bLogicus has a few posts on recent advances in adult stem cell technology, namely that some Taiwanese scientists have isolated stem cells from placentas, that rats injected with human umbilical cord stem cells after having heart attacks regained nearly normal function, and Stem Cells Inc. has filed with the FDA to start a study on using adult stem cells to treat Batten disease, which affects children’s central nervous systems. To judge from Stem Cell Inc.’s website, it looks like this program would only help recover neurons destroyed by Batten’s disease, not eradicate the root cause itself.
�
” So what you’re saying is that if “imaginary beings in the sky” inform one’s opinion, then that makes such opinions inherently irrational or illogical?”
Well, yeah. That’s what I’m saying. For example, and I know that you need these, I oppose fission nuclear power because it creates waste products that last for thousands of years. I also think that fusion or small pebble reactors would be better. I also think there are alt fuels that would better serve our energy needs. Logic, logic and logic. (I am a bit of a Spock worshiper if forced to admit my religious leanings….) That’s different than saying Jesus/Satan/Great Pumpkin told me he don’t like fission. Fission is bad in the eyes of the Great Snake God, or Santa or whatever…Burn heretic burn! (Funky put down that laptop! AI research is heresy in the Eye of the Looooor-duh! Use this abacus instead so that thee shall not be smited or thoust research funds cutteth offith…)
“To Jerry: Again, let’s do the research. Perhaps you think Jesus or Santa Claus or Krishna is opposed to terabyte storage memory on a keychain. That’s great. But let’s do the science anyway and find out. And what happened in South Korea was a miracle. I’ll take that and air conditioning over prayer any day of the week…”
Are there any valid moral arguments in your universe?
(And last I checked, Bin Laden’s body count does not come close to fellows like Stalin or Mao, orthodox atheists both. Let’s get out of this historical ad hominem name-calling, and stick to our own respective viewpoints about science and the morality of research in the here and now. We might get somewhere with that.)
(1) What the heck is an “orthodox atheist”?
(2) Science may have its share of dogmatic jerks, but science has undergone way more redefining paradigm shifts than Christianity has, and with a lot less bloodshed. Bottom line: science changes without splitting into bloodletting factions the way religion does.
(3) Mr. Shropshire, you dishonor civilization and rationalism with your attitude.
(I also posted this, with links, over at Mirror Universe.)
5. Just because other countries are doing something doesn’t mean we should. If other countries were making lots of dough by continuing Josef Mengele work, should we follow suit? How about genocide? I bet that has some hefty financial rewards.
Five: Let us agree to disagree. I don’t think that this kind of research is the equal of the experiment s done by Mengele. And if you follow the Futurepundit prescription no harm would be done to the embyro, that you would eventually throw away, anyway. Any pro lifers willing to accept implantation to make sure these “people” reach their potential? I’ll hold my breath…By not addressing this point by the way you get to the heart of the matter. Your war against science is a war against the future. It’s a war you can’t win, unless you can get fundamentalist theocratic tribes to initiate nuclear strikes and set back progress by centuries. You might get your wish. I’m hoping I’ll be off planet by then. Think of it as a voluntary rapture.
6) Not publicly funding ESCR makes Americans dumb and stupid? Huh? Show me a connection between stupidity in America and ESCR.
Six: If you base your scientific research based on myth or fairy tale or make believe (religion), then, yes, that is a kind of gross stupidity. American preeminence is based upon science, not prayer. Everything can be weaponized. What you don’t know can definitely hurt you. You learn things not just for your own self awareness and improvement but because your enemies can use your ignorance against you.
7) Theocratic rule? What?!? You’ve obviously been listening to too many conspiracy theories. There are lots of people who object to ESCR from non-religious standpoints. I read that Futurepundit link. Begged questions, myths, and lies were abundant. This comment really cracked me up: “Religion offers endless conflict,where as science offers a world without conflict.” Riiiiiight.
Seven: Is Osama Bin Laden a secular humanist? Or Jerry Falwell? I would never kill you because of your religion because I find such beliefs to be meaningless. By the way, Futurepundit does trend libertarian. I don’t agree with him about the war though. It’s not right and certainly not Christian to slaughter 100000 Iraqis for their oil. And if the choice is between science or religion, then I choose science. I don’t need or want the bliss stations that religion offers. Or to quote Woody Allen: “If the choice is between air conditioning and the pope, then I’ll take air conditioning”.
