Religion and the Discomfort of Biology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who better to make concerns known? Do I really want a scientist that won’t use ethics judgments in their endeavors? That won’t ask or present the moral / ethical ramifications?
Usually the scientists are not the ones who put their results into practise. Marie Curie had no idea what kind of results will come out of her research. Better hope to get sensible politicians - though it is a vain hope.
I was referring to Eugenics, Sorry, Who decides which qualities are of value? The Marie Stoples of the world? Peter Singers? The UN? Utilitarians?
I am sure we can come to a pretty good concensus on the matter. Lack of diseases is desirable. Better bra(name removed by moderator)ower also. A well-balanced physical body. And stuff like that. The problem is not what we consider good quality, but how we are about to obtain it.

Consider the agricultural experiments of making better quality food, plants which are more resistant to bugs and diseases. The “old fashioned”, unpredictable method was selective cross-pollenating, experimenting and selecting the best results. The process works, after a fashion, but it is long. Genetic engineering can produce results much faster, and much more reliably. Still, there are many people who object it. How stupid!
In a perfect world - this is true.
I think it is good in our imperfect existence, too
Soooo…2 to the 6th power?

I’m trying for 2 to the 4th power…but it’s a way off 😃
Good job. 🙂 And congratulations!
 
Usually the scientists are not the ones who put their results into practise. Marie Curie had no idea what kind of results will come out of her research.** Better hope to get sensible politicians **- though it is a vain hope.
We are in a world of hurt - if we wait on that 😃
I am sure we can come to a pretty good concensus on the matter. Lack of diseases is desirable. Better bra(name removed by moderator)ower also. A well-balanced physical body. And stuff like that. The problem is not what we consider good quality, but how we are about to obtain it.
And who administers it - and what happens, now that we have super bodies, to those who don’t. It is only one small step away to assert who has value 😦
Consider the agricultural experiments of making better quality food, plants which are more resistant to bugs and diseases. The “old fashioned”, unpredictable method was selective cross-pollenating, experimenting and selecting the best results. The process works, after a fashion, but it is long. Genetic engineering can produce results much faster, and much more reliably. Still, there are many people who object it. How stupid!
Could this be why the honey bee is disappearing? We don’t always see the ramifications of our actions, till to late.

Thank you:)

As always just my thoughts
 
So, my question is simply: Why? What is it about biology that creates such a visceral discomfort?
So, my question is simply: Why? What is it about biology that creates such a visceral discomfort?
i dont see it myself. the protestants are literalists, so evolution a threat to their beliefs. then again ive noticed most atheists, and i know a bunch, come from the protestant backgrounds, so maybe there is just an observer bias to it. 🤷
 
Science - in and by itself - is value-neutral. The application of the results can have moral implications. Nuclear energy can produce reactors and bombs. As the saying goes, there is no hammer which can only pound a nail but not someone’s head.

In the case of eugenics, what is wrong with creating humans, who are stronger, smarter, resistant to diseases, and have a wonderful perception of art and music? How does that “devalue” human life - in principle? It is just another enhancement. We see nothing wrong with machines which are used to make life easier in some respect or another. A hammer is just an enhanced fist. An artificial heart would have no possibility of a heart attack. Eyeglasses fix the deterioration of the sight. Do they “devalue” human life?

Here comes another possibility. Biology might become so advanced that it can create artifical human beings - androids. Why would such an act “devalue” human life?

I recall the time when medical science became advanced enough that child birth became possible without the accompanying pain. There was an uproar among the churches, who argued that human birth is ordained to be painful, and we should not “tinker” with God’s decision… Why not?

I agree that some churches will be against the so-called “immoral” usage of science, and depending on their definition of “morality”, they may be right, or may be wrong.
It sounds like you are equating artificially creating a human life with healing and assisting a part of a human’s body. They are two different things. If you are a person who is an atheist then you do not have a problem with artificially creating a human. The problems come with morals and ethics.

