"Science v Religion"

[Gabriel Syme]

Thomas Aquinas also thought of the jews as the source of all evil in Europe and was responsible for the worst progroms in medieval europe.

Achtung! That is false! (as shown by the no quote / link / evidence)

The definition of the word reason has changed a bit since these years.

Has not! or...evidence for this assertion?

So where do I get the idea that religion is anti science? Well may I ask you as a catholic why you believe - since you believe what your church dictates - that condoms actualy further HIV instead of preventing it.

His actual statement was:

"(HIV-AIDs is) a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar...ndoms-aids

His statement was not as blunt as you put it, but then the media often deliberately ignores nuance in Papal pronouncements.

On the face of it, the comments are obviously logical. Think about it.

If people followed Catholic advice and only enjoyed sex within committed relationships (an appropriate environment for sex), then it is wholly logical and obvious that there would be less STD transmissions and unwanted pregnancies (ie abortions) occurring, than if people had lots of promiscuous sex with many partners.

Simple logic. Just like how there would be less people accidentally killing themselves, if they went to a shooting range (an appropriate environment), instead of playing Russian roulette with their buddies for kicks.

(The logic is born out, when you notice in Africa that the people with HIV are overwhelmingly non-Catholic.)

I guess the clincher, for me, is that world renowned public health experts agreed with the Pope, and said the empirical evidence supported his position.

The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert

Because we have for a number of years now found the wrong kind of association between condom-availability and levels of condom use.. You see the wrong kind of relationship with HIV prevalence. Instead of seeing this associated with lower HIV infection rates, it's actually associated with higher HIV infection rates. Part of that is because the people using condoms are the people who are having risky sex. It's just like there is more bed nets in use in countries with malaria than in countries without such high levels of malaria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/ai...the_p.html

So, it is actually you who is on the wrong side of science here, not Catholics.

(Note that Green is not a Catholic).

For more on Edward Green, see his wiki profile (with proper references inside)

Edward C. (Ted) Green is an American medical anthropologist currently affiliated with the Dept. of Population and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins University. He was a Senior Research Scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health [1] and served as director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. He was appointed to serve as a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (2003–2007),[2] served on the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council for the National Institutes of Health (2003–2006), and serves on the board of AIDS.org[3] and the Bonobo Conservation Initiative.[4] He has worked for over 30 years in international development.[5] Much of his work since the latter 1980s has been in AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, primarily in Africa, but also in Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. He served as a public health advisor to the governments of both Mozambique and Swaziland. He was widely quoted in March 2009 when he publicly agreed with Pope Benedict XVI's claim that the distribution of condoms may be aggravating the problem of AIDS in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green

So - as is so often the case - we see that the Catholic Church makes statements based on the best available evidence and research, one which is supported by prominent members of the scientific community.
And - as is also so often the case - a generally ignorant and self-indulgent western population denies these statements, and claims they are absurd and anti-scientific.

(you see, most people do not get their information from the scientific community. They get it from news-entertainment, or from their favourite celebrity or comedian, This is why most people are so stupid.)

What is really happening is that people do not like the truth, especially if they feel it spoils their fun - so they pretend it does not exist, and treat those who value the truth harshly, in an attempt to suppress it.

Hatred of the truth (and the idea of responsibility / restraint), is very common, in supposedly educated / civilised western society. Abortion is another good example.

The Catholic Church would never issue inaccurate statements which may lead to people damaging their health. Anything and everything it says about morality is fully informed by the best knowledge currently available to humanity. It is right to say that beating HIV is about changing behaviours, not handing out pieces of latex. On another thread, I said humans were supposed to be in control of their passions (using their intellect), but condoms treat us like animals, whose passions control them.

You don't last 2,000 years, if you talk a lot of shit

All this information is out there, for people who want it. Trouble is, many don't - they prefer to invent their own truths.

Basically, the people and media outlets who attack the Catholic church over condoms / HIV are malicious, anti-scientific liars. They don't want people to have the truth, they want people to believe what they say.

Remember, when we use the media, we are essentially watching a pantomime. It is the news according to their agenda, not just "the news".

---

This actual quote is nothing to do with religion being anti science, although i believe religion is anti science.

I didn't claim it was, I only referenced it as it was what gave me the thread idea.

Im sure i could find evidence of religion hindering science but i just cant be bothered

Cop out!

I know creationists do a lot of this just off the top of my head

Who exactly? People always hide behind the vague "creationists".

When i say i cant be bothered it wouldnt actually take much effort but i dont think this thread deserves the effort beyond what ive already typed.

You mean will attempt to be dismissive, to escape having to confront a strong argument?

Cheers
GS

---

Religion is okay with science...until it contradicts their dogma.

Hi Darkstar

Do you accept this is not true of the Catholic Church, at least, based on its work to progress scientific discovery lasting 2,000 years and the attitudes expressed in the Augustine / Aquinas quotes I provided?

Cheers
GS

---

They are both sources of social and moral authority

Hi there

That's an interesting comment - how is science a source of moral authority?

Surely science is coldly impassive and tells us nothing of morality, only how things work?

Cheers!
GS