To Jerry: Again, let’s do the research. Perhaps you think Jesus or Santa Claus or Krishna is opposed to terabyte storage memory on a keychain. That’s great. But let’s do the science anyway and find out. And what happened in South Korea was a miracle. I’ll take that and air conditioning over prayer any day of the week…
posted by Philip Shropshire at 11:18 AM 0 comments
“Five: Let us agree to disagree. I don’t think that this kind of research is the equal of the experiment s done by Mengele.”
So because we disagree, opponents should lose by default?
“And if you follow the Futurepundit prescription no harm would be done to the embyro, that you would eventually throw away, anyway.”
In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not arguing with Futurepundit. I’d have to think about the ethical consequences of what’s suggested there. You know, contemplation – something ethical scientists do before leaping into the unknown.
“Any pro lifers willing to accept implantation to make sure these “people” reach their potential? I’ll hold my breath…”
red herring. This neither proves your point nor disproves mine.
“By not addressing this point by the way you get to the heart of the matter. Your war against science is a war against the future. It’s a war you can’t win, unless you can get fundamentalist theocratic tribes to initiate nuclear strikes and set back progress by centuries. You might get your wish. I’m hoping I’ll be off planet by then. Think of it as a voluntary rapture.”
War against science?!? I guess you haven’t read my autobio. I’m a scientist in training. I do a lot of work in computational aspects of biophysics and proteomics. Going around calling people fundamentalist theocrats might make you feel better, but it doesn’t put you on the moral high ground, nor does it advance serious discussions on the ethical issues at hand. Also, not that it really matters, I’m not a fundamentalist. Nor do I believe in premillenial theology. Get your religious insults straight.
“I’d have to agree; religion doesn’t comfort me or give meaning to my life, either. In fact, the things from which I derive comfort and meaning have little to do with either religion or science.”
Isn’t that kind of aside from the point? Would you agree that for many people religion does those things? Such a role just isn’t in science’s “job description”.
“Six: If you base your scientific research based on myth or fairy tale or make believe (religion), then, yes, that is a kind of gross stupidity. American preeminence is based upon science, not prayer. Everything can be weaponized. What you don’t know can definitely hurt you. You learn things not just for your own self awareness and improvement but because your enemies can use your ignorance against you.”
Science answers what, where, and how. Religion and philosophy answer why. I base my science on solid empirical principles. Just because I reject ESCR doesn’t mean I’m anti-science. I oppose reckless abuse and misuse of the environment. Does that make me anti-machine or anti-humanity? As for what our enemies might do to us, do two wrongs make a right? Do I have to own a slave to know it’s wrong? Do I have to slaughter anyone to know genocide is wrong?
“That should be left up to Scientists by the way and not the same clergymen who tortured Galileo”
This is neither relevant nor true. If I find the time I’ll dig into my archives and find a link to an excellent shredding of common myths regarding Galileo. Besides, that’s a guilt-by-association argument and blatantly fallacious. It’s also a red herring.
“Two: You’re right. I made a mistake and got it wrong. Let’s move on. I’m sure you would do the same if science proved that your Sunday wine didn’t turn into Christ’s blood”
Since the very idea of transubstantiation is that the “accidents” of the bread and wine remain, including the apparent molecular structure, science doesn’t really have anything pertinent to say about the issue. Science has similar odd-ball ideas, such as quantum action at a distance. IOW, without having any apparent physical contact, even peripheral, subatomic particles can affect each other.
“or DNA extracts from the Turin Shroud proved Christ was just another guy (with kids, you can trace genetic heritage don’t you know)”
Since the Church has never stated that the shroud is definitely Christ’s, DNA tests are essentially moot. If the shroud is a fraud or an honest mistake, so what?
“or that the pope was fallible, especially during the holocaust. “
I suggest you read up on the matter. Pius XII was actually quite instrumental in helping Jews escape the Nazis. In fact, after the war, significant donations were made to the Vatican by Jews in appreciation. Also, many Jews were so impressed they converted. Even Einstein praised the Church’s response to the crisis.
“Of course, that’s the great thing about science: you can admit your mistakes and your worldview doesn’t crumble around you like so much dust.”
Have you ever argued with an entrenched scientist before?!? Read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” some time.
“There may be a way to do embyronic stem cell research without violating
the “sanctity” of the embyro. And if you were rational about this your immediate response would be “great”. But it wasn’t, and so I presume that you’re not making your case based on reason and
evidence but religious sophistry, ever so circular and ever so arcane.”
You presume incorrectly. I choose to proceed cautiously. I’ve seen too many instances of linguistic gymanstics being used to obscure the ethical and moral consequences of certain lines of research or medical procedures. An example of this would be the entirely bogus “pre-embryo” stage of development.
