|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: Dream of a new Pope... |
    |
|
While Pope John Paul II was ailing recently, I had a dream of a new Pope:
The first of the Science Popes.
I dreamed that the assembled cardinals would decide to go with a billion Catholics boldly into the future, choosing to revitalize their church by selecting a visionary Pope for a new millennium.
Once in office, this new Pope would dramatically reverse several hundred years of futile intellectual warfare against science, and instead, fully embrace it. Liturgy would be understood as rich cultural metaphor with the deepest kind of historical roots and most powerful psychological/historical significance.
Coupling that traditional depth with its global organization and the new proactive embrace of documented and ever-unfolding reality, as shown by science - connecting science and spirit - the Catholic Church would reverse its long-term decline in the first world, and become an unparalleled force for human health, dignity, respect, love, peace, community, and spiritual fulfillment.
The number of Catholics worldwide would easily double or triple or more within a generation, and the new Pope would be known not just as a great leader of the church, but as one of the handful of greatest leaders in recorded human history.
An amazing new force for a global morality based on facts, observation, and understanding would have emerged -- possibly just in time to bring crucial help to our generations' urgent work of saving live on Earth as we know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
What you describe is similar to the outcome of the Counter-Reformation.
The scientific priests of the Counter-Reformation were men of high learning combined with piety, and many believe that the work of the Canon of Frombok actually started the scientific revolution. We know of him today by the name of Copernicus.
Example: a Theatine Priest called Guarino Guarini (see: Keeping the Faith, article on the restoration of Guarinis Shroud Chapel in Turin, Architects Journal, 20th. December 2004 - author Richard Haut).
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'd just like to know what part of catholic doctrine do you feel is at great odds with science?
i mean the catholic church already considers the bible to be full of metaphor and that is why they almost always temper statements about the bible by calling them interpretations...
i don't think the modern catholic church has just pointed to a line in the bible and said 'there it is' without any explanation or interpretation or exploration of the cutlural or social significance of that sentence...
people seem to think that the catholic church is still the ones saying the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around us or something.
unless of course by science you are talking about things such as contraceptions, abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide, ect ect... and all of these issues no matter their scientific significance are viewed as issues of human dignity by the church and that is why there is such strong opposition since the church has taken the position that protecting that which actually makes us human is of the utmost importance... so i don't see that changing anytime in the near future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for joining the thread! Granted, the "modern Catholic Church" does try to parse these things so as to to minimize the exclusionary impact of doctrine, and the contradictions between belief in antique texts and the large amount of technology in daily western lives built on science. Those dicey parsings murky the waters. But down in there, are still frank contradictions. And some of those key and terribly hurtful "human dignity" positions root right down into the contradictory core.
Here's one example to chew on:
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/article1.html
Quoted from 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', Pope John Paul II, 1994.
"...Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place... they express the truths of creation, its origin and its end in God...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
"While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. ...
"Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
"Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159)." ...
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"... Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [polygenism] can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37). "
'Faith above reason', may be an essential doctrine to support the concept of ultimate papal supremacy. But it does seem to put some challenging roadblocks in the way of full acceptance of scientific truths. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
This offers another interesting perspective:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
"Pope Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”
What a daring step, to acquit Galileo after 360 years!
My dream suggests a somewhat faster pace of acceptance.
Arguably, there has been progress. I'm dreaming of more of it...
Also from: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
"When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:
'Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. '
"Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)"
"... The philosophy out of bounds to Catholics, the pope indicated, is one which is “materialist” and which denies the possibility that man “was created in the image and likeness of God.” Human dignity, the pope suggested, cannot be reconciled with such a “reductionist” philosophy. Thus, as with Pius XII, the critical teaching of the Church is that God infuses souls into man—regardless of what process he might have used to create our physical bodies. ...
"Most scientists would be content to let Pius and Paul have their “ensoulment” theory and walk away happy. Not Richard Dawkins, however. In an essay on the Pope’s evolution message called “You Can’t Have it Both Ways” the controversy-loving biologist accused Pope Paul of “casuistical double-talk” and “obscurantism.” (SAR, 209) Dawkins took issue with the Pope’s declaring off-limits theories suggesting that the human mind is an evolutionary product. In his address the Pope said: "[I]f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God…Consequently, theories of evolution which…consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." "
Don't just go by my little excerpts. To discuss this piece, please read the whole thing. It's pretty quick:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
when JP2 said that genesis tells the truths of our origins and ends... he doesn't mean that the earth was created in 7 days... he means that our human soul was created [developed] into the image of god... which is one of love... so that our ability to understand and acknowledge something beyond ourselves is what separates us from the rest of the animals and makes us human...
