The Vatican and Condoms

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Anti-vaccine groups, anti-GM food groups, climate change deniers, the catholic church on the subject of condom use...



In the case of the four I've mentioned, yes, huge.

Anti Vaccine groups dont have a huge influence just look at the fiigures for vacine take up among parents for thier children in Ireland.

You dont think there is an equally strong pro GM food groups who might want to hide the possible side effects of GM crops?? I think it would be nieve to suggest there could not be interference in the research.

Climate change deniers have had a impact Id aggree.

The catholics churchs issues against condoms has got to do with the morality of there use.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

Anti Vaccine groups dont have a huge influence just look at the fiigures for vacine take up among parents for thier children in Ireland.

Look at them outside Ireland. There was an outbreak of whooping cough in the US last year, for goodness' sake.

You dont think there is an equally strong pro GM food groups who might want to hide the possible side effects of GM crops?? I think it would be nieve to suggest there could not be interference in the research.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. In any case, GM isn't really doing anything that isn't already being done in nature; it's just doing it faster. If there is evidence of side-effects, then it's absurdly well-hidden, and any of the groups I've seen complaining about GM food have had almost nothing substantial to say.

The catholics churchs issues against condoms has got to do with the morality of there use.

Then they should keep their mouths shut on the scientific side, and not, say, suggest that condoms have microscopic holes that let AIDS through.

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Look at them outside Ireland. There was an outbreak of whooping cough in the US last year, for goodness' sake..

Can you give evidence that this outbreak was connected to peoples mistrust of the scientific method?

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. In any case, GM isn't really doing anything that isn't already being done in nature; it's just doing it faster. If there is evidence of side-effects, then it's absurdly well-hidden, and any of the groups I've seen complaining about GM food have had almost nothing substantial to say

Scientific research can eb manipulated by people with thier own agenda. I was making the point that this could be the case with the Issue of GM research. Monsanto comes to mind as an example of a company with a less than perfect record.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Then they should keep their mouths shut on the scientific side, and not, say, suggest that condoms have microscopic holes that let AIDS through.

Agreed that would be stupid of them to suggest. Can you point me to where this is an offical catholic church position? Im not trying to catch you out just curious.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

Can you give evidence that this outbreak was connected to peoples mistrust of the scientific method?

Well, given that there is a vaccine available for the whooping cough, it's obvious people weren't using it because of anti-vaccination propaganda. Here is the whooping cough story, and here's a story about a recent outbreak of measles in LA. (Unfortunately the LA Times op-ed it links to is no longer available.)

Scientific research can eb manipulated by people with thier own agenda. I was making the point that this could be the case with the Issue of GM research. Monsanto comes to mind as an example of a company with a less than perfect record.

Monsanto isn't the extent of the scientific community. Anyone (in principle) can test GM food and see if it has any side-effects. No doubt scientific research can be manipulated (see, for instance, the industry-funded climate-change denial organisations), but usually there's evidence to the contrary. I haven't seen any presented in this case.

Agreed that would be stupid of them to suggest. Can you point me to where this is an offical catholic church position? Im not trying to catch you out just curious.

I don't think I said it's their official position, but it's certainly a rumour that high-level members of the church have felt free to spread.

robindch

rational wrote: »

The catholics churchs issues against condoms has got to do with the morality of there use.

The Vatican is still telling lies about condoms and this remains a fact regardless of how much they pretend that it's not them, but some invisible deity, who disagrees with condom use.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

the catholic church on the subject of condom use...

I dont want to single out an issue but the Catholic church position is that they oppose sex outside the loving relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman whether those people use a condom or not. This is what is causing AIDS in Africa - intergenerational sex usually between middle aged men and young girls.

Saying "people having sex outside marriage" is what they are against is a reasoned position and the condom issue does not make any difference to that if the Church are against sex outside marriage. It is a straw man.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method. Time and again, various groups with various agenda's do their utmost to subvert the scientific method just so that their ideological views can be viewed as science.

