It's not normal to want to understand everything

[Roguish]

The secret to creating an active (if not fruitful) thread seems to be to put forth a questionable opinion and aggressively strike down all disagreement.

I don’t think there has been any “aggressive striking down of all disagreement” – not by the OP anyway. There has been reasoned arguing against disagreement.

As for studiosity, it does sound like bookishness, because it sounds like “study”. Its true meaning is rather the willigness to apply oneself to a topic.

 

[Edward_H]

Well, I think you make a good point.

If researchers were to constanty rectify their work in light of the good, the best, then their research time would be well spent, and it would avoid the charge of being merely pursuing curiosity.

Take embryonic stem cell work…if all that energy had been invested in adult stem therapies…we’d have far more effective and morally sound treatments than we do today.

So much time, reputation, energy has been spent on embryonic stem cell work…and none of it has yielded a substantial treatment.

Not so with adult stem cell work…which some years ago had generated more than 100 highly successful treatments.

 

[Edward_H]

It’s not the work of investigation that’s at odds with the faith…it’s our intention and the matter of study that might be questioned as a waste of God’s time, a waste of God’s creative power that he put in our intellect.

Do we use prudently all “our talents” to bear good fruit?

The Faith teaches us that we must use all our heart, soul, mind, and strength to love God THROUGH our duties…as scientists, stay at home moms or dad, doctors, lawyers, engineers.

 

[PetraG]

Well, I think you make a good point.

If researchers were to constanty rectify their work in light of the good, the best, then their research time would be well spent, and it would avoid the charge of being merely pursuing curiosity.

Take embryonic stem cell work…if all that energy had been invested in adult stem therapies…we’d have far more effective and morally sound treatments than we do today.

So much time, reputation, energy has been spent on embryonic stem cell work…and none of it has yielded a substantial treatment.

Not so with adult stem cell work…which some years ago had generated more than 100 highly successful treatments.

You sound as if you think science advances best when all the research is applied, rather than basic.

Basic research, the research in which scientists apply themselves to understanding the fundamentals of how the physical world works without an immediate goal with regards to application of the knowledge, is the foundation of science. It is not merely indulging curiosity, even when applications for the basic knowledge isn’t foreseen before the area is understood.

It is true that there shouldn’t be research that requires immoral experiments, no matter how prized the information being sought. It is not true that the “retrospectoscope” ought to be applied to decide that some fundamental research was “fruitless.” That is not the way science works.

If embryonic stem cell research is done in a moral manner, for instance, it might shed light on human development by showing the contrast between adult and embryonic stem cells. It could suggest interventions that will work early in life that would not have worked late in life. That can’t be known when a stage of human development or a type of human cells are deemed an area of knowledge that could only interest idle curiosity.

 

[Edward_H]

Embryonic stem cell research can’t be done morally as it destroys embryos.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Maybe it is not always wise to be too curious about everything, but why not normal?

 

[PetraG]

Embryonic stem cell research can’t be done moaly as it destroys embryos.

Thank you for the correction! I ought to have written, “If embryonic stem cell research could be done morally…”

The point is that it is not the application end that is problematic. The “application end” of the knowledge might be medical treatment for embryonic persons in utero. The problem is that it is not possible to do the research without committing a human-rights violation. We could find it extremely important to know how humans respond to extreme cold, but it is not moral to put subjects into tanks of ice water in order to measure variations in time to mortality! That information could possibly be gleaned by anecdotal stories of people who fell into ice water could not be immediately rescued, and after enough evidence was gathered the same information might be known. It isn’t the information itself that is immoral.

 

[Edward_H]

agree with you.

 

[Roguish]

I think there is a problem with taking stem cell research (SCR) as an example, and it is this: the embryonic variety is considered by many (including me) so gruesome that it absorbs all attention and seems to render debate about other (non-embryonic) stem-cell research moot. We are (understandably) so distracted by the horror of embryonic SCR that we think it’s “obvious” that non-embryonic SCR is fine. But is it?

Me, I’m against most fundamental medical research, or what another poster called “basic” research. Call me outrageously old-fashioned (or just plain nuts), but I believe diseases have a role to play in nature, including human nature, and I believe there is something wrong with the use of extreme artifice (i.e. the ultra-modern technology that enables modern research and treatment) to prevent or cure them. In the absence of a natural cure (i.e. a cure offered by nature), suffering a disease, even unto death, is spiritually healthy – in fact it can be the ultimate boon.

 

[misstherese]

A lot of the saints have said curiosity with no point is bad. Unfortunately, God made me very curious. It can be hard at times to tame.

 

[Arbovirus]

Me, I’m against most fundamental medical research, or what another poster called “basic” research. Call me outrageously old-fashioned (or just plain nuts), but I believe diseases have a role to play in nature, including human nature, and I believe there is something wrong with the use of extreme artifice (i.e. the ultra-modern technology that enables modern research and treatment) to prevent or cure them. In the absence of a natural cure (i.e. a cure offered by nature), suffering a disease, even unto death, is spiritually healthy – in fact it can be the ultimate boon.

