Science and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
*These things take time. Many of John Paul II’s writings would have gotten him a knock on the door from the inquisitor a few centuries ago. *

Hmm? Such as?
Click to expand...
Evolution, heliocentric solar system, statements about Protestantism, among others.
I’m not a fan of the Inquisition, but I think its power is vastly overstated by modern critics.
Click to expand...
I’m glad to hear you’re not a fan ;). In any case, I don’t think its power is overstated, just its violence. There were many levels of appeal, and usually their goal was to use intimidation rather than violence to have people conform…
Can you think of any scientific enterprises in the last hundred years that the Church has opposed, other than nuclear weapons, which it has fairly vigorously opposed?
Click to expand...
Embryonic stem cell research. As a former pilot of nuclear-capable aircraft, I’d also like to know exactly what is wrong with nuclear weapons? In all recorded history when two political powers had a rough balance of power, they inevitably fought one or a set of bloody wars. That didn’t change with the advent of Christianity. It changed only with the invention of nuclear weapons, and it is easy to determine that nuclear weapons are the primary reason why.
Can you think of any scientific enterprises in the last hundred years that have changed the Church’s way of thinking on moral issues?
Click to expand...
Sadly, no.
 
Just by noticing the title of this thread, I would like to recommend a great movie I just saw last night for the first time called, “Inherit the Wind.”(1960) Really good! Check it out:)
 
aileron

*Embryonic stem cell research. As a former pilot of nuclear-capable aircraft, I’d also like to know exactly what is wrong with nuclear weapons? *

If I have to tell you, we’re certainly not on the same wave length. Not to disparage your chosen profession, but under what conditions would you be willing to drop a nuclear weapon?

*Embryonic stem cell research. *

Well, there’s a good reason for that, and you know what it is. And there are plenty of physicians who have testified for the Church’s position. O.K. Let’s say you found two ways the Church opposes scientific enterprises. Will you try real hard for a third?

Evolution, heliocentric solar system, statements about Protestantism, among others.

I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than that. The Dominicans were always servants of the pope, never his masters. I thought you had something really wicked up your sleeve! 😉

Sadly, no

In what way would you most wish that science could change the thinking of the Church?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
liquidpele

With respect to morality, science is something that can help us travel once we know where we want to go.

But science cannot tell us where we want to go. Only wisdom can tell us that. I didn’t see any wisdom with the creation of nuclear weapons. :eek:
Click to expand...
I do agree with you that the invention of nuclear weapondry was a tragedy, not sure how it invalidates science as a useful tool. The cure of small pox alone has saved many many more lives than nuclear weapons have destroyed. Sadly it was a Christian who ordered they be used, a decision that does nothing to invalidate the merits of your faith.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
If I have to tell you, we’re certainly not on the same wave length. Not to disparage your chosen profession, but under what conditions would you be willing to drop a nuclear weapon?
Click to expand...
The aircraft I flew would have deployed nuclear weapons against submarines only, and in that event the target would have been preparing to launch missiles. In any case, the whole point of nuclear weapons is deterrence not use. Wars continued increasing in destruction and intensity until their invention. Now there is no economic advantage to fighting such a war (and let’s face it, rationals for wars almost always boil down to economic factors despite draping it in the symbols of freedom and righteousness, etc.). Let’s imagine that scientists refused to build nuclear weapons. There is little doubt that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons extinguished the flash points for war several times in the Cold War. Can you imagine the destruction of a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact even using only conventional weapons?
I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than that. The Dominicans were always servants of the pope, never his masters.
Click to expand...
In the thought experiment, I assumed he would not have been the bishop of Rome since there was already one at that point in history. The point is, these things take time. I agree that the central dogmas have not changed, but some of the doctrine has. Some things that would have gotten people a visit from the inquisitor then are being openly embraced by newer pontiffs.
Well, there’s a good reason for that, and you know what it is.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call the main reason for opposition to ESCR a good reason.
O.K. Let’s say you found two ways the Church opposes scientific enterprises. Will you try real hard for a third?
Click to expand...
Just one more? Here are three more: reproductive medicine, epidemiology, and pharmacology.
 
severntofall

I do agree with you that the invention of nuclear weapondry was a tragedy, not sure how it invalidates science as a useful tool.

