Science must destroy religion

[Candide_West]

Well, if one does not accept that abortion is murder , it can only be because one does not accept that the child in his or her mother’s womb is a human being - a person.

As concluded earlier

Um … Yup actually – It can be concluded . You’ve just gone and confirmed that again in your reply to wheels10 quoted above.

And I’ll reiterate that it places you in direct opposition to medical science as well as in opposition to any faith derived ethics/morality.

Still nope.

I would offer an explanation. But since I have already given an explanation in the post you replied to this would appear to be futile. Why not go back and try reading the post (indeed maybe even the whole exchange) to see if you can figure it out. You’ll note that I never raised the topic of abortion in the first place, but was talking about the excellent charity work that the church does.

And once again this is all waaaay off topic. If you guys are so keen on talking about abortion why not start a thread to actually talk about it instead of railroading completely unrelated discussions.

 

[Candide_West]

I don’t think anyone has said it quite as succinctly as tonyrey did concerning science and morality.

Science without morality is a recipe for disaster.

And yet the word “science” is irrelevant in that sentence. Indeed you could replace the word with anything you like and the sentence would make just as much sense. Here’s some examples

Religion without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Medicine without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Society without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Or better yet

People without morality are a recipe for disaster.

All equally true. And all equally irrelevant to what Sam Harris wrote about. Because he wasn’t talking about the end of morality, he was talking about the end of religion.*

There seems to be a lot of effort being made on this thread to pretend that Sam Harris was writing about something completely different to what he was writing about.*

Now, to be clear, I don’t agree with what he wrote either, but if we’re going to discuss it then let’s at least discuss what he actually wrote, and if we’re going to argue that it’s wrong, let’s do it on the merits of what he actually said. There really is no benefit in starting a discussion about an article that Sam Harris wrote back in 2006 and then attacking a completely different (and as far as i can tell) entirely imaginary article which nobody has written.

 

[Gaber]

And yet the word “science” is irrelevant in that sentence. Indeed you could replace the word with anything you like and the sentence would make just as much sense. Here’s some examples

Religion without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Medicine without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Society without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Or better yet

People without morality are a recipe for disaster.

All equally true. And all equally irrelevant to what Sam Harris wrote about. Because he wasn’t talking about the end of morality, he was talking about the end of religion.*

There seems to be a lot of effort being made on this thread to pretend that Sam Harris was writing about something completely different to what he was writing about.*

Now, to be clear, I don’t agree with what he wrote either, but if we’re going to discuss it then let’s at least discuss what he actually wrote, and if we’re going to argue that it’s wrong, let’s do it on the merits of what he actually said. There really is no benefit in starting a discussion about an article that Sam Harris wrote back in 2006 and then attacking a completely different (and as far as i can tell) entirely imaginary article which nobody has written.

Well said, and thank you. I agree.

 

[NeedImprovement]

That’s nice. . . . . . somebody finally located the parachutes so everyone can start bailing now. . . I wish a safe and happy landing to all: May you finally find your feet on solid ground.

Fellow Catholics, please recall this one again -

. . . Be sure to notice guys, how they all have their different ways of tiptoeing around the fact that between 42 million and 46 million little innocent children are slain in their mothers’ wombs every year. This issue is central . . .
As Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta said,

I’ll take Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta’s and Dr. Jerome Lejeune’s opinion over the anti-Catholic rhetoric posted on this thread any day of the week.

Consider what Dr. Lejeune - who was right there in the trenches, says , then compare it to some of the dribble being offered on this thread :

The human genome, the genetic capital of our race, is not disposable.

Note this courageous phrase: “In so-called pluralistic societies, they shove it down our throats: ‘You Christians don’t have the right to impose your morality on others!’ Well! I tell you, not only do you have the right to try to incorporate your morality in the law, but it’s your democratic duty! "

LINK

Furthermore the topic of the thread is “science must destroy religion” . To point out and substantiate with quotes and links, that religion (ours) and true medical science are in perfect harmony when they call abortion murder, is more pertinent to this topic than any of the slanted anti-Catholic commentaries being levelled on this thread.

It does become a bit of a nuisance constantly supplying all these links and substantiations for those who rarely provide any of their own in what could hardly be considered “rebuttal” - All they seem to be offering most recently in reply are tantrums - doing their utmost to appear as* moderator wannabees *
. . . so I don’t intend to supply any more links or replies for those types - they don’t merit it.

Perhaps it would do some good to address this last (linkless again :doh2 reply because it seems someone might’ve felt left out :

Is it also considered a mortal sin to refuse donations to charities that operate in countries where hundreds (if not thousands) of born children die every day, in agony, from malnutrition while their parents look on helplessly? Apparently not, since charity is often refused, with full Christian sanction, on the basis that adults have access to condoms.