Also, why should the “reasonable” response be “great”? I still think ignoring adult stem cells to chase the wild goose of embryonic stem cells is illogical and irrational. It’s bad science. Good scientists don’t abandon promising lines of research for less promising ones without good reason. There’s plenty of room for more work in ASCR, so where’s the good reason? “Because it’s there/because we can” is not sufficient. That pat answer has been used to justify too many unethical and/or immoral actions.
“To Jerry: Again, let’s do the research. Perhaps you think Jesus or Santa Claus or Krishna is opposed to terabyte storage memory on a keychain. That’s great. But let’s do the science anyway and find out. And what happened in South Korea was a miracle. I’ll take that and air conditioning over prayer any day of the week…”
Non sequitur. We are challenging ESCR on ethical grounds, which may or may not involve religion. Have we at any point said “Stop ESCR because the Lord says so”? Besides, the coin can be flipped. If science tells me that canibalism is efficient and helpful to the ecosystem, that doesn’t mean I’m going to do it. Science gave us nuclear weapons. Science gave us mustard gas. Science probably gave us ebola. Does that make science inherently evil? No, but it means that science is not inherently ethical.
“We have to become better and smarter. Prayer has nothing to do with that…”
Philip, why must you reduce every debate to a pissing contest?
“My philosophy can beat up your philosophy. Nyah!”
“We’re competing against other countries for what could conceivably be the most important market ever: The Better Health/Short Term Immortality Market.”
What’s more important, profit or ethics? Even if ESCR could be done ethically, there should be serious discussion before proceeding. Not everyone shares your love of progress for its own sake. You accuse those against ESCR as advocating a theocracy. Has it ever occured to you that those supporting it are advocating a technocracy?
“Four: Because the argument you make in one is incorrect. We just don’t know. Again, some of us don’t talk to God on a first name basis.We have to explore and research things to truly know something. By the way, the fate of those donated stem cells is the trash can. And as Futurepundit has pointed out we may have a way of doing the research without harming the “sanctity” of the embryo”
We do, however, know that adult stem cells have shown promise. Isn’t a sure thing preferrable to a shot in the dark? Who’s operating by faith now? God has nothing to do with seeing that ESCR is all talk and no substance. There is no logical reason for scientists to shun ASCR.
humor, tr.v.: 1. To comply with the wishes or ideas of; indulge. 2. To adapt or accommodate oneself to. See Synonyms at pamper.
I think I’ve done that in spades.
Steve: I actually thought your question was kind of silly and off point.
Yeah, it was silly… in that it is obvious the question doesn’t have a “scientific answer.” But off point? You, Philip, have done little but make a deliberate caricature of ethical boundaries to scientific endeavor throughout this thread. So you say there are ethical boundaries after all? Well, I’d no doubt agree. And you say those boundaries are governed by reason and logic? Hmm… I, too, would agree. So what you’re saying is that if “imaginary beings in the sky” inform one’s opinion, then that makes such opinions inherently irrational or illogical? What I’d ask then is for you do demonstrate the rational and logical basis for such an opinion? Oh, and if this is not really your opinion, why do you go to such great lengths to make it appear so?
Cheers!
And BTW, my wife and I have gladly donated the cord blood, whence come “adult” (i.e., mature) stem cells, from our last 3 births. [Didn’t seem to be an option with our 2 Virginia babies.] And in a recent exclusive interview with these 3 children, I’ve found that they’re none the worse for it.
Cheers!
Before the holidays, I had run into a friend who’s in marketing work himself, and not particularly pro-life. He mentioned an investor acquaintance who “wouldn’t piss away a cent” (his words, not mine) on embryonic research, but has invested millions in companies working on adult-stem cell cures. This friend of mine, BTW, also has Type I diabetes, which if anything, would make him more likely to believe in the hype being peddled by the likes of John “Elect Kerry and the dumb shall speak and the lame shall walk! Hallelujah” Edwards and Nancy Reagan.
Do you read anything I provide here? Chris Mooney all of your questions pretty well. I’ll take one more shot though: It’s like comparing anti-matter propulsion with liquid chemical propulsion. Your argument is look at all the great work we’ve done with chemical propulsion when in point of fact we’ve just barely begun to look at anti-matter…this is why the military will spend the money to do some “research” on it. I’m just hoping that some Godly types don’t oppose it because it’s against God or something. Everyone else will move toward it and make advances.
