"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

[Gabriel Syme]

aw shucks feel free.
I thought no-one had noticed I'd changed my sig.

Thanks and I am glad you found us!

Discusions with some passing chrsitians on this very forum.

A very fair point. But surely it is unfair to judge Christianity by bible literalists, given how insignificant their number is? The majority of Christians, mainstream Christians, are very far removed from such.

Tell that to Galileo

But you cant credibly use the experience of one man, as a representative example. Examining his in context of the Churchs wider relationship with science, shows his case to be an extreme aberration.

right up until it conflicts with dogma, then they go all out to suppress.

Someone else said something very similar, its almost like you guys are trained in certain responses lol

One Catholic priest destroyed the entire mayan written language.

I guess someone forgot to tell this website which has detailed information on the mayan written language:

http://www.ancientscripts.com/maya.html

How could one man destroy a language? And you say Christians have funny beliefs!

And Mayan languages are still spoken in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala.

http://www-01.sil.org/mexico/maya/00i-maya.htm

The Mayan written language was not destroyed. Rather it was replaced in practice by more efficient means. It was essentially a system of detailed hieroglyphics, not letters, and so a completely impractical and time-consuming means of writing.

Do you really think that, if it wasn't for a single priest, south-american people today would be signing their cheques or writing a shopping list using those intricate little drawings of birds and animals and odd little patterns etc?

Better ways of doing things naturally replace poorer ways. Same things happened to the Egyptians and their equally impractical hieroglyphics.

Take it easy
GS

[ManMachine]

For example I believe in seven literal days in Gen 1; but does it contradict with evolution? No, because if we believe in God we could believe that he was able (and did, according the bible) make beasts, insects, fish and birds without being forced to first make a blob/slime/single cell, etc...

Noooooo...

Science is a tool, not a belief system. One can believe in many things, and still accept science as a method by which we can deepen our understanding of the world around us. Nobody has a belief in science; one can accept the findings of science or not, but doing so does not make one dogmatic toward science, or ascribing to the values of science, because science does not propose any.

Firstly, I am slightly remiss in not pointing out that the word 'science' is so poorly defined in the context of the OP as to be rendered useless.

It seems to encompass so many different things including, technology, scientific method, theory, not to mention all the social constructs that these things inform.

Let's 'brush over' all that and settle on the broad acceptance of 'science' as a generic term for all of it (although this will be problematic if we decide to dig deeper).

Scientific theory is built on two fundamental assumptions;

1. The existence of an objective reality
2. Scientific 'laws' (really there are no such things but again, let's be generous) are invariant in the future

There is no way to prove either of these, they are assumed to be correct, so much so that when challenged most people don't recognise them as assumptions, especially those with a vested interest in 'science'.

I should point out that this does not negate the technology we develop using science as a tool to explore our world. I am just as pleased with my PC as I am with my car and my phone and my CD collection, etc. as I am with improved crop yields and medicine (to name but two). But these things are temporary easements, we are still all subject to the evolutionary forces that will one day extinct our species.

'One can accept the findings of science or not.' Of course, I can accept the findings of science to be reasonable (that is to say I find they can be easily reasoned) but this doesn't negate the fact they require a leap of faith to get over those fundamental assumptions.

A belief in scientific endeavour and theory does not mean I find them unreasonable nor that I reject the technology they give rise to, or that I am being contradictory, far from it.

We can agree to accept reality as objective as a common experience but there is no evidence of it. Equally we fail to recognise that because we observe the world acting in a certain way does not automatically mean the theories we develop into 'laws' are invariant in the future, there is not a scrap of evidence to support this. It is curious that the one principle that underpins so many peoples' scientific belief is ignored when it comes to the two fundamental assumptions scientific theory is built on. That is a contradiction.

We live in a world that is easier to understand if we ignore these assumptions, much like religious people ignore the glaring assumptions that underpin their systems of belief.

I would also add that anyone who believes scientific endeavour is disinterested is sorely mistaken.

Let's use climate change as an on-going example of science imposing values on us. We all know there is a debate raging about how much humanity is causing the change in climate, if at all. We are all probably aware of the IPCC;

"Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects."

I am inclined to believe humanity has affected the climate. For arguments sake let's say this is stone cold fact accepted by everyone. What we do with this information has nothing to do with science, we are not the guardians of this planet and we are not responsible for its upkeep. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support the proposed solution, it's purely a value judgement built on a moral viewpoint. And yet the IPCC have decided unilaterally to mitigate these effects, this purely unscientific value is forced on us by a scientific committee.