Case in point social scientists and their relativist notions like "coinstructivism" a pernicious deoctrine which has enveloped science education. For a read up on these opponents of reason do a search under "science wars" " sokal hoax" "postmodern science" or "constructivism" . Creationism aside, "loony doctrines" lilke constructivism ( term used by a historian of science Michael Matthews) are being taught in schools and teachers are being trained based oin these philosophies.

But this isn't the topic of this thread, well party isn't. There is also some criticism being directed at so called New Age Atheists for helping drive the wedge between Science and Public mistrust even deeper. In your opinion do you think such criticisms are valid?

If they are relativists yes. Atheists can however believe in natural law and in absolutes.

But is that opinion ideological, or practical? Scientists, are an minority, atheists are an even bigger minority, so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

WE need balance of techne episteme and phronesis. The new agers have upset this balance and stressed phronesis which though essential does away with the rest of the trinity.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

I dont want to single out an issue but the Catholic church position is that they oppose sex outside the loving relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman whether those people use a condom or not. This is what is causing AIDS in Africa - intergenerational sex usually between middle aged men and young girls.

Saying "people having sex outside marriage" is what they are against is a reasoned position and the condom issue does not make any difference to that if the Church are against sex outside marriage. It is a straw man.

Its not a strawman. The catholic churches offical position is the popes official position (infallible representative and all that) and the pope said:
HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem" (Source)

raah!

Dades wrote: »

If there is a problem, it's not the "New Age Atheists" to blame - it's their detractors conflating science with what they perceive to be aggressive secularism.

It's hardly accurate to say that it is only the detractors of secularism who would like to conflate it with science. There are many people on this very forum who would like us all to think that it is not possible to accept scientific methodology and be religious at the same time. See this forum/thread for evidence of such viewpoints.

The Mad Hatter

ISAW wrote: »

I dont want to single out an issue but the Catholic church position is that they oppose sex outside the loving relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman whether those people use a condom or not. This is what is causing AIDS in Africa - intergenerational sex usually between middle aged men and young girls.

Saying "people having sex outside marriage" is what they are against is a reasoned position and the condom issue does not make any difference to that if the Church are against sex outside marriage. It is a straw man.

I'm talking about their rumour-spinning that condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm talking about their rumour-spinning that condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through.

I'm talking about the actual issue of spreading AIDS and how the Church holds a reasonable position on it. I think saying "condoms don't protect against AIDS " is a straw man given that the church oppose sex with anyone other then one's spouse condom or none.

What "rumour spinning" by the way?

You probably source the Guardian and BBC who quote a nun and fair enough a Cardinal said something but his position isn't official policy. Above people said journalists report things in a way which is not fair. Here for example

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47769

The cardinal told reporters that the Church has not taken any formal position on the narrowly defined topic that is being studied. In April, Cardinal Lozano Barragan had suggested that conflicting statements on the question, issued by ranking Church officials, had caused some embarrassment at the Vatican, and he predicted that the Holy See would issue a teaching document on the topic. Pope Benedict evidently asked the Mexican prelate to be more circumspect in his public statements, and at the November 21 press conference the cardinal said that it is not certain when-- if at all-- a Vatican statement on the topic will be released.

If a statement does eventually appear, the cardinal added, it will not change the overall thrust of the Church teachings regarding contraception. The particular issue being studied, he repeated, involved married couples, whose use of condoms would not be for contraceptive purposes.

"No response from the Church," he said, "could be such that it allows for sexual license."

It isnt here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/index.htm
so I guess it is just a rumour you are spreading?

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

I think saying "condoms don't protect against AIDS " is a straw man given that the church oppose sex with anyone other then one's spouse condom or none.

On his last trip to Africa, the pope has said that condoms help to spread AIDS.

That is a lie.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

I'm talking about the actual issue of spreading AIDS and how the Church holds a reasonable position on it. I think saying "condoms don't protect against AIDS " is a straw man given that the church oppose sex with anyone other then one's spouse condom or none.

What "rumour spinning" by the way?