I might note, and I haven’t mentioned this yet, there will probably be opposition to AI, especially if it creates products that can pass a Turing Test. Just to be safe, some Catholic bishop will ask you to start using pre 1990 wintel machines only and restrict your internet access, so saith the lord through proxy…
Jerry: Go to the link above and find the Futurepundit link (way down the page). He outlines it. No embryo dies, until it’s thrown away as planned at least.
First, excellent rebuttal. It’s always good to debate somebody who actually knows something. I’m also not sure if I can win since I made such a horrible mistake on getting the South Korean story mixed up with other promising results regarding embryonic stem cells. Then again, I am the guardedly optimistic atheist who expects his vote for democrats to actually be counted…Into the breach…
1) Embryonic stem cells have done nothing noteworthy. Adult stem cells have.
One: That’s actually not true. There have been promising embryonic research results here, here and here. (I read them carefully this time! One of the problems with starting a paper all by yourself is that you’re usually in a rush…!) This also skips over the point of basic research. We do research because some of us aren’t in the common everyday communion with Our God Jehovah Cthulu or the Great Pumpkin. We do research because we wish to find out. That should be left up to Scientists by the way and not the same clergymen who tortured Galileo.
2) Umbilical cord stem cells are categorized under “adult” because they are not from embryos.
Two: You’re right. I made a mistake and got it wrong. Let’s move on. I’m sure you would do the same if science proved that your Sunday wine didn’t turn into Christ’s blood or DNA extracts from the Turin Shroud proved Christ was just another guy (with kids, you can trace genetic heritage don’t you know) or that the pope was fallible, especially during the holocaust. Of course, that’s the great thing about science: you can admit your mistakes and your worldview doesn’t crumble around you like so much dust.
3) The federal government hasn’t banned privately-funded ESCR. If it’s really the market that matters to you and not the science, why care about government involvement? The government didn’t drive the microchip revolution.
Three: Actually, the government drove both the microchip revolution and the development of the Internet by way of the space program’s need for minuturization and the military’s need for a robust communications system that would survive nuclear attack. Government funding determines which markets will thrive in the future. That’s why it would be nice if we had an administration that was pro progress. And again, stop being parochial. We’re competing against other countries for what could conceivably be the most important market ever: The Better Health/Short Term Immortality Market.
4) Given #1, why would you want the government to invest in a less promising line of research? Do you like wasteful spending?
Four: Because the argument you make in one is incorrect. We just don’t know. Again, some of us don’t talk to God on a first name basis.We have to explore and research things to truly know something. By the way, the fate of those donated stem cells is the trash can. And as Futurepundit has pointed out we may have a way of doing the research without harming the “sanctity” of the embryo.
First…
“…even nutjobs like Gary Fisher played chess…”
Are you conflating Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer? 😉
Second…
I don’t particularly care to be “granted” things in conversations. That’s a pretty condescending way to put it, as if you’re holding all the goodies and, well, just this once or twice you’ll let me hold one… “for now.”
Third…
“…to set science up as superior to religion in the realm of violence (e.g., few people get killed over scientific disputes, unlike religious ones) is incorrect.”
Um, no, sorry. Read through history. Do a quick-n-dirty approximate body count. How many people have killed each other over scientific disputes? Now, how many people have killed each other over religious disputes? Like I said before, that’s just a fact. Where you go from there is up to you.
That religion and science work in different ways on society is pretty clear. That they work “on different levels” is not, and I honestly don’t know what you mean by that. You clearly see the methodological difference, but apparently don’t see that as a point of conflict between science and religion. But there’s little besides the methodology that really differentiates the scientific and the religious mind. The scientific mind is fundamentally skeptical; the religious mind is fundamentally credulous (hence all those creeds). Put those two minds to work on the same problem and you’ll get different results.
As to the popularity of religion versus the popularity of science, that’s probably due to the fact that religion is (1) easier than science and (2) it tells people what they want to hear (i.e., everything has a purpose in some grand narrative).
Funky: You haven’t answered the critique that your fellow travellers probably don’t approve of AI, either. Wait. Let’s do a quick search of the Discovery Institute…
Here we go. Looks like artificial intelligence is something that good religious people are against:
“We have also supported research that challenges theories (such as behaviorism, strong AI (Artificial Intelligence)…that have portrayed humans as completely determined animals or machines…”
That link is here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=109
So, you see Funky Dung, you are a heretic! You should be burned at once or at least your research should be stopped, in the name of Our Lord, who talks to me personally…
Hey, I’m all for record breaking. I responded to some of Funky’s arguments here:
http://www.threeriversonline.com/PittsburghTech.htm
Links are there for background. Here’s the first response:
My Private Little War with Ales Rarus: The Final Conflict
I tried to respond to some of the counterarguments you’ve offered.
