Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Isn't science supposed to contradict religion?

2

Comments

  • #52
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MrPudding wrote: »
    That is not quite accurate, bread & wine change into flesh and blood whilst giving the outward appearance of not having changed at all. It is actually even more magical than you said.
    Reminds me of the time some years back when a translation company I worked appointed a general manager who surrounded himself with the most frightful set of yes-men. Over a cup of tea, I asked one of the brazilienne translators how wonderful she thought the GM's new clothes were, but she missed the reference. So I pointed her to an internet copy of the Emperor's New Clothes, which she read, and ended up (literally) weeping with laughter for a surprisingly long time :)

    Animal Farm got a look in as well -- they were fun times they were.


  • #53
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    CDfm wrote: »
    Science will tell you how to hang a man -religion will debate whether or not its moral.
    Actually, religion will generally just debate whether a big man in the sky will punish you for hanging a man.

    The only debate in religions like Christianity is clarification of a moral rulebook. Freedom of thought on moral issues is restricted to what you can claim to be the correct interpretation of that religions core text(s). And the only reason to act morally according to such religions is so one will not be punished in the afterlife.


  • #54
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    MrPudding wrote: »
    That is not quite accurate, bread & wine change into flesh and blood whilst giving the outward appearance of not having changed at all. It is actually even more magical than you said.

    It is not a physical process, it is a magical process. Obviously.

    MrP

    Ah, memories of V for Vendetta...


  • #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    We also dont know where Julius Caesars grave is, Charles I or Robert Emmett are buried( or indeed any number of French kings disintered during the French Revolution) but we dont doubt they existed.

    That isn't true, there is always doubt as to whether they existed. But have found enough evidence to convincingly assert they did. But I don't think anyone would bet their lives on it. It is not uncommon to find out that some person or event in history turns out to be not at all like we originally imagined it to be.

    But then "Caesar was a man and existed" is not a proposition that requires extra from what we already know about biology and physics. We know humans exist and we have pretty accurate biological models of what they can and can't do. And these models are falsifiable.

    "Jesus existed, was a man, died and came back to life" does.
    CDfm wrote: »
    What you are looking for is negative proof which you cant have and which you need to close down what you see as a blind alley -scientifically speaking-you want everything nice n'neat.

    Yes I am asking for negative proof, or at least the ability to test that, and if I "can't have it" then you guys have a big problem because with out it it is impossible to test if what your religion is claiming is actually true.

    Without the ability to test that something didn't happen you cannot convincingly assert that you know it did.
    CDfm wrote: »
    For you - you need scientific explanations on stuff you cant understand
    Well yes, that is the whole point. I like to understand things before I proclaim I understand things.

    Proclaiming that you understand something you don't actually understand, or saying it is a certain way when you in fact don't have a clue it is that way, is rather silly.

    Head wrecking, isn't it. :)


  • #56
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Dave! wrote: »
    Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

    Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

    Protestantism all the way! :pac:


  • #57
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »



    Yes I am asking for negative proof, or at least the ability to test that, and if I "can't have it" then you guys have a big problem because with out it it is impossible to test if what your religion is claiming is actually true.

    Without the ability to test that something didn't happen you cannot convincingly assert that you know it did.


    Well yes, that is the whole point. I like to understand things before I proclaim I understand things.

    Proclaiming that you understand something you don't actually understand, or saying it is a certain way when you in fact don't have a clue it is that way, is rather silly.

    Head wrecking, isn't it. :)

    So your issue is that you can't have scientific proof. That doesnt actually interfere with your quality of life at all or the scientific studies that are undertaken. Its like the Scottish Legal Verdict of Not Proven in your book. Get over it.

    For lots of people their faith and the bible is the proof they need. Just like for some Caesars book the Gallic Wars is all they need to believe in Caesar and the Gallic wars. I believe in antibiotics and vaccines and think my GP knows what she talks about.

    No one is asking you to believe and I accept your decision not to and feel its very positive the way you discuss it.