I mean, really - even Peter Singer, who is reviled by Catholics the world over for his views on abortion, has argued convincingly that citizens of developed nations have a moral obligation to give at least a quarter of their income to impoverished countries - and he pratises what he preaches.

My apologies , I never meant to exclude pantheists from the statement you’re replying to, particularly considering (sorry - no links this time)

. . . another powerful influence on society, the return of pantheism, which was promoted by Teilhard de Chardin. Pantheists deny the existence of a transcendent God and hold that the universe itself is the Supreme Being, or is god or god-like. Pantheism and a return to paganism have led to a materialistic approach to ecology and world population control by abortion and contraception at the United Nations.

. . . compounding the damage done by pantheism is the rise of atheism that, as Cardinal Newman noted was not a dominant feature of society even in ancient Greece and Rome. This has flourished in the western world since the middle of the eighteenth century. Atheists hold two views about the nature of the universe: one, that it is fully deterministic and the other, that it is chaotic; an entity without meaning or purpose, which has evolved by chance. Both of these views leave no room for the notion of right and wrong, good and evil, guilt and innocence, or free will. To make matters even worse, since the renaissance western philosophers have been denying the existence of truth and goodness.

So, let me see if I can make things right by posting those scientific conclusions again in the next post, but this time using more inclusive language . . .

 

[NeedImprovement]

This next real life (dysfunctional) working model is where the rubber really hits the road :

** corrected , inclusive version for pantheists and the comprehension-impaired, *

Almost 16 years ago, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , explains that through genetics and forensics …

“The question as to when human life and personhood begins has been made a controversial issue because the proponents of abortion do not want it to begin at least before the first 24 weeks of gestation. There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible…”

Imagine the technological advances which are at our disposal today, even within those last 16 years, which support unequivocally the scientific testimony of human personhood in the womb from the moment of conception. Now contrast that against what experts from the scientific community were saying as far back as 1981 (April 23-24) when they appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide their testimony ,responding to the question : **When does human life begin **?

• Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
• “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”
• Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
• Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
• Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”
• Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”
• Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”
• Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

Over 30 years ago … ! …… with the technology available at that time , medical science stood up to say, “Abortion is a lie.” Science finally confirms what the Church has been saying forever. The Catholic faith and true medical science are in perfect harmony on this.

Indeed tonyrey : Science without morality is a recipe for disaster. Nothing brings this reality home more poignantly and horrifically than the senseless slaughter of all these millions upon millions of little ones in their mothers’ wombs annually:

Abortion defies both morality and the “incontrovertible facts” of medical science.

So , you people who support abortion or remain conveniently indifferent: Just what do you think your beliefs (of lack thereof) are founded on ?

Maybe you really have been duped by the perpetual media blitz and social indoctrination, while others may simply find it more “convenient” to believe the lie.

(Perhaps a reason we could feel a little sorry for some of the atheists * *and pantheists *posting here and why we might remember to pray for them too ; reminding ourselves that they are without the force with which our faith drives our sense of conviction. Some of them may even have to convince themselves over and over again of what they claim they believe on these threads.)

 

[NeedImprovement]

That’s nice. . . . . . somebody finally located the parachutes so everyone can start bailing now. . . I wish a safe and happy landing to all: May you finally find your feet on solid ground.

Fellow Catholics, please recall this one again -

I’ll take Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta’s and Dr. Jerome Lejeune’s opinion over the anti-Catholic rhetoric posted on this thread any day of the week.

Consider what Dr. Lejeune - who was right there in the trenches, says , then compare it to some of the dribble being offered on this thread :

Furthermore the topic of the thread is “science must destroy religion” . To point out and substantiate with quotes and links, that religion (ours) and true medical science are in perfect harmony when they call abortion murder, is more pertinent to this topic than any of the slanted anti-Catholic commentaries being levelled on this thread.

It does become a bit of a nuisance constantly supplying all these links and substantiations for those who rarely provide any of their own in what could hardly be considered “rebuttal” - All they seem to be offering most recently in reply are tantrums - doing their utmost to appear as* moderator wannabees *
. . . so I don’t intend to supply any more links or replies for those types - there’s no merit in what they’re barking.

Perhaps it would do some good to address this last (linkless again :doh2 reply because it seems someone might’ve felt left out :

My apologies , I never meant to exclude pantheists from the statement you’re replying to, particularly considering (sorry - no links this time)

So, let me see if I can make things right by posting those scientific conclusions again in the next post, but this time using more inclusive language . . .

 

[tonyrey]

And yet the word “science” is irrelevant in that sentence. Indeed you could replace the word with anything you like and the sentence would make just as much sense. Here’s some examples

Religion without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Medicine without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Society without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Or better yet

People without morality are a recipe for disaster.