“I forgot a point. Go to http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ post-haste and educate yourself.”
I did check out that site and I found it to be a kind of propaganda. I’m not saying that the catholics who make up the founding members don’t have a right to spout propaganda or that propaganda in itself is a bad thing (In fact, that’s what I like about the net is that I have a much better sense of the biases of the authors.), but these are people who will stick to their position no matter what the evidence says. And again, and I hate to repeat this, we do the research to find out things. There may be a way to do embyronic stem cell research without violating the “sanctity” of the embyro. And if you were rational about this your immediate response would be “great”. But it wasn’t, and so I presume that you’re not making your case based on reason and evidence but religious sophistry, ever so circular and ever so arcane.
I feel that the site is on a par with what tobacco companies say about the cigarette/cancer link or how polluters feel about global warming.
I suppose I choose to get my information here at the Union of Concerned Scientists, or from the Henry Waxman website. I might note that I have nothing against adult stem cells. In fact, I probably have a lot more adult stem cells than I do embryonic stem cells. I simply think that the research is very exciting. We could cure many a disease, perhaps even figure out our genetic workings. I think these things should be done.
How does one do ESCR without violating the sanctity of the embryo, Philip? Are you thinking of that method that Dr. Hurlbut from Standford was using, or Gearhardt’s (from Hopkins) proposal that we only remove a few cells from an embryo, which leaves it viable? Or something else?
How interesting. I’ve gone from “unwittingly” linking to the Discovery Institute to considering them “fellow travellers”.
“you can rest assured…that my rationale is based on logic and reason”
I don’t think you’d know reason if it sat on your face and wiggled. You’ve given us endless posturing and assurances that you work from logic, but you’ve never demonstrated it. I can’t recall a single argument of yours that demonstrated even the logical sophistication of an adolescent, let alone a highly-educated adult. Nearly every “argument” you’ve ever presented here would make marvelous illustrations for an encyclopedia of logical fallacies.
I have no problem with atheists hanging about and offering comments. Take Theomorph for instance. I enjoy his presense because his arguments are generally rational and sometimes intriguing. He keeps me on my toes. Then again, he also doesn’t comport himself like a gormless clown.
I don’t delete comments to censor people, but I do delete redundant posts. There were 5 copies of your screed. The next time you spam my comments, I will ban you.
I forgot a point. Go to http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ post-haste and educate yourself.
I just don’t see how science has the same kind of pervasive quality as religion. Science asks and answers certain questions. Religions asks and answers others. Science doesn’t comfort the afflicted. It doesn’t celebrate with the fortunate. It does not inform or dictate moral or ethical conduct. It doesn’t give meaning or significance to human life and thought. In shortm it is utilitarian. It serves mankind. Science is very useful, but it does not contribute to as many aspects of each moment of each person’s life as religion does. They are not remotely on the same scale. Comparing the potential for violence in science and religion is like comparing a tool box to the Ten Commandments. It’s apples and oranges, or perhaps even apples to bread.
I said:
Mr. Shropshire, if you’re still reading, please provide us (superstitious morons all) a scientific basis for your apparent belief that all avenues of research are ethical. Or at least a scientific justification for the belief that all scientific “advances” are inherently justified.
To which, Mr. Shropshire responds:
Remember: these are the folks who have led the war in Intelligent Design. They’re against the future. Religious myth can’t accomodate rapid singularity like changes. If there are four cloned versions of me, which soul goes to Heaven…
Ummm… can you say “Non sequitur”? “ad homineum”? How ’bout “Bullshit”? So the future is “good”… and a “good” thing to be “for”? Because you say so? Scientific bases, please!
Ironically, what we have here is a good ol’ fashioned bit of myth-making… and a nasty case of Black Kettle Denotation.
Cheers!
I’d have to agree; religion doesn’t comfort me or give meaning to my life, either. In fact, the things from which I derive comfort and meaning have little to do with either religion or science.
I’ll be honest, Jerry. I have no idea what you’re saying or where you’re coming from. I’ve sat here and read your comment about six times now, and I’m still getting nothing. Could you say it again, differently?
I'm still for stem cell research going forward. Thank god for California even though I'm an atheist. Keep in mind that there have been more impressive breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells, namely in South Korea, where a woman's paralysis was cured using stem cells from an umbilical cord.