science and religion are just 2 sides of the same coin... they are means by which we as humans attempt to gain a better understanding of the world around us and ourselves...
where science ends religion begins and vice versa... certain things that were only able to be explained by religion eventually become explained in more tangibal ways by science... in the end it is really just a matter of comfort... being able to look at a number that represents a phenomenon is far more comforting to some people than saying it happens b/c some force greater than ourselves willed or caused it to happen...
for as much as people like to wave around the banner of evolution as the death of god... evolution merely explains how we have changed over time... it has yet to explain how we got started in the first place and has never been able to predict where we are headed in the future... which of course is a key component of scienctific exploration...
if a theory is sound, there should be predictable results... about as close as we have come to predictable results in evolution is that we know that bacteria eventually become resilient to anti-biotics, but rarely can we predict what form they will take, otherwise we would already have created the next anti-biotic before they could become resilient to the first...
also darwin and evolution have far too often been tangled together... evolution is all about the introduction of new genetic material and whether or not that material survives and causes a long term change...
darwin was dealing with a set amount of genetic material... nothing was being introduced, existing genetic material was just being observed in a winner take all situation... darwin never actually observed evolution take place...just saying that pointing to darwin as proof of evolution isn't necessarily the case...
eitherway, i would still say that the modern catholic church is pretty supportive of the science world outside of issues that have a direct effect upon these concepts of 'human dignity'
and so long as science has no explanation for what being 'human' really is, then i don't have much problem with the church defending what it thinks being human is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While the eternal dichotomy between rich and poor (for instance) has to be accepted, I think, as a matter of "apples and oranges" -- not simply "equal opposites", but actually incomparable -- the difference between Science and Religion seems much closer to being a pairing of simple opposites. As Architorture says, ". . .where science ends, religion begins." "As long as science has no explanation. . ." This seems to suggest something I can agree with, that religious "facts" and teachings will continue to serve (if that's the right word) as they have, until such time as the (truly) infallable method of learning -- science -- is able to answer the remaining unknowns.
It's far too soon to say whether there will be any unknowns left, in the end, and I wouldn't care to predict prematurely that there won't still be some mysteries remaining. I think we all enjoy some uncertainty in our world, and myths are a delightful component of man's collective culture -- just ask Joseph Campbell.
But I like Kevin's dream. Wouldn't it be wonderful to arrive at a place of real accord, and a "unified theory" to which all could subscribe, without any one institution needing to be the "keeper of secrets," without a counter-productive ongoing struggle -- like an intergenerational and pointless "family feud' in which the original "sin" or transgression has long been forgotten?
The tortured parsing of phrase -- like some politician covering up a scandal -- which various proponents of "the faith" are forced to indulge in, so as to retain a measure of credibility and composure in the face of an advancing rationality, is the starkest revelation possible that something is amiss. (The various citations linked for our perusal above, give ample if incomplete evidence of this.) Where is the dignity in these imperious declarations of circular reasoning ("because we say so!") and questionable logic? Who was it who asked about angels and pinheads?
Of course, if an institution has placed all its eggs so firmly, and for so long, in one basket, it becomes extremely dfficult to even consider rearranging them, especially in times of increasing pressure and uncertainty (if that is where we find ourselves today). The only course, for those committed, is to "stay the course" and hope for the best. Too bad; change is never easy, even in the best of circumstances. If Science continues to move forward, as it pursues Truth, must Religion be the institution left behind, stuck with its Story and unable to respond?
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
i would caution against any dream that sees science as some great liberator...
most sciences are probably even less well understood by the masses than even the basic principles of a major religion...
people know there is a thing out there called 'gravity' and it is the cause for things falling... but people knew that before newton came along, he simply gave it a name and associated some numbers with it... the phenomena itself was perfectly familiar to humans... its the numbers, the predictable results, the study that is the science... and even today, hundreds of years later you could probably walk up to most people on the street and they would have no idea what the accelation due to gravity was... or even something so simple as newton's theory of every action has an equal and opposite reaction...
at least the church is putting all its eggs into a basket that it is pretty familiar with and has a firm understanding of... people who champion science as somehow admonishing the human race of the tarrany of religion often times seem to know about science as just that...a word and a bunch of theories they don't understand and probably don't care to understand...so long as those theories prove something that can't be or has not been proven by religion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | i would caution against any dream that sees science as some great liberator...
|
I totally agree.
Scientists carry heavy moral responsibilities for the consequences of their work - especially today when they are meddling with some of the basics of life with a reducing level of concern for the consequences (as with the dishonest manner in which it was attempted to infiltrate GM foods into Britain and other countries).