You probably source the Guardian and BBC who quote a nun and fair enough a Cardinal said something but his position isn't official policy. Above people said journalists report things in a way which is not fair. Here for example

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47769


It isnt here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/index.htm
so I guess it is just a rumour you are spreading?

Did you just ignore post 30? The beeb quoted the pope himself.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

On his last trip to Africa, the pope has said that condoms help to spread AIDS.

That is a lie.

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

Stercus Accidit

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

Swiss cheese has holes

The more cheese I have the more holes I have

The more holes I have the less cheese I have

The more cheese I have the less cheese I have


No.

MUSEIST

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

Condoms dont increase sexual promiscuity, people will be at that anyway because it just the natural thing. The sick part is that because the pope says that condoms spread aids and thus then people not useing them causes people to get aids and die. They died because of the pope and religious orders stance. How can the pope sleep at night, the imoral plank. That what disgusts me. Condoms WILL stop aids and people will live, how is that not a good thing. Whether condoms are avaliabe or not will not change the sexual promiscuity as that is completely natural and people have been at that for millions of years. Thats the natural normal way and thats not going to stop. The vatican are directly responcible for peoples deaths because of there stance on this. How ccan they claim to be moral and how can they be a source of good in the world.

raah!

Swiss cheese has holes

For analogies to work there must be similarities between the two arguments

raah!

MUSEIST wrote: »

Condoms dont increase sexual promiscuity, people will be at that anyway because it just the natural thing. The sick part is that because the pope says that condoms spread aids and thus then people not useing them causes people to get aids and die. They died because of the pope and religious orders stance. How can the pope sleep at night, the imoral plank. That what disgusts me. Condoms WILL stop aids and people will live, how is that not a good thing. Whether condoms are avaliabe or not will not change the sexual promiscuity as that is completely natural and people have been at that for millions of years. Thats the natural normal way and thats not going to stop. The vatican are directly responcible for peoples deaths because of there stance on this. How ccan they claim to be moral and how can they be a source of good in the world.

If we all looked at it from the point of view of abstract vector spaces we would all be much enlightened. This would be an example of an analogy, we are using the logic contained in one argument and using it in another. We are transferring meaning fromt he pope's statements, to linear algebra.

The pope is the pope, so everythign he says is as the pope, and from a catholic perspective. When the pope says "don't use condoms", he doesn't mean "don't use condoms in combination with those other non-catholic things", he means don't use condoms in combination with them.

All linear combinations of the pope's arguments will still be in the vector space of the popes arguments, the pope's arguments are arguments rooted in catholic doctrine.

So, in this pope-space, his criticisms of condoms are perfectly valid, as he condemns condoms as an abberation from catholic orthodoxy, and something which goes hand in hand with promiscuity.

As to people naturally liking sex, of course that's the case. But if they are catholics then this is not something they should be doing with more than one person or before they are married, if that is correct.

Morbert

raah! wrote: »

If we all looked at it from the point of view of abstract vector spaces we would all be much enlightened. This would be an example of an analogy, we are using the logic contained in one argument and using it in another. We are transferring meaning fromt he pope's statements, to linear algebra.

The pope is the pope, so everythign he says is as the pope, and from a catholic perspective. When the pope says "don't use condoms", he doesn't mean "don't use condoms in combination with those other non-catholic things", he means don't use condoms in combination with them.

All linear combinations of the pope's arguments will still be in the vector space of the popes arguments, the pope's arguments are arguments rooted in catholic doctrine.

So, in this pope-space, his criticisms of condoms are perfectly valid, as he condemns condoms as an abberation from catholic orthodoxy, and something which goes hand in hand with promiscuity.

As to people naturally liking sex, of course that's the case. But if they are catholics then this is not something they should be doing with more than one person or before they are married, if that is correct.