Cached link is here.
So let's review: The current dumb federal policy doesn't stop other countries from moving forward and arguably dominating the most important market ever created. It just keeps Americans dumb and stupid, which, I suppose is a good thing if you're tailoring people for theocratic rule…
It’s a Joseph Campbell term. He wrote the book “Myths to Live By”. There’s a link for it if you check out what I wrote in Mirror Universe.
Here it is:
“Campbell talks about the role of sacrifice in myth and compares sacrificial acts between cultures. He stresses the need for people to have some type of ” bliss station “, a means of escape from everyday pressures.”
Religion for me, and I grew up in two churches, one a fundamentalist holy roller church where tongues are spoken on cue every Sunday, is that it’s kind of like a drug, or an opiate as Marx phrased. And worse, as Machiavelli wrote of it, religion makes people easier to manipulate and rule.
Look, the California vote was a referendum on your position. You lost, big time. Your position is based on faith, not reason. Your one link is faith based. By the way, I hate to ask this, because you’re the logical one, did you read the Chris Mooney comments, the Virginia Postrel comments, the PDF I supplied which was a group report by research scientists who wanted funding on all types of stem cell research, the PDF I supplied where the Discovery (the same people quoted at your one “factual”/Catholic propaganda site) Institute declared Strong AI something that they’re going to work against…? Did you read any of it? Because you would have to read and debunked them all to declare my arguments illogical and invalid.
So far, I don’t see any logical evidence that shows me that you’ve done that. Your argument, as far as i can see, is my imaginary god tells me its bad. Of course, your same sources seem to be against AI, which, as a heretic, you seem to be still working on…I mean, Bill Joy quit Sun for obvious reasons. When will you be consistent and go into the monastery or farming or decent appropriate god fearing work….
My point isn’t that religion is supposed to provide that function, or that it does, but that it’s entirely possible that the comforts offered by religion are shallow, that they don’t stand up to scrutiny, and that they don’t satisfy everyone. That, in my opinion, is enough to call the whole enterprise into question, and is usually what leads critics and heretics to do so. (William James put it another way, noticing that some people seem to be born with a couple bottles of champagne to their credit, meaning that some people are more susceptible to finding comfort and meaning in religion, while others are less susceptible, or not at all.)
Furthermore, the fact that religion doesn’t affect some people indicates that it isn’t quite what it claims to be. How can we believe that religion is something supernatural, a link to the transcendent and the truly powerful, if it doesn’t affect all people? How can something claim to be the most real if it is not experienced by all people? Meanwhile, those things that are experienced by all people–physical laws like gravity, the inescapable basic needs for life, cycles of day and night, and so on (all the “mundane” things)–are held up by religious people as being somehow less real than the transcendent, which a whole bunch of people don’t perceive at all! (Or, depending on your theological bent, religious people claim the supernatural is equally real with the natural, even though it does not share equal experience among all people.)
Nothing personal funky dung, but religion doesn’t do those things for me either. I’ll take boring and harsh reality over “bliss station” fantasy for 600 please Alex…
Is that why you gave up agnosticism? You’re right. It is tough dealing with reality.
Pardon my ignorance, but I’m unfamiliar with the phrase “bliss station”.
Philip says:
It’s not right and certainly not Christian to slaughter 100000 Iraqis for their oil. And if the choice is between science or religion, then I choose science. I don’t need or want the bliss stations that religion offers.
For God’s sake (no pun intended), WTF does religion have to do with any of this? Philip, if I didn’t know better (and I don’t), I’d swear you were just looking for a fight. Your false dichotomy between science and religion is utterly rejected by nearly all regular contributors and commenters to Mr. Dung’s fine site. I say choose both.
And would people please shut up with that 100,000 figure?!?!? Iraq Bodycount, no friend to Bush or war places the body count much lower. Yes, you’re absolutely right, in fact even a single death in an unjust war is too high a price to pay for oil or anything else. (Assuming, of course, as I do, that it is an unjust war.) Philip, you’ll find few friends of the war or George Bush II here, but parroting worn-out slogans won’t get you very far either. And again, WTF, does Iraq have to do with stem cell research?