If we make no response this ultimately means the extinction of humanity. This is how evolution works, a perfectly natural process. I find it stunning that a scientific committee should propose a course of action that is not only an unscientific value but is contrary to what scientific evidence tells us about evolution. Furthermore, what the 'scientific' committee is proposing is only designed to perpetuate the conditions optimal for human survival. An unscientific, species-centric value being imposed on us by a scientific committee and it is virtually unchallenged - Astounding!

Don't be blinded by the dream of pure disinterested science, it's a pernitious myth. Now this is begining to sound more and more like another social institution we are all very familiar with...

Science = Religion

Inquisition anyone?


MM

---

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

See my above post (the last bit on climate change).

MM

[jstrodel]

Science works irrespective of your "belief"

What science does not give you is surety..... because we live in a changing universe.

---

Ultimately our understanding will improve and destroy our previous hypotheses. Science is not bound by dogma.

IF you NEED religion to be a "good " person then you must be a horrible individual to "need" such instruction.

Science is a bunch of people talking about what they believe in complicated language.

[pocaracas]

Science is a bunch of people talking about what they believe in complicated language.

Why do you say things like this?
This only sets you up as a troll and you know what happens to trolls on an online forum, don't you?
Try a bit harder not to troll, next time, ok?

[Something completely different]

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)

ok, let`s play this game, with scientific studies:

http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780812200447

I am german, if there is one thing I know alot about - it is antisemitism
Antisemitism was and in alot of cases still is connected to the catholic church!!!

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

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

Clearly you dont know ANYTHING not even the smallest shredded bit about philosophy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

philosophy evolved several schools formed out of old ones.
reasoning and what can be called reason evolved whidely from platos equasions of the shadows to Karl Poppers rational critizism

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.

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.

People have a right to live a sexlife! and most importent of all! A sexlife which is non of the buisness of the roman catholic church!!!
people have a right to know what sexuality is!!!
Which includes knowing about sexualy contracted deseases!!!
Which is called sexual education! Which is what the catholic church oposes because it contradicts their idiotic views on moral.

Plus

you can twist this arround as much as you like, it doesnt change the fact that your church forbidds birthcontrol - hence forbbids condoms - which undeniably - prevent HIV infections.

The catholic churches advice on health isnt worth anything when it infringes a persons individual rights!!!

I choose my rights above your churches advice to be subject of totalitarianism!

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

HIV infections are also low in Saudi Arabia, in Dubai, in Oman and in other countries.

Are these countries advices and rule also good for their subjects and their rights?!

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.

because they had no sex education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

people not educated on the subject also dont know that HIV can be contracted via anal and oral sex.

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

Nope! It is you!!! Condoms used correctly prevent the spread of HIV, aivailable condoms without the knowlege of how to use them - furthers the spread of HIV!

and most importently of all!

catholic doctrin on sexuality infringes an individuals right on havin a sexuality!
And when combining catholic doctrin of sex with available condoms - people will not know how to use them and will get infected.

I am not suprised of Greens position. Because the spread of condoms without the knowlege of how to use them will not do anything!!!

As proven in western countries where through education on the subject - the numbers of infections went down.

Because we ignore your churches "advice" into submission to their doctrin of infringeing our rights!

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.

these are social sciences, such as pedagogics and sociology! They do not change the fact that condoms prevent the infection with HIV!

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.

what a pile of conspiracy nonsence! go and join the ranks of fools who as soon as they see bad media reports about them scream "conspiracy!"

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.

If you want to talk abortion - open a new thread!

The church has apologised for torchuring galileo and has accepted evolution, it conducts research - especial in the field of cosmology.

Yet it is not - pro scientific

It prohibits genetical research on the basis of it`s idiotic doctrins

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

One last 2000 years by spreading antisemitism, ruling totalitarian and massacring oposition

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".

You sound more like Alex Johnes than anyone rational! You probably get your information from catholic sheets
you think they are non biased!!

I chose several papers and I chose them whisely on behalf of their reputation.

To believe that their is an agenda out there is something for nutjobs, so go to a conspiracy shit forum if you want to discuss this kind of useless garbage, because I guarantee - no one here takes conspiracy theories serious!

[jap23]

For example I believe in seven literal days in Gen 1; but does it contradict with evolution? No, because if we believe in God we could believe that he was able (and did, according the bible) make beasts, insects, fish and birds without being forced to first make a blob/slime/single cell, etc...

So, essentially your "open minded" take on evolution vs creation is "it's okay, because creationism is correct!"

Because... evolution is in direct contradiction with the genesis account, and it's been proven to be correct. But you've claimed here that evolution is compatible with the creation account, and then referred solely to the creation account?

