green activists and farmers groups obstruct GM crop research. So its not exclusively religious but part of a general debate.

What has that got to do with anything?

Are you moving from religion doesn't obstruct science to religion does obstruct science but that is ok because a lot of other things do as well?

CDfm wrote: »

But would I support a general proposition that to be Catholic is to be anti-science - naw- thats not the case.

In my experience an awful lot of people will chirp on about not being anti-science while happily obstructing science when it suites their religious beliefs.

The proof is in the pudding.

CDfm

mickeydevine wrote: »

So you agree Genesis is a load of cobblers. Take the next step, its all cobblers. Your half atheist i reakon.

Its metaphorical- but if I want to ask a science question I would not ask a Creationist.

Whats the point -the world and universe is what it is. Science is part of that and a very important part too.

Its only a matter of time before there is a Garden of Eden holiday resort. OOps its been done http://www.theage.com.au/travel/top-10-places-to-nude-up-20081113-654m.html

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding.

Mods Wicknight is slagging off Mr P

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

And a lot of religious humans freely choose to obstruct science based on their religion beliefs ....



What has that got to do with anything?

Are you moving from religion doesn't obstruct science to religion does obstruct science but that is ok because a lot of other things do as well?


In my experience an awful lot of people will chirp on about not being anti-science while happily obstructing science when it suites their religious beliefs.

The proof is in the pudding.

Some do - so we should move away for stereotypes as they don't help.What is it like in Ireland - so are there factual examples there other than generallisations.

Special appointed interest groups do acquire loads of power disproportionate to their actual support and far more credence then they deserve.

An example would be, feminist groups and staunch christian groups in a coalition against the sale of pornography.Its an example of how privately they can be buddy buddy and publicly at each others throats on other issues.

How do you deal with this type of politics.Do you have any similar science examples ?

MatthewVII

CDfm wrote: »

On the same basis that we don't force medical treatment on people who have the capacity to refuse it ie we dont force Jehovah Witnesses to have blood transfusions or the terminally ill to have painfull treatment that "may or may not" cure them.

Socio economic groups doesn't come into it - its a private hospital. We dont force private individuals to do stuff in Ireland.

Do you honestly believe in this day and age that any patients are enrolled in drug trials against their wills?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Some do - so we should move away for stereotypes as they don't help.

It has nothing to do with stereotypes.

It is the nature of religion to be obstructive to something like science, the fact therefore some religious people (a lot of religious people) end up being obstructive or opposed to science is hardly a shock.

CDfm

MatthewVII wrote: »

Do you honestly believe in this day and age that any patients are enrolled in drug trials against their wills?

I havent been part of any drug trials so I dont know. The last thing I read in the papers had a guy dying and anothers fingers being amputated or falling off.

I do know that in the UK mothers are routinely asked to donate umbilical chords and afterbirths and being asked to sign them over just after giving birth. There have also been organ retention issues in hospital..

Now I know this is an uniformed tabloid response -but-that is the extent of my knowledge.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

It has nothing to do with stereotypes.

It is the nature of religion to be obstructive to something like science, the fact therefore some religious people (a lot of religious people) end up being obstructive or opposed to science is hardly a shock.

Is it the case in Ireland and what kind of evidence do you have to back it up.

I cant imagine lots of Christian groups will come in and fess up to it.If you prove it I will accept it.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Now I know this is uniformed tabloid nonsense -but-that is the extent of my knowledge.

Fixed.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Fixed.

You left out an "n" in uninformed - have another go