I didn’t say it invalidated the use of science as a useful tool. I’m a great fan of Pasteur’s work. What I meant to convey is that science is like any other human enterprise, so I don’t know how anyone can set science up as a paragon of morality superior to religion, as some have argued in this thread. 🙂
 
aileron

The aircraft I flew would have deployed nuclear weapons against submarines only, and in that event the target would have been preparing to launch missiles. In any case, the whole point of nuclear weapons is deterrence not use.

We were not deterred from using them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can you be sure they will never be used again? And if they are, and are used on a large scale, will you still be arguing that we are better off with them than without them?

I expect you will agree with the following: 👍

“Not in our day, but at no distant one, we may shake a rod over the heads of all, which may make the stoutest of nations tremble. But I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.” Thomas Jefferson

Just one more? Here are three more: reproductive medicine, epidemiology, and pharmacology.

I think maybe you are pressed for time by choosing not to elaborate?

Incidentally, the Church, you may have noticed, moves slowly, as a rule, especially in important matters. It wants to be sure it has all the facts at hand and judges wisely rather than foolishly. There are many Catholic scientists and physicians who have assured Church authorities that all needed research with embryonic stem cells can be satisfied without harvesting new embryos for that purpose. So I don’t think the Church can be argued here as living in the Dark Ages, so much as opposing experiments with the smallest and most vulnerable human beings by taking their lives, as the Nazis did in Germany.

americancatholic.org/NEWS/StemCell/
 
Charlemagne_II said:
We were not deterred from using them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...
Were we in any way deterred in our use of them because the enemy had sufficient stockpiles of nuclear weapons and delivery capacity to grievously hurt us too?
Can you be sure they will never be used again?
Click to expand...
No, and neither can people who support nuclear disarmament.
“Not in our day, but at no distant one, we may shake a rod over the heads of all, which may make the stoutest of nations tremble. But I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.” Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
Clearly, we’re not at the point of his hope yet. The best solution we have at present is mutual deterrence, and it’s worked exceedingly well.
Just one more? Here are three more: reproductive medicine, epidemiology, and pharmacology.
Click to expand...
I think maybe you are pressed for time by choosing not to elaborate?
Click to expand...
I think one word elaboration may suffice.

Reproductive medicine :: In vitro fertilization
Epidemeology :: use of condoms
Pharmacology :: contraceptives
Incidentally, the Church, you may have noticed, moves slowly, as a rule, especially in important matters.
Click to expand...
Moving slowly is a great idea if the motivation is abundance of caution, but sometimes the abundance of caution should make a decision sooner rather than later. For example, not all the data is in on genetically modified crops (not by a long shot), but the Vatican supports it. On the other hand, all the data is in that condom use helps prevent the spread of STD’s, yet the Vattican won’t countenance their use.
 
aileron

Clearly, we’re not at the point of his hope yet. The best solution we have at present is mutual deterrence, and it’s worked exceedingly well.

I guess you think the risk of total anihilation is worth the gamble. Apparently you have a lot more faith in human nature than Einstein did, who regretted his part in unleashing the genie from its bottle. I think science is not wisdom, nor is it morality, but it is knowledge. Science has obliged mankind to search for wisdom and morality. Let’s hope (and pray) the power of man’s wisdom and morality will exceed the power of his knowledge. :highprayer:
 
in vitro fertilization
catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml

Condoms - there are much better methods to prevent disease - abstinence and fidelity
Ask anyone who has contracted AIDS from a spouse or girlfriend or boyfriend.

Contraceptives - Why is the Church backward?

Would you add advanced methods of abortion to your list … like sucking the brains out of a fetus and chopping her into little pieces, then throwing her in a garbage can?

Don’t you ever consider whether the unborn have any rights, either in potency or in act, to live? Catholics don’t believe everything science can do ought to be done.

Are you also sad to say Catholic opposition to human cloning is a Dark Age mentality?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I guess you think the risk of total anihilation is worth the gamble. Apparently you have a lot more faith in human nature than Einstein did, who regretted his part in unleashing the genie from its bottle.
Click to expand...
Einstein didn’t live long enough to see that the nuclear powers came to their senses. They didn’t come to their senses through peace conferences, high hopes, or wishful thinking. They came to their senses by realizing that there was no winning a nuclear war.

