Science and morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a U.S. citizen! People will have to refer back to page 8 and 9 where my previous comments were made and attacked by intelligent design creationists tonyrey and CharlemagneIII.

Moving onward:

Reuters
Sun Mar 16, 2014
Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist
Excerpt from the article:

*MOSCOW, March 16 A Kremlin-backed journalist issued a stark warning to the United States about Moscow’s nuclear capabilities on Sunday as the White House threatened sanctions over Crimea’s referendum on union with Russia.

“Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash,” television presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly current affairs show.

Behind him was a backdrop of a mushroom cloud following a nuclear blast.

Kiselyov was named by President Vladimir Putin in December as the head of a new state news agency whose task will be to portray Russia in the best possible light.

His remarks took a propaganda war over events in Ukraine to a new level as tensions rise in the East-West standoff over Crimea, a southern Ukrainian region which is now in Russian forces’ hands and voted on Sunday on union with Russia.

Russian television showed images of ethnic Russians in Crimea dancing, singing and celebrating the referendum but followed them with accusations that Kiev’s new authorities and the West have allowed ultra-nationalists to attack Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine.*
reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-russia-kiselyov-idUSL6N0MD0P920140316
  1. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist
    22 JANUARY 2016
    Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist
    Two excerpts from the article:
  2. *The Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord are major diplomatic achievements, but they constitute only small bright spots in a darker world situation full of potential for catastrophe.
Even as the Iran agreement was hammered out, tensions between the United States and Russia rose to levels reminiscent of the worst periods of the Cold War. Conflict in Ukraine and Syria continued, accompanied by dangerous bluster and brinkmanship, with Turkey, a NATO member, shooting down a Russian warplane involved in Syria, the director of a state-run Russian news agency making statements about turning the United States to radioactive ash, and NATO and Russia repositioning military assets and conducting significant exercises with them. Washington and Moscow continue to adhere to most existing nuclear arms control agreements, but the United States, Russia, and other nuclear weapons countries are engaged in programs to modernize their nuclear arsenals, suggesting that they plan to keep and maintain the readiness of their nuclear weapons for decades, at least—despite their pledges, codified in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue nuclear disarmament.*
  1. *The prospects for nuclear arms control beyond the United States and Russia are, in the near term, unfavorable. China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are all increasing their nuclear arsenals, albeit at different rates. China’s recent agreement to help Pakistan build nuclear missile submarine platforms is a matter of concern, but probably less so than other developments in Pakistan’s arsenal, including improvements to its ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles and its aggressive rhetoric regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons to “de-escalate” a conventional conflict (rhetoric that is unfortunately similar to Russia’s own “de-escalation” doctrine). Meanwhile, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un announced at the end of the year that his country had developed a hydrogen bomb and followed through with a test on January 5, 2016. So far, experts assess that it likely was not a two-stage thermonuclear weapon, but there is little doubt that North Korea will continue to develop its nuclear arsenal in the absence of restraints.
The world may be used to outrageous rhetoric from North Korea, but officials in several other countries made irresponsible comments in 2015 about raising the alert status of nuclear weapon systems, acquiring nuclear capabilities, and even using nuclear weapons. We hope that, as an unintended consequence of such rhetoric, citizens will be galvanized to address risks they thought long contained. The more likely outcome is that nuclear bombast will raise the temperature in crisis situations. The maintenance of peace requires that nuclear rhetoric and actions be tamped down.*

thebulletin.org/it-still-three-minutes-midnight9107

I fully support my country and love Charlie McMillan, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory as noted on the previous page! My dad’s name was Charlie. 😃 Hi Charles:thumbsup:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The scientist by the nature of his science can neither accept nor reject dogma, revelation, or morality.

When the scientist concerns himself with any of these matters, he thinks or acts not as a scientist but as a philosopher, or humanist, or theologian struggling to understand matters with which science has no familiarity whatever.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that the Catholic scientist by the nature of his science can neither accept nor reject dogma, revelation, or morality. When the Catholic scientist concerns himself with any of these matters, he thinks or acts not as a Catholic scientist but as a Catholic philosopher, or Catholic humanist, or Catholic theologian struggling to understand matters with which Catholic science has no familiarity whatever.

You’re a Catholic, so if we apply your rule to yourself, you can currently discuss philosophy and theology, but the moment you got a degree in botany you’d have to leave CAF and never discuss them again.

It’s good to see that you’ve not lost your sense of humor. 👍
 
inocente said:
So you’re saying that the Catholic scientist by the nature of his science can neither accept nor reject dogma, revelation, or morality. When the Catholic scientist concerns himself with any of these matters, he thinks or acts not as a Catholic scientist but as a Catholic philosopher, or Catholic humanist, or Catholic theologian struggling to understand matters with which Catholic science has no familiarity whatever.

You’re a Catholic, so if we apply your rule to yourself, you can currently discuss philosophy and theology, but the moment you got a degree in botany you’d have to leave CAF and never discuss them again.

It’s good to see that you’ve not lost your sense of humor. 👍
Click to expand...
I’m afraid this is silly-putty logic not worthy of an answer. 🤷
 
LogisticsBranch said:
I am a U.S. citizen! People will have to refer back to page 8 and 9 where my previous comments were made and attacked by intelligent design creationists tonyrey and CharlemagneIII.