Speaking from the perspective that there is a benevolent God there is a huge problem with artificially creating a human. Basically, if you are in the business of doing this then you are playing God. Humans are too arrogant, selfish, and imperfect to believe that they can create life and have everthing turn out alright. Must I remind you that Hitler had the same twisted idea of creating “super race” and we all know how that turned out. The question is not whether we can but whether we should. If we artificially create humans and androids and have them look like and function like humans how are their creators going to see them? Are they going to look at them as a group of subhumans? What if things don’t turn out as expected or something goes wrong? Will they then be discarded like yesterdays trash? These are all questions to be taken into consideration and we have to remind ourselves that better and smarter is not necessarily good. There have been many smart people who have done terrible and horrible atrocities.

We should also remember that diseases even though bad remind us of our mortality and that one day we are going to die.

When it comes to pain and childbirth I sympathize with people who are experiencing pain because it can be very difficult to handle. I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to childbirth by attempting to have a natural birth after 41 hours in labor and ending up having a c-section in the end. There have been studies done on primates where the ones who had c-sections did not recognize their young versus the ones who had a natural birth because of the hormnes that are given off during natural birth that make someone bond and want to protect their young. This is a very new field of study that I hope continues to give us some insight into birth and how pain fits into it but it is a discussion for some other time.
 
Greetings everyone.

I am in the midst of still digesting responses, and some of them have been quite thoughtful.

I did want to point out one thing. A number of responses have made allusions to the often debated topic of evolution, and here i’d like to explicitly state that this is not what this thread is about.

I’m sure that topic has been “dissected” to death on this and many other forums. So frankly, a rehashing of the various arguments would be of little profit to those interested in this thread save perhaps as a rhetorical exercise.

Thank you.
 
I’ve come to today ask about the religion and the discomfort of biology.



And i wouldn’t say its a coincidence that those atheists who clash the most with religious organizations tend to emanate from the biological sciences.

So, my question is simply: Why? What is it about biology that creates such a visceral discomfort?
I think in a sense the answer to your question is obvious and it has already been answered. What better to cause visceral discomfort than the discipline which studies viscera? I’m just wondering why you single out religion. I wouldn’t have thought that a particular inclination to discomfort with these issues was peculiar to those who are religious (unless we were using ‘religious’ in a very broad anthropological sense such that man as such is religious - not what you intended, I think). Your claim above could be taken as supporting the preferability of this broader take on the phenomenon.
 
It sounds like you are equating artificially creating a human life with healing and assisting a part of a human’s body. They are two different things.
The question is: where does “patching” stop and “new creation” begin? A crude example: one day you can replace the sole of a shoe, then next day your replace the upper part. Do you have the same shoe, or a new one? Gradual “tinkering” and “fixing” can and will lead to something brand new. If the gradual fixing is morally ok, then why should the full process be questionable?
If you are a person who is an atheist then you do not have a problem with artificially creating a human. The problems come with morals and ethics.
Certainly.
Speaking from the perspective that there is a benevolent God there is a huge problem with artificially creating a human. Basically, if you are in the business of doing this then you are playing God.
We do that all the time. We keep on creating new “stuff”, fixing the “natural” processes, when they can and need to be fixed. Our differences come from the fact that you view humans as something fundamentally different - so much so, that human life should not be “tinkered with”. But then you contradict that stance by seeing nothing wrong with the small, gradual improvements, like eyeglasses, artifical kidneys, etc…
Humans are too arrogant, selfish, and imperfect to believe that they can create life and have everthing turn out alright. Must I remind you that Hitler had the same twisted idea of creating “super race” and we all know how that turned out. The question is not whether we can but whether we should. If we artificially create humans and androids and have them look like and function like humans how are their creators going to see them? Are they going to look at them as a group of subhumans? What if things don’t turn out as expected or something goes wrong? Will they then be discarded like yesterdays trash? These are all questions to be taken into consideration and we have to remind ourselves that better and smarter is not necessarily good. There have been many smart people who have done terrible and horrible atrocities.
These are valid concerns. Your solution is: “let’s not do it”. Mine is: “someone will do it, therefore let’s educate humans to deal with it”.
We should also remember that diseases even though bad remind us of our mortality and that one day we are going to die.
Today, for sure. But aging can be viewed as a disease, the deterioration of information transmission when the cells split and are replaced, and theoretically this can be cured.
When it comes to pain and childbirth I sympathize with people who are experiencing pain because it can be very difficult to handle. I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to childbirth by attempting to have a natural birth after 41 hours in labor and ending up having a c-section in the end. There have been studies done on primates where the ones who had c-sections did not recognize their young versus the ones who had a natural birth because of the hormnes that are given off during natural birth that make someone bond and want to protect their young. This is a very new field of study that I hope continues to give us some insight into birth and how pain fits into it but it is a discussion for some other time.
Interesting, but as you suggest, it should discussed somewhere else.
 