As far as maintaining them being a gamble, you can’t get away from that gamble. If we scraped every last nuclear weapon, people still know how to make them.
 
Einstein didn’t live long enough to see that the nuclear powers came to their senses.

They came to their senses by creating conditions for a possible Armageddon?

They came to their senses by realizing that there was no winning a nuclear war.

But that didn’t stop them from acting as if they were about to enter one and win it.

*If we scraped every last nuclear weapon, people still know how to make them. *

Yes, the genie is out of the bottle. Wouldn’t our spy and space technology be sufficiently advanced that we would know right off if someone was heading that way? Assuming the cooperation of international bodies, the bottle could be plugged with little difficulty, couldn’t it?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*If we scraped every last nuclear weapon, people still know how to make them. *

Yes, the genie is out of the bottle. Wouldn’t our spy and space technology be sufficiently advanced that we would know right off if someone was heading that way? Assuming the cooperation of international bodies, the bottle could be plugged with little difficulty, couldn’t it?
Click to expand...
What?!? Did you just have an aneurysm burst in your head or something???

First of all, no, we can’t tell with super james bond satellites you think exist. You can shield radioactivity. Second of all, that didn’t work so well with North Korea… Third of all, it would require complete participation by all governments… good luck with THAT… Fourth, what if someone does still try to make a bomb, you going to blow them up first or something to stop them?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Yes, the genie is out of the bottle. Wouldn’t our spy and space technology be sufficiently advanced that we would know right off if someone was heading that way? Assuming the cooperation of international bodies, the bottle could be plugged with little difficulty, couldn’t it?
Click to expand...
We can get some idea of what nations like Iran or North Korea are doing, but it’s a lot of guesswork as our Iraq misadventure demonstrates. We also seemed to be caught completely by surprise when South Africa tested their nuclear weapon. Compare the relative ease of monitoring fledgling nuclear hopefuls compared to large, scientifically advanced nations such as Russia, China, etc.

Even excluding clandestine programs, complete disarmament could lead to stability problems. Suppose the current nuclear powers agreed to disarm. Would Japan accept this? They face a threat from North Korea and China, and I suspect if we even hinted at total disarmament they’d threaten to start a nuclear program. Needless to say it wouldn’t take Japan long at all to have such weapons. Also supposing we all agreed, what would we do if say China were suspected of cheating (and I really don’t think we can trust China yet)? We would have limited options, and our most plausible option would be to withdraw from the agreement.

I think the time will come when each nation’s interests are so closely interwoven with all the others that we won’t even imagine fighting wars anymore. I hope it’s not too far in the future, but for now it seems we’re stuck with the shameful situation we have.
 
liquidpele

Fourth, what if someone does still try to make a bomb, you going to blow them up first or something to stop them?

That is the bottom line, isn’t it? Make them wish they had never got the idea!
 
aileron

*I think the time will come when each nation’s interests are so closely interwoven with all the others that we won’t even imagine fighting wars anymore. I hope it’s not too far in the future, but for now it seems we’re stuck with the shameful situation we have. *

If that time comes, can you then imagine the end of a nuclear war industry?

And I’m curious as to what it would take to make “each nation’s interests … so closely interwoven with all the others.”
 
Charlemagne_II said:
If that time comes, can you then imagine the end of a nuclear war industry?
Click to expand...
It’s certainly possible.
And I’m curious as to what it would take to make “each nation’s interests … so closely interwoven with all the others.”
Click to expand...
Wars are almost always started by economic factors. When economies are isolated from one another, the likelihood for war is much higher. In today’s economy, in the implausible scenario that the US and China were close to war, CEO’s by the dozens would line up not only in the US and China but worldwide to bend the ear of their political leaders. It would end before it started.

The economies of the G20 are so interdependent that war seems highly implausible. That is good news because the most wealthy nations have the most destructive power. As the distinction between the wealthy nations and the developing nations closes somewhat, wars between those nations should also become increasingly implausible.
 
If abortion was a moral act, why are so few physicians abortionists? Is it because they are repulsed by the act of aborting a child? How then do other physicians justify the act, profit from it, and apparently are not repulsed by their vocation? They are, after all, practitioners of the science of medicine, and must know that what they are killing is a human being in the first stages of life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top