Moving onward:

Reuters
Sun Mar 16, 2014
Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist
Excerpt from the article:

*MOSCOW, March 16 A Kremlin-backed journalist issued a stark warning to the United States about Moscow’s nuclear capabilities on Sunday as the White House threatened sanctions over Crimea’s referendum on union with Russia.

“Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash,” television presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly current affairs show.

Behind him was a backdrop of a mushroom cloud following a nuclear blast.

Kiselyov was named by President Vladimir Putin in December as the head of a new state news agency whose task will be to portray Russia in the best possible light.

His remarks took a propaganda war over events in Ukraine to a new level as tensions rise in the East-West standoff over Crimea, a southern Ukrainian region which is now in Russian forces’ hands and voted on Sunday on union with Russia.

Russian television showed images of ethnic Russians in Crimea dancing, singing and celebrating the referendum but followed them with accusations that Kiev’s new authorities and the West have allowed ultra-nationalists to attack Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine.*
reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-russia-kiselyov-idUSL6N0MD0P920140316
  1. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist
    22 JANUARY 2016
    Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist
    Two excerpts from the article:
  2. *The Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord are major diplomatic achievements, but they constitute only small bright spots in a darker world situation full of potential for catastrophe.
Even as the Iran agreement was hammered out, tensions between the United States and Russia rose to levels reminiscent of the worst periods of the Cold War. Conflict in Ukraine and Syria continued, accompanied by dangerous bluster and brinkmanship, with Turkey, a NATO member, shooting down a Russian warplane involved in Syria, the director of a state-run Russian news agency making statements about turning the United States to radioactive ash, and NATO and Russia repositioning military assets and conducting significant exercises with them.* Washington and Moscow continue to adhere to most existing nuclear arms control agreements, but the United States, Russia, and other nuclear weapons countries are engaged in programs to modernize their nuclear arsenals, suggesting that they plan to keep and maintain the readiness of their nuclear weapons for decades, at least—despite their pledges, codified in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue nuclear disarmament.
  1. *The prospects for nuclear arms control beyond the United States and Russia are, in the near term, unfavorable. China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are all increasing their nuclear arsenals, albeit at different rates. China’s recent agreement to help Pakistan build nuclear missile submarine platforms is a matter of concern, but probably less so than other developments in Pakistan’s arsenal, including improvements to its ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles and its aggressive rhetoric regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons to “de-escalate” a conventional conflict (rhetoric that is unfortunately similar to Russia’s own “de-escalation” doctrine). Meanwhile, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un announced at the end of the year that his country had developed a hydrogen bomb and followed through with a test on January 5, 2016. So far, experts assess that it likely was not a two-stage thermonuclear weapon, but there is little doubt that North Korea will continue to develop its nuclear arsenal in the absence of restraints.
The world may be used to outrageous rhetoric from North Korea, but officials in several other countries made irresponsible comments in 2015 about raising the alert status of nuclear weapon systems, acquiring nuclear capabilities, and even using nuclear weapons. We hope that, as an unintended consequence of such rhetoric, citizens will be galvanized to address risks they thought long contained. The more likely outcome is that nuclear bombast will raise the temperature in crisis situations. The maintenance of peace requires that nuclear rhetoric and actions be tamped down.*

thebulletin.org/it-still-three-minutes-midnight9107

I fully support my country and love Charlie McMillan, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory as noted on the previous page! My dad’s name was Charlie. 😃 Hi Charles:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
This post confirms my statement that the risk of a nuclear holocaust is greatly increased without multilateral disarmament. Anyone who contributes to the heightening of international tension with patriotic sentiments is accelerating progress toward that disaster…
 
The bottom line, of course, is that no scientist ever devises an ethical science based on the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, mathematics, etc. That sort of thing is never done by anyone except philosophers, and usually very bad philosophers. 🤷
 
Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Ask an Apologist
Mar 5, '16
Re: Is weapon development moral?
Fr. Charles Grondin Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

There is nothing inherently immoral about the production of weapons, morality is found in their use/purpose. Creating weapons to defend one’s country and the vulnerable is a good thing, creating weapons to wreak havoc and terror is immoral.
As long as your son is developing weapons for the defense of the vulnerable and to prevent unjust aggressors then he is actually performing a morally good work. If, however, he felt his work was advancing violence for immoral purposes then he should walk away from his work.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Quote:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Everything I have presented on this topic seems to be in agreement with the Chruch.😃
 
LogisticsBranch said:
I am a U.S. citizen! People will have to refer back to page 8 and 9 where my previous comments were made and attacked by intelligent design creationists tonyrey and CharlemagneIII.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic I know you believe God created the universe and that he used intelligent design to do it. :confused:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
As a Catholic I know you believe God created the universe and that he used intelligent design to do it. :confused:
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think so! And I’m not taking any messages from you! 😛 Charlemagne, I’m not a creationist! You are one of those intelligent design folks that skip rope while I fly high above earth in my jet. 👍😃
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The bottom line, of course, is that no scientist ever devises an ethical science based on the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, mathematics, etc. That sort of thing is never done by anyone except philosophers, and usually very bad philosophers. 🤷
Click to expand...
So relieved to see that Einstein and I are on the same page here! 👍

“You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.” Albert Einstein
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top