You got that totally wrong. I'll put my quote up and highlight the bit you obviously overlooked:

For example I believe in seven literal days in Gen 1; but does it contradict with evolution? No, because if we believe in God we could believe that he was able (and did, according the bible) make beasts, insects, fish and birds without being forced to first make a blob/slime/single cell, etc...

so when you say "So, essentially your 'open minded' take on evolution vs creation is 'it's okay, because creationism is correct'"... I say "no, that's not my 'open minded' take".

Because... evolution is in direct contradiction with the genesis account, and it's been proven to be correct. But you've claimed here that evolution is compatible with the creation account, and then referred solely to the creation account?

Okay, i didn't think I had to (EDIT: i.e. refer to an evolutionary article), but here it is then: click here, and this is pretty much what I was taught anyway (I chose the link because it is answering our exact question in every-day language). So I'll put what I said in another way: the extrapolations are based on reasonable evidence- and can be traced back to common ancestors, etc... but IF (note the 'if') God exists, then whatever the extrapolations would give for the 6,000 year mark is the animals that God would have created. Do you see what I'm saying? God would have the created the exact animals that evolution would give for 6,000 years ago.
when you step off a cliff, you know you're going to fall; it's based on heaps of observed evidence. This is like evolution. you might ask the next question- 'where is the ground' (i.e. when did life start?). BUT Whether or not you reach terminal velocity before hit the ground- you know that gravity exists!!!
This is like what I was suggesting- just as we will probably fall when we step off a cliff, creatures (including us) are probably evolving. But just because you didn't reach terminal velocity doesn't mean that gravity has been disproved! Likewise, just because God started it all 6,000 years ago doesn't mean that he is contradictory with evolution!

[Esquilax]

Okay, i didn't think I had to (EDIT: i.e. refer to an evolutionary article), but here it is then: click here, and this is pretty much what I was taught anyway (I chose the link because it is answering our exact question in every-day language). So I'll put what I said in another way: the extrapolations are based on reasonable evidence- and can be traced back to common ancestors, etc... but IF (note the 'if') God exists, then whatever the extrapolations would give for the 6,000 year mark is the animals that God would have created. Do you see what I'm saying? God would have the created the exact animals that evolution would give for 6,000 years ago.
when you step off a cliff, you know you're going to fall; it's based on heaps of observed evidence. This is like evolution. you might ask the next question- 'where is the ground' (i.e. when did life start?). BUT Whether or not you reach terminal velocity before hit the ground- you know that gravity exists!!!
This is like what I was suggesting- just as we will probably fall when we step off a cliff, creatures (including us) are probably evolving. But just because you didn't reach terminal velocity doesn't mean that gravity has been disproved! Likewise, just because God started it all 6,000 years ago doesn't mean that he is contradictory with evolution!

Oh, I know what you meant. The problem with it is that we can trace the lineages back further than six thousand years.

Oh, and that evolution works at a much, much longer timescale than thousands of years, that's a problem with your theory too. The differences on animals if the totality of life was created a few thousand years ago would be drops in the bucket, nothing compared to the diversity the actual fossil record shows.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummm

6000? A LOT of Australian Aboriginals will be a bit upset about THAT assumption.

[jap23]

Oh, I know what you meant. The problem with it is that we can trace the lineages back further than six thousand years.

Oh, and that evolution works at a much, much longer timescale than thousands of years, that's a problem with your theory too. The differences on animals if the totality of life was created a few thousand years ago would be drops in the bucket, nothing compared to the diversity the actual fossil record shows.

Oh, it appears that I didn't acknowledge that there wouldn't be much difference... I had it in a previous draft!! Oh well, yes, I realise that. I don't see why these were problems? (other than the fossils, carbon dating etc.- but I'll get to that)- that's why I specially used the analogy of terminal velocity, we know that something can be capable of reaching a point, but that's only IF it was permitted to.

So, fossils, carbon dating, and aborigines: It also appears that there may have been a creation before this one, if you look at the creation account, we see that there was already water, there was already earth underneath, etc. (I said it in my previous post). There's more biblical evidence than this, but that also comes with a lot of explaining- so I'll just leave it out.
Carbon 14 dating also supports this- and provides some harmony between ancient finds and the idea of a pre-creation; as I believe that Carbon 14 decay is generally not affected by external influences? That's why I said in my original post that science can help us to understand God (or lead us to an alternative truth- which can only be good for us to make the most of our lives). I guess they would have had a different plan, a different means of redemption etc. but we just aren't told much about it- but that's probably how the angels came about. (keep in mind, angel's were often mistaken for men!)