The vector "Condoms help spread aids" is not a member of the catholic vector space. It is imaginary, and does not belong to any real vector space.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

It has had proper analysis. Condoms reduce HIV where there are large numbers of infected(see here and here) and condoms do not promote more sex or even initiate sex earlier (source):

RESULTS. Male respondents in the intervention city were less likely than those in the comparison city to initiate first sexual activity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08). Female respondents in the intervention city were less likely to have multiple partners (OR = 0.06). The program promoting and distributing condoms had no effect on the onset of sexual activity for females, the chances of multiple partners for males, or the frequency of sex for either males or females. CONCLUSIONS. An HIV prevention program that included the promotion and distribution of condoms did not increase sexual activity among the adolescents in this study.

raah!

Morbert wrote: »

The vector "Condoms help spread aids" is not a member of the catholic vector space. It is imaginary, and does not belong to any real vector space.

.

Well the vectors "condoms increase promiscuity" and "promiscuity increases sex" along with "sex increases aids" are all members of this vector space of arguments, and we can thus express "condoms help spread aids" in terms of them. So we can say it's contained in them.

I've always liked this idea though, of expressing arguments in terms of vectors, because linearly dependent arguments can be just arguments that can be derived from one another, and we'll have to have very large bases.

Obviously condoms can't be part of the commandents or anythign like that, as they weren't invented, but perhaps we should include some more vectors to describe them, vectors which aren't contradictory with catholic moral vectors. I guess we can have contradictory to mean ... in a different vector space, they couldn't be added or combined. But the pope-space has to contain vectors which describe the world, as well as his moral vectors

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It has had proper analysis. Condoms reduce HIV where there are large numbers of infected(see here and here) and condoms do not promote more sex or even initiate sex earlier (source):

Well, I think again we must take into account the fact that catholics are not supposed to have that unmarried sex. It doesn't make sense to give them condoms. If you give them condoms, it can only be for pre-marital sex.

You can make the argument that "it's natural for people to do this or that", but catholics are not supposed to. So, if the people are not catholics, then they need not listen to the pope, and if they are catholics, then listening to the pope should in no way increase the AIDS they get.

All the same, it seems silly to assume that those people understand fully catholic doctrine, and silly for anyone to say that for regular people condoms would cause more aids.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

The evidence from the USA -- where it's possible to collect any, since religious fundamentalists generally try to block such research -- is that people who've been lied to about condoms tend have sex with STD-infected people at roughly the same rate as people who have not been lied to. Unfortunately, if you've been lied to about the effectiveness of condoms, then you simply won't bother using them when you should, and you'll become infected. This is a straightforward link and it appears to be supported by the imperfect level of information that's currently available.

It's generally believed that this is why the bible belt states in the USA typically have rates of STD's, abortion, teenage pregnancy etc which are higher, and occasionally far, far, higher, than the states in which lying to clueless teenagers is thought to be a bad idea.

.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Well, I think again we must take into account the fact that catholics are not supposed to have that unmarried sex. It doesn't make sense to give them condoms. If you give them condoms, it can only be for pre-marital sex.

You can make the argument that "it's natural for people to do this or that", but catholics are not supposed to. So, if the people are not catholics, then they need not listen to the pope, and if they are catholics, then listening to the pope should in no way increase the AIDS they get.

All the same, it seems silly to assume that those people understand fully catholic doctrine, and silly for anyone to say that for regular people condoms would cause more aids.

Wow. That has almost nothing to do with what I posted. Nowhere does it deal with the fact that the evidence shows that condoms help stop aids and do not increase promiscuity. Nowhere does it even deal with the fact that the pope lied about this and claimed that condoms increase the rate of transmission. Its almost like you didn't read my post at all and are just spouting the same craptacular argument that has been debunked by, what, 3 other people on this page alone.

sponsoredwalk

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method.

If anything I think appreciation of science has higher than it's ever been
in history and is growing exponentially. Focusing on these few negative
cases maps you in to a particular subset, the image of which will never
compare to that of the set it is enclosed in. As the universal set
expands at an accerated rate so does the particular set representing
science whose internal subspace representing anti-science will simply
remain a constant annoyance, but bounded. Vectors like engineering,
biology, psychology, etc... have variable scale factors, currently positive
This anti-science subset is pretty tame compared to the influence it had
throughout history, I see no reason why it wont continue to remain
constant as the set science increases, thereby making the anti-science
subset even less important.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Well, I think again we must take into account the fact that catholics are not supposed to have that unmarried sex.