I think in a sense the answer to your question is obvious and it has already been answered. What better to cause visceral discomfort than the discipline which studies viscera? I’m just wondering why you single out religion.
Could it be due to the two popular philosophies, materialism and relativism, which make religion uncomfortable?
 
]Too old. 🙂 The largest power of 2 that I can reasonably expect to live. The next one has been achieved, but only by a very few people.
Congratulations! You are older than 100, and younger than 121.
 
The bias though against those who do believe in God in biology is real. Just look at that Catholic biology professor in Pennsylvania. I believe Penn State had to disassociate itself from him because he believed in theistic evolution (as if any faculty that believe in God is embarrassing). It goes as far as to say that if you dont accept atheistic evolution, you are anti-science.
Which biology professor is this? If you mean Michael Behe he is not at Penn State but at Lehigh University, and he is not a biologist but a biochemist, and he is a supporter not of theistic evolution but of IDC (intelligent design creationism"). I apologize if you are referring to someone different.

StAnastasia
 
Greetings all, i don’t particularly post a lot these days but there seems to be a number of new interesting forumites around i feel that perhaps i shall take an opportune moment to ask a question.

Admittedly this is a bit of an opinion question, but i’m hoping that people can show a certain level of civility and restraint in airing out those opinions.

I’ve come to today ask about the religion and the discomfort of biology. What I mean by that is the following. I’m not here to bore you with the “Science vs. Religion” warfare paradigm, simply because i don’t buy into it, at least not in its extreme form as if there were two idealized factions warring across the face of human history.

But if we are to chop up all the sciences into their individual specific fields, there seems to be rather heavy discomfort with the theoretical and applied aspects of biology vis-a-vis religion, be you Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or otherwise.

Stop and think with me for a second. In the long history of Western science, fields like Chemistry or Geology do not evince a very negative reaction.

Chemistry’s forefather alchemy tended to get a light slap on the wrist in terms of the idea of turning lead to gold. But the religious authorities backing such negative criticism seem to merely falling in lock-step with the secular authorities of that time, who were afraid that such successful transmutation would destabilize their economy. In other words, their worried about their money.

I know someone is about to shout Physics and the Galileo incident, however as much of a stain that incident was it doesn’t properly characterize the whole relationship between religion and physics. In fact, during dark times, many religious figures were the ones who are carrying the torch of Reason in trying to understand the mysteries before us.

But there’s something about Biology, and extended into medical science, that really raises the hackles of religious opinion throughout all eras. I’m not talking about plants or animals, but really biology that applies to us. In fact, my friends who do work in those allied fields would claim that, Galileo aside, Physics gets off easy. After all, you don’t really see people protesting the CERN Reactor in Switzerland.

To them, religious sentiment tends to be downright obstructionist toward biology.

Before a moderator comes in and shoots down fire brimstone upon my head for fear of raising the specter of yet another evolution debate, please have a little more faith me.

I’m a very applied person. So let’s start with something more down to earth, such as the Dissection of Corpses.

A non-issue in this day and age, but something that would have gotten me hanged in the Middle ages. More often than not, the reasoning behind it tends to be a religious one.

Let me clarify, i don’t mean to say this doctrine. But when somebody would pursue that bit of knowledge in the past and if they got caught, would summarily be vilified. Bad moral character, demonic possession, and offense toward the creation of God are some of the charges levied against such a person.