  • #58
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    alan dunne 27 wrote: »
    Protestantism all the way! :pac:

    Anything you do other than sort out 3 Word Story is trolling :pac:


  • #59
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Something of course you'd never stoop to CDfm... (!)


  • #60
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    CDfm wrote: »
    What I am saying what are the issues in science that religion interferes with.

    eh... evolution? I know your little corner of the internet next door likes to accept that evolution is fact, but there are a lot of religious organizations that refuse to accept it and are trying to keep it out of our schools. On top of this there are your God-of-the-gaps, ID'ers and creationist "scientists" who like to slow everything down (i.e. irreducible complexity) by using these questions as proofs of Gods existence. Rather than working to answer them, they work to prove they can't be answered because "God did it".

    Religion has always liked to have its fingers all over government, education and science. Separate it completely from those 3 institutions and I'd be happy to live and let live.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    eh... evolution? I know your little corner of the internet next door likes to accept that evolution is fact, but there are a lot of religious organizations that refuse to accept it and are trying to keep it out of our schools. .


    Do you live in the US? I went to a Catholic school here in Ireland, and we spent quite a bit of time on evolution in biology class. As far as I'm aware, its still part of the curriculm, and haven't heard much about it being in jeopardy:confused:


  • #62
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Do you live in the US? I went to a Catholic school here in Ireland, and we spent quite a bit of time on evolution in biology class. As far as I'm aware, its still part of the curriculm, and haven't heard much about it being in jeopardy:confused:

    I never said it was in jeopardy in Ireland :confused: I was refering to religion on a world scale.


  • #63
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    That doesnt actually interfere with your quality of life at all or the scientific studies that are undertaken. Its like the Scottish Legal Verdict of Not Proven in your book. Get over it.

    Get over it?

    Perhaps you should look at the big billboards as one drives into Bray proclaiming that evolution is a fairytale.

    I quite like my modern health care, so I would prefer if religious wack jobs didn't try and convince everyone about their nutty ideas about reality.

    I'll get over it when religious people shut up about it. But I don't see any sign of that happening.
    CDfm wrote: »
    For lots of people their faith and the bible is the proof they need.
    ...
    I believe in antibiotics and vaccines and think my GP knows what she talks about.
    Well thank god your doctor isn't one of the people for whom the Bible is all they need then. Thank god, for your sake, your doctor isn't a moron and instead of listening to the theists decided to spend time actually figuring out how nature really is, not how some ancient book proclaims it to be.


  • #64
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    Something of course you'd never stoop to CDfm... (!)

    Where is the evidence?


  • #65
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Get over it?

    Thank god, for your sake, your doctor isn't a moron

    No my doctor is a woman:)


  • #66
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    alan dunne 27 wrote: »
    Protestantism all the way! :pac:

    to Bray


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    eh... evolution? I know your little corner of the internet next door likes to accept that evolution is fact, but there are a lot of religious organizations that refuse to accept it and are trying to keep it out of our schools. On top of this there are your God-of-the-gaps, ID'ers and creationist "scientists" who like to slow everything down (i.e. irreducible complexity) by using these questions as proofs of Gods existence. Rather than working to answer them, they work to prove they can't be answered because "God did it".

    Religion has always liked to have its fingers all over government, education and science. Separate it completely from those 3 institutions and I'd be happy to live and let live.

    Back to the discussion at hand -I agree with you that there are some Christians who do not agree with a Platoist reading of the bible. They dont bother me and I dont take that view.

    I will probably put some Christian noses out of joint by saying this but along with an early Greek theologian( who said something about why should he not believe what he saw with his two eyes on dinosaur excavations) whose name escapes me you also had Thomas the Apostle. This guy is known as Doubting Thomas and the hands and feet thing is well known. The description is very similar to those adopting an Hellenic (greek) outlook at that time to religion and science so looked for an empirical test.