Getting back now to Jerry’s original argument (and from trained experience with it: his point) that research with adult stem cells continues to produce worthwhile results, while ESCR does not, and all without the messy ethical questions. I’d even be willing to suggest the vehemence with which ESCR is defended even smacks of a religious devotion. Do I think ESCR is doomed to fail if given the chance to succeed? No, but I don’t think it should be given the chance due its ethical problem: killing some human organisms to benefit others. But as it stands right now in the state of the art, defenders of ESCR do seem to me to be taking much more of a “god of the gaps” posture than those pushing forward with ASCR…
My $0.02 as always…
Philip,
I’m sorry to break this to you, but that comment was a string of non sequiturs.
1) Embryonic stem cells have done nothing noteworthy. Adult stem cells have.
2) Umbilical cord stem cells are categorized under “adult” because they are not from embryos.
3) The federal government hasn’t banned privately-funded ESCR. If it’s really the market that matters to you and not the science, why care about government involvement? The government didn’t drive the microchip revolution.
4) Given #1, why would you want the government to invest in a less promising line of research? Do you like wasteful spending?
5) Just because other countries are doing something doesn’t mean we should. If other countries were making lots of dough by continuing Josef Mengele work, should we follow suit? How about genocide? I bet that has some hefty financial rewards.
6) Not publicly funding ESCR makes Americans dumb and stupid? Huh? Show me a connection between stupidity in America and ESCR.
7) Theocratic rule? What?!? You’ve obviously been listening to too many conspiracy theories. There are lots of people who object to ESCR from non-religious standpoints.
8) I read that Futurepundit link. Begged questions, myths, and lies were abundant. This comment really cracked me up: “Religion offers endless conflict,where as science offers a world without conflict.” Riiiiiight.
Philip, I saw your post and I’m not a happy camper. Please read the comments I left.
Science’s more narrow view is what allows it to coexist within Religion (I use the term capitalized. If it cannot be observed, science cannot say anything about it one way or another. The contradiction you speak of does not follow, except insofar that dogmas of individual religions clash with some scientific fact (Augustine’s dissatisfaction with the Manichees may have stemmed in part with astronomy contradicting that faith’s mythology, for instance; likewise the Mormons have run afoul of some genetic evidence about the American Indians’ origins).
You say that “Religion will admit almost anything as fact, even the subjective experiences of individuals. ” Yes, in the capital-r sense of the term. As for determining the truth of what Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc. have to say, well that’s up to the individual. A religion is composed of people who’ve made up their minds (more or less) one way or another. You speak of determining the truth of revelations: every religious practitioner does that. And again, whereas the practice of science is within a profession, the practice of religion (including discerning the truth of a belief) is up to any individual. Which means that people can be methodologically sloppy in picking what they believe. Which also means that it gets caught up in (and likewise helps direct) cultural trends and ethnic issues, which is why religion gets caught up in warfare way more easily than chess players or scientists.
So are you saying that science covers a narrower subject matter, or that fewer people are scientists?
If you’re saying that science covers a narrower subject matter, I would have to disagree. Heartily.
If you’re saying that fewer people are scientists, that’s pretty obvious. But if you’re saying that scientists are not violent simply because there are fewer of them, well, I would have to disagree heartily with that, too. How does it follow that “a narrow part of the population” is less susceptible to being “sucked into violence”? Radical Islamic terrorists are a narrow part of the population, too. Even in Iraq. But they’re making all the news over there by killing people every day.
Sorry – I’m joining the discussion very late, after Funky told me to tonight to check out this particular post. And I’ve only managed to read through about half of it, but no one seems to have further clarifed the falsehood of:
“or that the pope was fallible, especially during the holocaust.”
Now, admittedly, I don’t know much about Pius XII and the holocaust. However, infallibilty of the Pope is on matters of faith and morals. I would encourage Mr. Shropshire to take a look at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
or
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
I don’t see that anyone has cleared up that misconception about the Church’s teaching for Mr. Shropshire, but if it occured in a later post that I have not yet read, then I apologize for the redundancy.
Steve: I actually thought your question was kind of silly and off point. So I didn’t respond to it. Here’s a try. I take it one issue at a time. And you can rest assured that when I do oppose certain kinds of science–such as fission development or the patenting of certain GM products–that my rationale is based on logic and reason and not imaginary beings in the sky.
Subject matter or people? Well, I’d say perhaps both, but more the latter, and I’ll just focus on the latter for the argument’s sake.
Regarding science’s subject matter, it may be broad (as you point out), but methodologically it’s fairly focused. Moreover, you have a relatively small cadre of professionals working on it. I suppose you are right in that the smallness of the community itself is not what itself makes scientists relatively peaceful (ignoring those working on the next generation of “bunker buster” bombs and weaponized anthrax! But I’ll grant you this right now!), but the narrowness of the focus of the scientist qua scientist.