At this time i’d like to point out that the Alchemist and Astrologer, the forebearers of the Chemist and the Astronomer, get off pretty easy in comparison.

Fast forwarding to the future, some would say there’s a symmetry between those old attitudes and the treatment of say stem cell research. It would go something to the effect of “oh, here they going again. Obstructing progress once more. etc. etc.”

That’s a debate for another day and another time. The point i’m trying to illustrate though is that there’s kind of an emotional “umpf” if you will when it comes to biology.

No one gets angry at the findings of quantum physics or the creation of new organic compounds. However, people can get downright nasty when it comes to biological research in applied or theoretical forms, everything from animal testing (a problem for those who believe in reincarnation) to stem cells.

And i wouldn’t say its a coincidence that those atheists who clash the most with religious organizations tend to emanate from the biological sciences.

So, my question is simply: Why? What is it about biology that creates such a visceral discomfort?
There is no discomfort. Problems occur only when the biological sciences make claims beyond what they can demonstrate.

Example: The human being is just another animal form. All living forms are self-generated. The mind-brain consists only of chemical processes responding to outside stimuli. This mind-brain combination is self-generating and self-upgrading. All life exists purely due to mechanical processes.

Peace,
Ed
 
So sorry, your solution is wrong. 🙂 I did not say square number, rather the power of 2. (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, … etc.)
Oh, sorry RDaneel – I misread you. Since I don’t think anyone is documented as having attained the age of 128, you must be somewhere between 32 and 64.
 
Biolgy deals with human life. The dignity and value of human life goes far beyond the importance of science regarding chemistry or astrology.

For example, religion has no problem with preforming abortions on cattle. Only when it threatens the value and dignity of a human person do complications arise.
 
Oh, sorry RDaneel – I misread you. Since I don’t think anyone is documented [hello? book of Genesis?] as having attained the age of 128, you must be somewhere between 32 and 64.
RDaneel seems like a pious Bible-believing kind of dude - I think he’s trying to tell us he is over 256 years old, but under 512.😃

No, seriously, he’s gotta be over 64. He’s ooold! 😉
 
RDaneel seems like a pious Bible-believing kind of dude - I think he’s trying to tell us he is over 256 years old, but under 512.😃

No, seriously, he’s gotta be over 64. He’s ooold! 😉
Betterae, my kids think I’m over 256, as how can anyone as lame as I am be younger than 2 to the 6th? But I do believe 128 has not been documented, unless I cna be shown evdience other wise. I think 122 is the oldest on record (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people). That would put RDaneel between 32 and 64. I just hope I make it to my next square age.

StAnastasia
 
Betterae, my kids think I’m over 256, as how can anyone as lame as I am be younger than 2 to the 6th? But I do believe 128 has not been documented, unless I cna be shown evdience other wise. I think 122 is the oldest on record (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people). That would put RDaneel between 32 and 64. I just hope I make it to my next square age.

StAnastasia
Sorry – I meant Betterave, O Great Beetroot.
 
I’m not sure what you mean - what does this have to do with biology?
I was answering your comment: “I’m just wondering why you single out religion.”
in post 28

Materialism is the underlying philosophy of biological sciences. By understanding this philosophy, one finds another approach to understanding why religion would be singled out.

Relativism, which could be considered a kind of base for American humanism, utilitarianism and likewise, is often used as a figurative salve for the discomfort allegedly caused by biology or even religion.

A famous quote from Shakespeare could easily be applied to what happens when religion and biology attempt to describe the same human being.

From Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech: “Ay, there’s the rub;”

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
I’m not sure what you mean - what does this have to do with biology?
I was answering your comment: “I’m just wondering why you single out religion.”
in post 28

Materialism is the underlying philosophy of biological sciences. By understanding this philosophy, one finds another approach to understanding why religion would be singled out.

Relativism, which could be considered a kind of base for American humanism, utilitarianism and likewise, is often used as a figurative salve for the discomfort allegedly caused by biology or even religion.

A famous quote from Shakespeare could easily be applied to what happens when religion and science attempt to describe the same human being.

From Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech: “Ay, there’s the rub;”

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top