    So anyone saying that a person or science does not have the right to question stuff is ignoring quite a big precedent. There is also plenty written about seperating church and state etc in the synoptic gospels and presumably respecting the law and other issues which may not be totally compatible with your beliefs and that you have to be flexible to apparent inconsistantcies.For example, the hanging of the Nazi leaders after Nuremburg even though they used the "well it was the law "defense is totally correct to me.

    Why should people therefore assume that to be Christian is to be anti-science and vice versa when all this points elsewhere. It stands to reason too that unbelievers have every right to scientifically investigate whatever they wish.

    There is a lot of utter bollox in the name of Christianity about science that many early Christians would class as wacko.

    I am not going to elaborate further on this(it being to deep an area) but you know where I stand.

    Thats me banned from the Creationist threads:pac:


  • #68
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

    Religion has always liked to have its fingers all over government, education and science. Separate it completely from those 3 institutions and I'd be happy to live and let live.

    Do you think, like Wicknight, Matthew and a few others, that religion and science are inherently conflicting? Do you think that religion has no place in any of the above, anywhere? Do you believe in technocracy?


  • #69
    Mena
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    Húrin wrote: »
    Do you think, like Wicknight, Matthew and a few others, that religion and science are inherently conflicting? Do you think that religion has no place in any of the above, anywhere? Do you believe in technocracy?

    I'd say yes, they are conflicting and have no place in any of the above, however I don't see how this leads automatically to technocracy, as it appears your post implies.


  • #70
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Because it IS a system of epistemology, and not dogma?

    EDIT: Hurín edited their post....


  • #71
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Húrin wrote: »
    Do you think, like Wicknight, Matthew and a few others, that religion and science are inherently conflicting? Do you think that religion has no place in any of the above, anywhere? Do you believe in technocracy?

    Well how can that be. Why not have a disclosure system like the police in the UK did in relation to freemasons a few years back?

    Importantly, from where do you stand with your beliefs-do you see an inherent conflict?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mena wrote: »
    I'd say yes, they are conflicting and have no place in any of the above, however I don't see how this leads automatically to technocracy, as it appears your post implies.

    Say you exclude religous believers from government then they will be none too happy and its not really democratic to do so.If its not a democracy and its government based on scientific thought what would you call it?Natural deselection.


  • #73
    Mena
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    CDfm wrote: »
    Say you exclude religous believers from government then they will be none too happy and its not really democratic to do so.If its not a democracy and its government based on scientific thought what would you call it?Natural deselection.

    I wouldn't exclude religious believers from government at all, as it's not realistic. I just want a secular state, specifically with no religion being taught as fact in schools. It's fine alongside other mythologies.


  • #74
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mena wrote: »
    I wouldn't exclude religious believers from government at all, as it's not realistic.

    It is much more fun to play along with them Mena ...

    For example

    Wicknight believes that religion is not separate from the areas science explores, and in fact reaches into the realm of science with nearly every proclamation it makes. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that eating babies is acceptable? Do you want to bring back Stalin?

    See what I did there :pac:


  • #75
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is much more fun to play along with them Mena ...

    For example

    Wicknight believes that religion is not separate from the areas science explores, and in fact reaches into the realm of science with nearly every proclamation it makes. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that eating babies is acceptable? Do you want to bring back Stalin?

    See what I did there :pac:

    Thats a relief Wicknight. I thought I had missed something and that you had abandoned your democatic and secular ideals. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Well, you are going to get overlaps into science as that is the nature of it.

    Thats a given -but from a practical point of view -where in fact -does religion impede scientific research. I know its not always a peaceful co-existence - but in mainstream religion ( Catholic,Anglican etc)its not as polarised as a lot of people make out and science is accorded respect, if not in fact absorbed into church teaching.

    I was first taught about evolution etc by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic school in religion class- the whole 9 yards - so I have never been exposed to creationism or any of the other theories.

    So it always comes as a huge surprise to me when people say I have been and that these are my beliefs. I think it is one of those Urban Myths.