There are good and bad in all religions - those who use religion for their own ends, as distinct from the truly devout who, under the teachings of any of the worlds great religions, do not seek to do harm but good - and there are good and bad scientists. Remember that smallpox was eradicated as a disease worldwide thanks to the scientists - the good scientists, but it is still there thanks to the ones who spend their lives working on bio-terror weapons (of which smallpox and its variants are only one example).
| Quote: | I must confess to a feeling of profound humility in the presence of a universe which transcends us at almost every point.Ê I feel like a child who while playing by the seashores has found a few bright colored shells and few pebbles while the whole vast ocean of truth stretches out almost untouched and unruffled before my eager fingers.
- Isaac Newton
|
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but I must hold that, if we are to reach other shores, and marvel at its pebbles, it wil be scientists and not popes who will get us there. As far as I can see, religion is dragging its heels (with all four feet) to keep mankind "barefoot and pregnant" rather than enlightened and liberated.
It is only our own collective weaknesses and undeveloped nature that have made religion an unfortunate necessity. In our insatiable desire to "know what we cannot know" (a characteristic perhaps unique to man among the earth's creatures) we have settled for the winsome words and solemn pronouncements of men WHO CAN NOT POSSIBLY KNOW more than the rest of us about the matters in question. We are the blind, willingly led by the blind. And we "let them into the bedroom," to decree what our most personal behaviors and decisions will be.
How dare any man claim to be "more moral" than another? And now we have our politicians echoing this behavior.
What greater arrogance could there be than to claim some "special relationship with God"? We actually empower these dominators of men, and call the "leaders." Cannot we do without that, and think, feel, and decide for ourselves? If there were a Supreme Being who loved us, isn't that what he would wish for us to have, to do, to be?
With all due respect, you're welcome to it, if that's what you need. For my money, it's getting a little late in the day for such distraction from the tasks at hand. I will not allow myself to be told what to think and to feel; I see that as no enhancement of my life, whatsoever.
If we all knew what gravity was, even without the numbers, do we not also know what is proper behavior toward our fellow man? Do we not innately, as social creatures who would like to be treated equally, know what "fair" is, without some "higher authority" of "superior men" to tell us? Let us enact our own laws (as we do), and not be beholden to "the unknown."
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
SDR- unfortunately things like ethics, morals, laws, fair treatment are not phenomenon that are beyond our control...
no matter what a human does, the effects of gravity are going to be present...there is nothing we as people can do to change what gravity is...laws, morals, ethics...those can all be altered, taken away, exploited, ect ect...there is nothing scientific about them...
and i don't think science was ever intended to take the place or religion, the system of scientific exploration isn't constructed to be able to talk about good and bad and right and wrong as humans understand the concepts...that is the problem with science...it stops working when you start getting the human element involved... science will never be able to tell us how we 'should' act ... for all that philosophy has done for ethics, morals, fair treatment... it is not a science...
if anything science and evolutionary history dictate that the strong survive and the weak perish... that seems to run directly counter to the sentiments of most people i would think... i doubt were are going to be reading in any science journals anytime soon that they have discovered that human compassion is a law of physics... l
and as richard pointed out... science is just another religion, just like catholocism, or judaism or secularism.... if someone wishes to use it to further their own ends, they will do that... and there are going to be the leaders and the followers in every group, that is unavoidable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
what scientific discovery, in your opinion, has enriched your life and made you a better persoon or made you treat others better or look at your life in a different light?
personally i can't think of one...
science isn't meant for such things... its supposed to be a quiet observer... gathering the information necessary to explain why things happen the way they do... not to tell us as humans how to do those things...
also, SDR...you talk about religion as if someone who takes parts has no free will of their own? nearly every faith acknowledges free will and most cherish it as a great gift... saying you are catholic doesn't mean you have suddenly lost the ability to act out of your own will...
it simply means that you believe there is a structure of behavior that is best for you and those around you... i don't think you could find one thing in catholic dogma that actually has a negative effect on someone...
if you practiced strict catholicism... you wouldn't have a horrible life, you wouldn't be endangered in anyway... just b/c the church says that premarital sex is bad you are going to get up in arms?
in a head to head challenge, i think the benefits of not - a lovely person - til marriage probably greatly outnumber the alternative...which of course has no lack of risks associated with it...
the same goes for the whole contraceptive debate... if you don't want to have a child...don't have sex... i think that works pretty well with the action/reaction theory...
if we look at nature...at what we can observe in the world... that act of sex generally seems to take place with the intention of reproduction...
i'm not even talking the morality or ethics of the issue... i'm simply saying that the idea of abstinence, the bane of the left, is by far the safest and easiest way to deal with the issues at hand... but its made out as if its some ridiculous idea...
in the end, the problem isn't that state of the catholic church... its the fact that there are those who choose to abuse the trust of others and those who are so easily abused since they have no understanding of their own faith...
the exact same thing can be said about any science... there are those who wish to exploit the trust of others, and there are those who get exploited b/c they don't understand the science themselves....
if you are really so concerned about the abuses of organized faith, i wouldn't think you would want them armed with the trust and carte blanche respect paid to science... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I commend Kevin for initiating this thread, and invite all to return to its message of hope, for a renewal of relevance and a dramatic growth of positive influence in this rapidly-changing world, when its help is needed more than ever.