Wasn’t St. Luke a doctor? Or is that pious tradition?

Declining medical treatment does not make someone more holy. Receiving state-of-the-art medical care does not make someone less spiritually healthy.

What makes a “natural cure” better than cure provided through technological advancement?

When you see someone receiving radiation therapy, do you say to yourself, “S/he should’ve just suffered cancer”? Is the measles vaccine spiritually unhealthy?

(Added: Full Disclosure: I work in biomedical research.)

 

[Seagull]

While Paul was so speaking in his defense,
Festus said in a loud voice,
“You are mad, Paul; much learning is driving you mad.”

Acts 26

 

[Roguish]

(Added: Full Disclosure: I work in biomedical research.)

I give you credit for revealing that. (No sarcasm intended.)

 

[Roguish]

What makes a “natural cure” better than cure provided through technological advancement?

Nature was created by God. Technology, and everything that is made possible by technology, wasn’t. With respect to cures, this means that one developed with the help of high-tech is one that God did not intend for us to have.

When you see someone receiving radiation therapy, do you say to yourself, “S/he should’ve just suffered cancer”?

I’m not that callous. I don’t look down on people for being afraid of death – I pity them. I don’t tell them (or myself) that they “should” just suffer the disease. But if I believe they have the spiritual maturity for it, I will tell them that not treating it, or treating it very differently, are options that are worth considering.

So, under the circumstances of the modern world I’m not saying that declining treatment is always better. It depends on the person, especially their age, maturity and view of life and death, as well as on the disease and the treatment. Recommending non-treatment to someone who is in no way ready to even consider that possibility, would be cruel, and would serve no purpose.

Declining medical treatment does not make someone more holy.

Then what does it make them?

 

[Arbovirus]

Nature was created by God. Technology, and everything that is made possible by technology, wasn’t. With respect to cures, this means that one developed with the help of high-tech is one that God did not intend for us to have.

Do you drive a car? Ride the elevator? Use a computer?

But if I believe they have the spiritual maturity for it, I will tell them that not treating it, or treating it very differently, are options that are worth considering.

You claim you don’t look down on others for medical treatment, but then say those who do utilize it don’t have spiritual maturity. I haven’t even heard of radical Trads make that claim. (Do they make that claim?)

Recommending non-treatment to someone who is in no way ready to even consider that possibility, would be cruel, and would serve no purpose.

So you think it’s a sign of holiness and spiritual advancement to decline medical treatment. I see. Care to back that up with any Church document, statement, example of saint?

Then what does it make them?

It makes them possibly die faster when they could preserve their life longer, the life given by God, to take care of their responsibilities (e.g, family). It gives a terrible example to non-believers that Christians should decline life-saving treatment under the guise of holiness. Physical life should be preserved insofar as one is able. St. Francis de Sales says receiving medical treatment that is available (and not extraordinary) is doing the will of God.

 

[anikins]

I’ve never seen an argument against becoming more intelligent and gaining knowledge.

This forum amazes me. Sometimes in the worst way.

 

[Edward_H]

You missed the point.

It’s not about “becoming more intelligent”…it’s about using your time and energy very well…not flitting from one topic to another, but learning well what one needs to learn well in order to serve mankind.

Browsing the internet - skipping lightly over matters, led around by one’s “curiosity” (intellectual intemperance) is not a good thing…it’s not making one more intelligent.

Studiosity is different…it’s learning well, what one needs to learn.

 

[Roguish]

Care to back that up with any Church document, statement, example of saint?

Why? I was not attempting to represent Catholicism. I am representing only myself. Whether there are documents supporting my position or not, is not of interest to me.

Note that the forum rules do not state that non-catholic opinions are not allowed, or that every question or topic must be addressed from a catholic viewpoint. In fact they state that non-catholic opinions are allowed.

I haven’t even heard of radical Trads make that claim. (Do they make that claim?)

Not that I know of. Anyway, I’m not a radical trad, or a regular trad. I don’t check whether my views match theirs or not. I don’t check whether my views match anyone’s. As stated above, I represent only me.

As for your other points, you do not sound interested in understanding my position better; you sound like you’re out to “defeat” me. Such an exchange serves no purpose, so I am not continuing it. You may hold on to your beliefs, as I may hold on to mine.

 

[anikins]

The desire for knowledge is natural. Curiosity is most useful God given gift. It will conquer fear better than bravery can. A desire to understand our world is a good thing and a source of great fulfillment for normal people.

We are born curious for a reason.

Learning is a perfect use of ones time.

 

[Edward_H]

Curiosity is a vice (an excess of interest)

Indifference is a vice (a deficit of attention)

Studiosity is the virtue sitting in between the two vices on opposite sides.

Our intellect is naturally attracted to the truth.

Virtues applied help us to acquire the good of truth.

Aquinas considered our intellect a “rational appetite”, an attraction to the truth.

But virtues have to be applied to our appetites, rational and sensitive.