  • #76
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CDfm wrote: »
    Well, you are going to get overlaps into science as that is the nature of it.

    Thats a given -but from a practical point of view -where in fact -does religion impede scientific research.
    This is the crux of it. I think we can recognise that there are overlaps (contradictions), but that the idea that religion is hampering science is a different question altogether; one which is totally dependent on where you are in the world. Dublin is not Kansas or Tehran.

    We had a thread about it here, but this thread is good enough if anyone wants to thrash it out.


  • #77
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    This is the crux of it. I think we can recognise that there are overlaps (contradictions), but that the idea that religion is hampering science is a different question altogether; one which is totally dependent on where you are in the world. Dublin is not Kansas or Tehran.

    We had a thread about it here, but this thread is good enough if anyone wants to thrash it out.

    It would be great to thrash some of the myths and show the common overlaps where it doesn't matter and where belief (or indeed secular attitudes) are positive.

    It also would be rather good if this had an Irish slant.


  • #78
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Religion doesn't really stand in the way of scientific research in Ireland. It's influence on education and certain laws are the main problems with it here I think.


  • #79
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Religion doesn't really stand in the way of scientific research in Ireland. It's influence on education and certain laws are the main problems with it here I think.

    What influence?The school curricullum is Department of Education driven and if anything the religious content (Catholic) is fairly well neutered.

    Yes, well you do have Communion and Confirmation and church ownership of schools. That was more supplemental as the state could not provide. So its pluralist as opposed to exclusively Catholic.

    The religious content is certainly not Catholic any more.

    Are there particular laws you have in mind?

    The reason I ask is its better to deal with facts than myths.


  • #80
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Religion doesn't really stand in the way of scientific research in Ireland. It's influence on education and certain laws are the main problems with it here I think.
    What? There was a drug trial for a breast cancer drug pulled from a Dublin hospital as they would not discuss contraception with potential candidates for the trial.

    This was due to the catholic ethos of the hospital. I would call that religion getting in the way of scientific research.

    MrP


  • #81
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    Well, you are going to get overlaps into science as that is the nature of it.
    And as such it should be pointed out that the claims of religion do not meet the standards we expect from other areas that proclaim about nature and reality.

    Religion shouldn't be shielded from being expected to make sense and to justify itself to the same standard as anything else.

    If someone got up and said "I know astrology works" a very reasonable question to ask is "How do you know" The person is making a public expression on the nature of reality. People are listening. And as such it should be expected that they justify this.

    When religion gets up and says something like "I know God exists" a very reasonable question to ask is "How do you know?".

    To be told to "get over it" for simply asking that pretty simply question is rather bizarre.

    The only reason I can think to not ask religion to justify itself is that this would force those who believe in this stuff to confront the fact that they really don't know the truth about the claims they are making. And because so much of religion is wrapped up in providing comfort to those who believe in it, this could upset them.

    But to be honest that is not a good enough reason.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Thats a given -but from a practical point of view -where in fact -does religion impede scientific research. I know its not always a peaceful co-existence - but in mainstream religion ( Catholic,Anglican etc)its not as polarised as a lot of people make out and science is accorded respect, if not in fact absorbed into church teaching.

    It is not a question of impeding anything. If religion is impeding scientific research then things are already very bad, which thankfully they aren't in Ireland. It would be silly to wait until this is happening. For a start how do you reverse this at that late stage?

    It is a question of standards, standards of learning and knowledge.

    I can't think of any reason (except the one above) not to ask religion to justify itself to the same standard of justification as everything else.

    If this was a car company proclaiming something about how great their new car is we wouldn't be having this discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    CDfm wrote: »
    What influence?The school curricullum is Department of Education driven and if anything the religious content (Catholic) is fairly well neutered.

    Yes, well you do have Communion and Confirmation and church ownership of schools. That was more supplemental as the state could not provide. So its pluralist as opposed to exclusively Catholic.