All equally true. And all equally irrelevant to what Sam Harris wrote about. Because he wasn’t talking about the end of morality, he was talking about the end of religion.

1. Without religion man becomes the author of morality.
2. Man is neither infallible nor impeccable.
3. Morality without religion is a recipe for disaster.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

1. Without religion man becomes the author of morality.
2. Man is neither infallible nor impeccable.
3. Morality without religion is a recipe for disaster.

I have to disagree with you to some extent. (I’ll add onto my #306) You should read from the American Association for the Advancement of Science what Frans de Waal said at the 2012 Annual Meeting:
news.aaas.org/2012_annual_meeting/0227frans-de-waal.shtml

I happen to agree with Frans de Waal. Please read the entire article. I liked what he said, "Speaking at the AAAS Annual Meeting, primatologist Frans de Waal argued that humans share behaviors like cooperation, consolation, and even distaste for inequity with animals from monkeys to elephants to wolves. “Humans would have never developed the moral systems that they have,” he argued, “without those kinds of tendencies in place.”

And all equally irrelevant to what Sam Harris wrote about. Because he wasn’t talking about the end of morality, he was talking about the end of religion.*

There seems to be a lot of effort being made on this thread to pretend that Sam Harris was writing about something completely different to what he was writing about.*

I think I have covered this comment of yours with my above contribution and posting #306.
Sam Harris isn’t a religious person. It amazes me that he thinks that only non-religious scientists contribute to peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Nature. There are non-religious and religious scientists that do contriubute to peer-reviewed journals. Sam is out of the loop when it comes to acknowledging the truth.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I just read the paper. Even though I’m not religious I’m not on the opinion that people working in areas of science need to try to destroy religious thoughts.

However, I do think that there are detrimental thoughts (Some of which may be motivated by religious teachings, some of which are not) that I think may occur less with better education in areas that might be considered scientific. Some of these include the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, or that cutting and scraping the gentiles off of a girl will preserver her purity. I have a contact in Florida that is having serious back problems. Her family members, under the belief that she is under attack from a demon, pooled their money together to pay a spiritual healer to perform a ceremony to get the demon to stop attacking her. Understandably she has concerns that her family may have paid money to some one for a snake oil product. And I’ve already shared the story of the friend of mine that had to go to another state to seek medical treatment because of the treatment was made illegal because of religiously motivated legislation.

Some one with a better understanding of the germ theory of disease may be less inclined to think that virgins cure AIDS. Had the lawmakers had a better understanding of the medical treatment in question they might not have outlawed it.In the general case I think that some of these problems could be addressed with education and ones religion could be preserve. I’m speaking in a general case here. Some religions are against religion and certain domains of knowledge in which case educating could be interpreted by it’s followers as an attack.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

However, I do think that there are detrimental thoughts (Some of which may be motivated by religious teachings, some of which are not) that I think may occur less with better education in areas that might be considered scientific. Some of these include the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, or that cutting and scraping the gentiles off of a girl will preserver her purity. I have a contact in Florida that is having serious back problems. Her family members, under the belief that she is under attack from a demon, pooled their money together to pay a spiritual healer to perform a ceremony to get the demon to stop attacking her. Understandably she has concerns that her family may have paid money to some one for a snake oil product. And I’ve already shared the story of the friend of mine that had to go to another state to seek medical treatment because of the treatment was made illegal because of religiously motivated legislation.

Some one with a better understanding of the germ theory of disease may be less inclined to think that virgins cure AIDS. Had the lawmakers had a better understanding of the medical treatment in question they might not have outlawed it.In the general case I think that some of these problems could be addressed with education and ones religion could be preserve. I’m speaking in a general case here. Some religions are against religion and certain domains of knowledge in which case educating could be interpreted by it’s followers as an attack.

I’m sorry but I don’t rely on second hand information since I have no evidence to disprove or approve your statements. I would encourage and advise people in general to seek a professional medical doctor.

I just read the paper. Even though I’m not religious I’m not on the opinion that people working in areas of science need to try to destroy religious thoughts.

What paper are you referring to? It’s nice of you to think people don’t have to ‘destroy religious thoughts’ . Very christian of you. Thank you.

 

[DCNBILL]

1. Without religion man becomes the author of morality.
2. Man is neither infallible nor impeccable.
3. Morality without religion is a recipe for disaster.

Morality without a Creator could not, logically, exist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m sorry but I don’t rely on second hand information since I have no evidence to disprove or approve your statements.

There’s no need to rely on it. And given that many of us here are interacting anonymously it is difficult to both stay anonymous and submit validating information (also if I did submit such information I would be breaching medical privacy laws). So feel free to follow your convictions with discarding or provisionally accepting my statements.

I would encourage and advise people in general to seek a professional medical doctor.

If you are referring to the person that had to cross several state lines for medical treatment, she had been referred to the Dr. in the other state by a Dr. here in Atlanta.

What paper are you referring to?

The paper referred to in message #1.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yet by such a standard, we judge any human who has the ability to prevent or alleviate the suffering of another to be negligent - at best - if they do not act, even if the suffering party is a stranger. Ironically, if a religious believer acts benevolently towards a stranger, it is taken to be evidence of the positive effects of faith in this apparently capricious god who can bestow or withhold his assistance as he pleases, without any justification, only because he’s a god…

As Catholics, we believe all of mankind will be resurrected and receive glorified, incorruptible bodies, thus ending any of the temporal physical suffering such as AIDS, cancer, and amputated limbs. Is it then required that God end any suffering immediately to not be considered negligent?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

My philosophy of life which includes, among other things, doing as much good and as little harm to people, animals and the environment, for the short time I’m here.

My morals, evolved from our social developmental history, that tell me it’s wrong to hurt others, and murdering, raping and pillaging hurt people.

And people and animals

Sarah x

Nice answer—on the surface.

You like science. Dig a little deeper. That’s what science does (former science writer talking here).

Where do laws come from? You know, the ones that keep you from raping and pillaging? Where do those same morals come from? Or philosophies, if you wish to call it that?

 

[Candide_West]

1. Without religion man becomes the author of morality.

Indeed, or to put it more accurately - without religion humans are forced to take full responsibility for their morality. One very good way of doing this is to reason it out from first principles.

1. Man is neither infallible nor impeccable.

Indeed, but humans are much more reliable in making judgements when they do it from a solid starting point and using their reason as opposed to dictats extracted from millenia old documents.

1. Morality without religion is a recipe for disaster.

Nope. Morality without religion works just fine. Just look around the world, you’ll find plenty of non-religious people who have perfectly good moral systems. Most of them are very similar to your own, some of them are even exactly the same as yours.

Again, what a relief eh?

 

[Candide_West]

Morality without a Creator could not, logically, exist.

Ok, this sounds interesting. Please demonstrate the logic.

 

[tonyrey]

.

Without religion man becomes the author of morality.

That depends whether or not they believe in free will. If they don’t they have a carte blanche. Even if they do they can convenently decide for themselves what is right and wrong…

One very good way of doing this is to reason it out from first principles.

Let’s have an example.

2. Man is neither infallible nor impeccable.

Indeed, but humans are much more reliable in making judgements when they do it from a solid starting point and using their reason as opposed to dictats extracted from millenia old documents.

1. What is the “solid starting point”?
2. Which “dictats” do you reject and on what rational basis?

3. Morality without religion is a recipe for disaster.

Nope. Morality without religion works just fine. Just look around the world, you’ll find plenty of non-religious people who have perfectly good moral systems. Most of them are very similar to your own, some of them are even exactly the same as yours.

Again, what a relief eh?

That’s hardly surprising given that they were not born into an amoral environment…

Did you work out all your moral values and principles entirely by yourself from scratch?

I’m not sure it would be safe to be your neighbour if you did!

 

[edwest2]

Harris is no fan of Christianity. But if there’s a religion Harris is hostile to in particular, it’s Islam, no question about it. Islam is far more a menace and threat to humanity in Harris’ view than Christianity, and you can find dozens of quotes and sources to demonstrate this from him with little effort.

See this exchange between Lawrence O’Donnell and Sam Harris as an example of this position from Harris:

youtube.com/watch?v=8E1u9lQeAsY

-TS

OnEdit: Here’s another bit from Sam Harris I remembered and found on YouTube, where he talks about the problems “in particular” with Islam that do not apply to Christianity (and other religions):

youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOQukCn0kg&feature=fvwrel

Fair enough. Islam is the flavor of the month. But I would suggest you read the description of the following book:

amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773

The United States has done much to destabilize the Middle East and I suspect a new announcement will be made soon. After all, defense contractors are sitting on a lot of inventory and need to move product.

And waiting in the wings? China. Yep, that will be next on our threat radar. The books are coming out already but are designed specifically for military specialists. I suspect the public rollout will occur shortly after the next election.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Morality without a Creator could not, logically, exist.

Not unless one is inconsistent and believes **rational **moral principles can exist in a purposeless and irrational universe.

 

[DPMartin]

Morality without a Creator could not, logically, exist.

Sorry friend, morality without an agreement between two or more can’t exist. You can’t be moral unless you agree to do something and do as agreed, and you can’t be immoral unless you do other than what you agreed to do.