The news stories surrounding the passing of John Paul, the first pope to be succeeded in this new environment of world-wide 24-hour news, instant analysis of events, and an apparently insatiable desire to be a part of the story (as indicated by "history's largest funeral" and its millions of pilgrim mourners in Rome) should remind us that, yes, it is a Brave New World. And, even accounting for hyperbole (who is going to say "we've just lost a middling, nothing-special pope"?) John Paul appears to have been an especially beloved and effective Leader of the Church.
Clearly, I was wrong in suggesting that Science and Religion are equal and complementary opposites. And the proposal and fervent wish that these two apparently-indispensable human institutions might become more closely aligned can hardly be dismissed, or even questioned.
As to things said above that might be questioned:
I cannot agree that "science is just another religion"; there's a big difference between "taking on faith" that there's a Heaven and a Hell (the original Carrot and Stick wielded to influence human behavior?), which, while it might answer one of life's biggest unknowns, literally cannot be tested, and "taking on faith" that the planets revolve around the sun, which, although I haven't tested it for myself, I believe by virtue of the works of hundreds if not thousands of astronomers whose work, the result of agreed-upon and verifiable method, unerringly points to that conclusion.
The queation was posed, "What scientific discovery has enriched my life and made me treat others better, etc?"
If we accept technology as dependent upon scientific discovery, then I can point to the electric light, radio and other communication technologies, X-ray diagnostics, etc etc, any of which have either improved lives directly or led to better understanding of our fellow men. Personally, I find knowledge of life and nature, not as they "should be" but as they really are, to be enormously inspiring and reassuring.
As for "one thing in Catholic dogma that acctually has a negative effect on someone. . ." I suggest you ask that of any of the millions of innocent homosexual couples around the world who only wish to tend their families and live their lives with the same dignity and respect accorded their straight neighbors.
As I understand it, Christian faiths base their teachings on the recorded words and works of Jesus Christ. I wish that is what had actually been done, over the last two centuries. I respectfully suggest that, if that person could see what is being done in his name today, he would turn his back on Man and try again with another specie.
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
by 'enriching' i meant in the more spiritual sense... fullfillment of onesself kinda thing... not that we have been able to conquer the night with electricity...
as for the homosexual item, the catholic church holds that homosexuals should be afforded that same respect and dignity as any other human being, the church doesn't sporsor hate crimes or anything... the church as said it believes homosexuality to be immoral, just as any other immoral act...
the church doesn't exclude people they consider sinners, since of course it considers everyone a sinner... so being homosexual doesn't mean you can't be catholic... just like being a liar, cheat, ect ect doesn't exclude you from being catholic...
then of course the whole thing only matters if said homosexuals are catholic in the first place... if they aren't catholic why does it matter what the catholic church as to say?
i think you are looking far too much at how individuals or groups of individuals choose to act in the name of their respective faiths... the catholic church itself has been pretty clear on the issue of homosexuality, that homosexuals deserve the respect and dignity of any other human, but the church maintains that homosexual acts are immoral, just as many heterosexual acts, and various other human acts are immoral...
if tomorrow we discover that there is a gene that programs someone to be a murderer do you think the church should not consider murder to be immoral? that person is only being who they were born to be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | if tomorrow we discover that there is a gene that programs someone to be a murderer do you think the church should not consider murder to be immoral? |
not tomorrow - today.
the arguments used by the Neo-Cons and the Israeli extremists run very very close to your example.
there is nothing new about this - there have been experiments to try and programme people into becoming killers, under the so-called mind-control experiments.
the importance of religious teaching to many people is that it gives moral guidance, a basic notion of what is right and what is wrong. Certainly there are grey areas where either the teachings can be less clear or where - as in the instance of a gay Catholic - an individual finds themselves at odds with part of the teachings, but the basics remain.
the reason that the Neo-Cons in America and the Likudniks in Israel make so many people so angry is because they deliberately deny those fundamental principles of right and wrong.
scientists are well aware of the ethical aspects of their work because science can be used for good or evil - sometimes great good, sometimes profound evil.
how bad is it ? There are scientists who refuse to have any dealings whatsoever with American scientists at the moment - because they are using their skills and knowledge to promote evil in too many ways.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