Scientists have other identites besides being a physicist or whatever. I can identify myself as a Catholic, an American, as a native Chicagoan, and so forth, and this is apart from my training in mathematics and medicine, for instance. And these do have influences on me!
Take your Iraqi fighter–he didn’t necessarily get explicitly as a guerrilla, though your above comment implies that. Yes, he’s a narrow part of the population, but he didn’t start that way. He could have been a scientist, for all we know! Given that Iraq was the only (Muslim) Middle East nation with a respectable middle class, I’d imagine that many of these fighters have been radicalized at some point from various professions, and that radicalization is due to a variety of cultural and historical factors, many intertwined with religion. Because religion is so much more caught up in POPULAR culture (science influences us greatly, but with most people somewhat indirectly) and politics, it is much more likely to become a flash point for human violence.
So this is what I was getting at imperfectly with the chess player example. Insofar as even nutjobs like Gary Fisher played chess, they were relatively well-behaved. But insofar that chess players belong to other ideologies, they may be dangerous in that regard. Thus, to set science up as superior to religion in the realm of violence (e.g., few people get killed over scientific disputes, unlike religious ones) is incorrect, given that religion and science sociologically work on different levels of society. Perhaps in an objective sense, we can say that science and religion are in conflict (as you seem to believe, and I’ll even grant you for this debate), but socially, it is not so simple.
Thanks, Steve. 🙂 It’s nice to see a discussion return to the original point!
That wasn’t intentional! But you’re just waiting to ban aren’t you theocrat…that is the way. Meanwhile, over at Mirror Universe, your comments sit undisturbed, probably forever unless Haloscan dumps them…tell me you at least read the Chris Mooney stuff…humor me.
That’s not an “empty accusation,” Steve. Religious people claim they’re in touch with something more real than anything else. But if it’s more real than anything else, why is it not more apparent than anything else? Anybody can reasonably deny that God exists, but if you deny that jumping from a skyscraper will result in a long, ultimately deadly fall, people will say that you are crazy. Which one is more real?
Theo, I’m sorry if fatigue’s hurting me here, it’s just that you’ve focused on science being a much more peaceful activity than religion, and I was trying to point out that socially and culturally, religion has a much greater breadth than science (which is strictly speaking practice by a fairly narrow part of the population), and so is much more likely to get sucked into violence.
Is that clearer? Sorry if I’ve been babbling!
Theo, I’m sorry you got touchy (again) with what I said, but my granting was not condescending, but rather a desire to stick with a particular focus of conversation. I’d love to share all the goodies I have, but I know many are not to your taste (e.g., Christianity), so I focused on some sociological aspects of religion, ignoring some other points that I’d be happy to discuss in the future, such as the alleged non-violence of science, which has allowed us to purify anthrax as well as penicillin, to destroy tumors with X-rays, or cities with other radioactive isotopes. Again, humanity has a mixed record with anything it touches, whether it be the study of natural powers or the worship of supernatural ones.
If you want to start up a debate on the goodness of science, let me know and we’ll get a new posting on it for this blog. Give me some time, though, the semester has just begun!
Another aside to you and Philip: That religion does nothing for you I respect, but that does not nullify others’ experiences. (Quantum physics doesn’t do much for the vast majority of the population, but that does not nullify physic’s importance.) Another reason why I wanted to stick more towards a sociological approach, looking at how religion and science shape history, for good or ill, whether we personally like it or not.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion about grandmasters as well. 🙂
Theo, regarding (2), science has a much narrower focus than religion. Religion often influences or incorporates political philosophy, the arts, and the whole of culture. Science is focused on nature–sometimes our own nature yes, but in a very focused way. Since it *directly* engages a more specialized subset of the population than religion (which has a gamut of followers from laity to teachers to whatever hierarchy exists and even to heretics and doubters) does, well, I’m not sure if you’re ad hominem accusation does more than make sense. Humans screw things up, and since religion engages more of humanity and more aspects of human nature, we can screw up religion more thoroughly than science. I’m not going to apologize for atrocities committed in the name of religion, but chess is not better than Catholicism merely because fewer chess players kill each other (or those dirty Go and backgammon-playing heretics) than Catholics off themselves or other faiths.
Then again, when science is detached from the arts, from ethics and our own human experience, we get atrocities like the Tuskegee syphilis project, the widespread use of slaves and prisoners in experimentation, or embryonic experimentation.
There’s also this development which I presume you’re in favor of:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002501.html#002501