    The religious content is certainly not Catholic any more.
    Children who have been baptised get preference for places in schools to those who have not. 92% of primary schools are run by Catholic orders, and thus each of these have prayers, the Catholic religion is taught, Communion and Confirmation are the norm etc. In order to ensure places for their children in schools and to ensure that their children don't feel excluded in school, many parents are effectively coerced into having their child baptised.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Are there particular laws you have in mind?
    Off the top of my head: luxury tax on condoms, marriage being exclusive to opposite sex couples, abortion being illegal and no alcohol on Christmas or Good Friday.


  • #83
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    MrPudding wrote: »
    What? There was a drug trial for a breast cancer drug pulled from a Dublin hospital as they would not discuss contraception with potential candidates for the trial.

    This was due to the catholic ethos of the hospital. I would call that religion getting in the way of scientific research.

    MrP
    Touche.


  • #84
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    Religion and science can get along just fine as long as religion knows it's place.


  • #85
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Keep your knickers on.


  • #86
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Didn't read the thread, really. Just to add that science often is used to explain religous stories. Such as the parting of the Red Sea, how it could be done if the level of the land is high enough, and the wind is strong enough, etc.

    Sure, finding out how the magic trick works makes it less awesome, but it still makes a good show.


  • #87
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MrPudding wrote: »
    What? There was a drug trial for a breast cancer drug pulled from a Dublin hospital as they would not discuss contraception with potential candidates for the trial.

    This was due to the catholic ethos of the hospital. I would call that religion getting in the way of scientific research.

    MrP

    Mr P - I can remember something about this.

    My recollection is hazy in that it was more to do with the Hospitals ethics committee and the formal approval of the trial then anything else.

    Doctors just can't just decide to do drug trials for money and use the hospital facilities and try them out on patients.

    A drugs trial FFS -thats big stuff- and dangerous if not properly monitored - do you have any info as I would like to know more?


  • #88
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    CDfm wrote: »
    My recollection is hazy in that it was more to do with the Hospitals ethics committee and the formal approval of the trial then anything else.
    No, the pharma company had a requirement that the doctors had to discuss contraception with the patients. The reason for this was the drug affected the way human cells split. This was hoped to kill off the cancer, but would obviously have fatal effects on the embryo, if the woman was pregnant.

    It was the hospitals ethics committee that were responsible for the trial being pulled, as they would not allow the doctors to mention contraception to the patients as it was against the catholic ethos of the hospital. The pharma company had no choice but to pull the trial.

    I wonder how many women died because of that religious interference with scientific research?

    MrP


  • #89
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    CDfm wrote: »
    Doctors just can't just decide to do drug trials for money and use the hospital facilities and try them out on patients.

    I don't quite know what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that doctors perform drug trials for money? As for testing drugs on patients, how else are we supposed to know if they are beneficial or not?

    Hopefully I've misinterpreted you. Randomised control trials for drugs are one of the cornerstones of medical research.


  • #90
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MrPudding wrote: »
    No, the pharma company had a requirement that the doctors had to discuss contraception with the patients. The reason for this was the drug affected the way human cells split. This was hoped to kill off the cancer, but would obviously have fatal effects on the embryo, if the woman was pregnant.

    It was the hospitals ethics committee that were responsible for the trial being pulled, as they would not allow the doctors to mention contraception to the patients as it was against the catholic ethos of the hospital. The pharma company had no choice but to pull the trial.

    I wonder how many women died because of that religious interference with scientific research?

    MrP

    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.

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

    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.

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MatthewVII wrote: »
    I don't quite know what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that doctors perform drug trials for money? As for testing drugs on patients, how else are we supposed to know if they are beneficial or not?

    Hopefully I've misinterpreted you. Randomised control trials for drugs are one of the cornerstones of medical research.

    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?


  • #92
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭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.


  • #93
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #94
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • #95
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #96
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #98
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭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.


  • #99
    whitneysegura
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭whitneysegura


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


  • #100
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #101
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement