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?

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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.


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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.


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


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


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


    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


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


    Wicknight wrote: »

    The proof is in the pudding.

    Mods Wicknight is slagging off Mr P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


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

    Fixed.


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


    Fixed.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    You left out an "n" in uninformed - have another go

    Correcting my grammar will not lessen the point I made. In fact, its the first sign of the defeated.

    You were talking utter nonsense.


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


    Correcting my grammar will not lessen the point I made. In fact, its the first sign of the defeated.

    You were talking utter nonsense.
    Go easy on him, he is practicaly on our side. The theists give him more stick than we do. :D

    MrP


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Go easy on him, he is practicaly on our side. The theists give him more stick than we do. :D

    MrP

    He started it.

    :P


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


    Correcting my grammar will not lessen the point I made. In fact, its the first sign of the defeated.

    You were talking utter nonsense.

    In fairness, he left the 'n' out first.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    In fairness, he left the 'n' out first.

    Quality.


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


    He started it.

    :P

    God started it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    God started it

    :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,815 ✭✭✭Burgo


    CDfm wrote: »
    God started it

    Wheres your proof?


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


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

    Well Matthew if drug tests are so compliant -what in your view are the restrictions put in place by Irish Hospitals on drug trials and why dont certain hospitals participate?

    Does this in any way restrict the the facilities or funding to hospitals i.e. is there money,drugs or what available for getting involved in the research.

    Its been suggested here that pregnancy and that particular study on breast cancer drugs wouldn't have been compatable. Did that mean oral contraception or whatever was part of the treatment or was contraception a side effect of the drug treatment.

    Lets have the skinny as I am totally in the dark on this one.


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




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


    In fairness, he left the 'n' out first.

    It is true correcting grammar is the first sign of the defeated. Nice of Flaming to admit it.:P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 chris.henshaw


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

    Science is a collection of theories that attempt to explain our world. The theories and supporting evidence must be verifiable and testable. Belief systems generally include a deity whose presence is, ultimately unprovable.

    No, science doesn't necessarily contradict religion. Religious believer depend on a completely different set of values than pure scientists. For a Christian, truth comes from the Bible. For a scientist, "truth" comes from theories that haven't been proven wrong yet.


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


    Science is a collection of theories that attempt to explain our world. The theories and supporting evidence must be verifiable and testable. Belief systems generally include a deity whose presence is, ultimately unprovable.

    No, science doesn't necessarily contradict religion. Religious believer depend on a completely different set of values than pure scientists. For a Christian, truth comes from the Bible. For a scientist, "truth" comes from theories that haven't been proven wrong yet.

    Science does a bit more. Medical science is very positive,as is agricultural science,as is building technoligy.

    A successful scientist probably needs to be ruthlessly sceptical and hopelessly optimistic.So the skills and attributes that make a good scientist will make a person a professional cynic.

    Scientists improve and explain a lot.There is going to be an overlap on moral and ethical issues-with religion.Reading up on it is sometimes is restricted by religous beliefs or so atheists tell me. I can't see why some believers can't accept scientific facts as part of beliefs-like there were no dinosaurs. I think its kinda cool there were dinosaurs.

    As a believer ,I can't buy into any of the creationist stuff. I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the idea that certain of my fellow believers may be on power trips and not contributing to the development of medical science and may actually impede it.No one is posting that it ain't true.


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


    I came up with this guy Georges Lamaitre a Begian RC Priest who originated the Big Bang theory only to get slagged off by Einstein -contemporaries and buddies

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    Obviously he was not a Creationist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    I came up with this guy Georges Lamaitre a Begian RC Priest who originated the Big Bang theory only to get slagged off by Einstein -contemporaries and buddies

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    Obviously he was not a Creationist.

    What is your point?


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


    CDfm wrote: »
    Obviously he was not a Creationist.
    Obviously he wasn't a golfer, either.

    Not sure what your point is though.


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


    What is your point?

    My point being that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. To be one is not to automatically to be anti the other. Scientific research is not restricted by Christian beliefs.This guy didnt see incompatability.

    Lamaitre was a RC priest and academic who was created a Monsignor by Pope John XXIII - the priestly equivalent of being made a knight or honours equivalent to a Bishop normally on the recomendation of Bishops. So he wasn't excommunicated or anything.

    So I wonder where the belief system arises from that they are.

    I can get some concerns on moral issues but on the bigger picture I can't see it.


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


    Dades wrote: »
    Obviously he wasn't a golfer, either.

    Not sure what your point is though.

    I am not trying to make a point - after reading up on it - I am trying to tie up a few loose ends for myself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    My point being that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. To be one is not to automatically to be anti the other. Scientific research is not restricted by Christian beliefs.This guy didnt see incompatability.

    Lamaitre was a RC priest and academic who was created a Monsignor by Pope John XXIII - the priestly equivalent of being made a knight or honours equivalent to a Bishop normally on the recomendation of Bishops. So he wasn't excommunicated or anything.

    So I wonder where the belief system arises from that they are.

    I can get some concerns on moral issues but on the bigger picture I can't see it.

    Ok. But to believe that the big bang model explains the origin of the universe and to believe that God made it, just like in the bible, requires one to abandon certain faculties/assumptions of either explanation. In other words, you are implicitly rejecting one, even if you don't admit it.


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


    Ok. But to believe that the big bang model explains the origin of the universe and to believe that God made it, just like in the bible, requires one to abandon certain faculties/assumptions of either explanation. In other words, you are implicitly rejecting one, even if you don't admit it.

    I don't see that. What am rejecting?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    I don't see that. What am rejecting?

    Bible says the universe was made by God, as per Genesis.

    Big bang model says universe was made by naturalistic means, not like Genesis.

    To choose to believe both, means you must pull away some assumptions of either. Such as:

    1) Big bang model holds, but is supernatural

    2) Big bang model holds, but genesis is allegory

    etc, etc.

    I think this is a cop-out. Either god made the universe, according to your magic tome, or it didn't happen that way. I don't think you can have both.


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


    Bible says the universe was made by God, as per Genesis.

    Big bang model says universe was made by naturalistic means, not like Genesis.



    Big bang model holds, but genesis is allegory



    Don't blame me for the apparent inconsistancies of it.

    The Big Bang Model was put together by a priest and Einstein eventually agreed with the physics of it.Its now generally accepted.

    Catholics have always read Genisis as allegorical- and thats how I was taught it by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic School.

    You really do drill down the issues.:pac:


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



    I think this is a cop-out. Either god made the universe, according to your magic tome, or it didn't happen that way. I don't think you can have both.
    The Big Bang Model has some holes, or gaps if you will. This give a god of gaps somewhere to hide. While these gaps exist the big bang model will be compatible with the religious as it can be argued that one does not necessarily discount the other.

    As time goes on, and science hopefully closes these gaps, this god of gaps will lose another of its hiding places and be relegated to part of the universe where are knowledge is, at that time, incomplete. Then, some of the religious will obviously argue that the Big Bang Theory is wrong. The others, they are the ones that currently argue that religion and science are compatible, will point to the new gap in scientific knowledge and insist that their god lives there.

    And so it continues. There will probably always be somewhere for this god of gaps to exist for those that need it.

    MrP


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


    MrPudding wrote: »

    As time goes on, and science hopefully closes these gaps, this god of gaps will lose another of its hiding places and be relegated to part of the universe

    Mr P -it will never happen as the Universe keeps expanding:D

    Your physics is all wrong.


Advertisement