Shouldn't we also take into account that while Christians are not supposed to sin they will anyway. Ignoring that seems rather naive, particularly when this is ignored really only when it comes to sex.

It is like saying we don't require monitoring of child abuse because Catholic priests aren't supposed to abuse young child. But they do anyway.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow. That has almost nothing to do with what I posted. Nowhere does it deal with the fact that the evidence shows that condoms help stop aids and do not increase promiscuity. Nowhere does it even deal with the fact that the pope lied about this and claimed that condoms increase the rate of transmission. Its almost like you didn't read my post at all and are just spouting the same craptacular argument that has been debunked by, what, 3 other people on this page alone.

Well, the reason it has nothing to do with what you posted is that what you posted had nothing to do with what I posted. If the pope directly said, "wearing a condom during sex makes it more likely for you to get aids than if you have this sex without a condom" , then your post would be a response to mine. Your post does not respond to what I said. The Pope was speaking to catholics, under the assumption that they followed catholic dogma.

Repeating statistics about the sex that people have outside of marriage and its relation to condoms does not address this. If condoms lead to sex outside of marriage, then they lead to aids. That was the argument.

As far as I can see the post has been addressed twice, your post was not one of those that did.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Shouldn't we also take into account that while Christians are not supposed to sin they will anyway. Ignoring that seems rather naive, particularly when this is ignored really only when it comes to sex.

It is like saying we don't require monitoring of child abuse because Catholic priests aren't supposed to abuse young child. But they do anyway.

Yes, its quite similar to this. But we can make another comparison here, preists are not supposed to have sex or rape children. So if the pope started talking to preists about condoms, it wouldn't really make sense would it. For the pope condoms are inextricably linked with extramarital sex, as I've said.

I was merely pointing out how calling him a liar without listening to what he says in the proper context will lead to an invalid argument. Just as posting loads of statistics involving extramarital sex will need a qualifying statement, like this one you've posted, and like the one posted by mouse. We could accuse him of not caring about whether the non or lapsed catholics listened to him and got more aids, and maybe this is an actual position he holds, though it seems unlikely.

So we could call the pope naieve, perhaps irresponsible for not taking the degrees of catholicism of the people to whom he's speakign into into account, but calling him a liar is not somethign which there is sufficient evidence to support, though there is clearly sufficient emotional incentive.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Yes, its quite similar to this. But we can make another comparison here, preists are not supposed to have sex or rape children. So if the pope started talking to preists about condoms, it wouldn't really make sense would it. For the pope condoms are inextricably linked with extramarital sex, as I've said.

That is a different issue though, the idea that saying "Use a condom" is the same as saying "Go have risky sex"

People need to get over this idea. If I knew someone was raping children and I couldn't stop him or report him to the police or anything but I thought if I gave him a condom he would use it I would give him the condom.

padma

Malty_T wrote: »

, so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

This is an interesting question. Sounds similar to fundamentalist religious groups out looking for converts, just kidding. The way I see it, is people have different interests. Some people myself included, more and likely see science as a boring subject which we were forced to do in school. This leading to a lifetime of no interest in the subject after it being forced on us through the education system.

I've always liked history and believe that if people knew more about history they would have a better grasp and understanding of the social and political landscape. However it is just a subject that I have interest in, yet have no interest in trying to address peoples illiteracy on the subject.

Would this help you to form an opinion on the subject?

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a different issue though, the idea that saying "Use a condom" is the same as saying "Go have risky sex"

People need to get over this idea.

Well it's not really my view on the matter, but in the context of all extramarital sex being wrong, you can see how suddenly condoning condoms would be related to it.

If I knew someone was raping children and I couldn't stop him or report him to the police or anything but I thought if I gave him a condom he would use it I would give him the condom.

Yes this is essentially the issue at hand. If the condom only served to protect the man, then maybe the pope would not want him to have a condom. Then again, I don't know anything about the pope.