Relevance of "FIDES ET RATIO" .....

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Obviously not, because, as I've already pointed out, heresy is no longer punishable by death in Catholic countries. Don't be a jerk.

If the Pope is excluded from speaking about science merely because he is a Catholic, shouldn't Catholic scientists also keep their mouths shut?

Skip the personal attacks, BdN, it doesn't promote you very well.

The pope is not only a catholic, he *is* the catolic church. If he think that it is ethic to condemn use of condoms, and be a part of the spread of AIDS, in Africa and elsewhere, then this is the vew of the catholic church too. What individual catholic believers thinks about it is another matter.

And if the catholic church has changed it's opinion about the death punishment of herecy, then it's not eternal. Has it changed it's view of god too? Then the god is not eternal. But - if the church ccan, is able of, change it's view, then why does it condemen the use of condoms in these new times of AIDS spread?

And now I say it again: If the Catholic church is lacking of ethics, why does it have opinions about scientific ethics? The Catholic church has not been very scientific since the days of Galileo, we all know that.

And again, BnN, skip the personal attacks.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Skip the personal attacks, BdN, it doesn't promote you very well.

The pope is not only a catholic, he *is* the catolic church. If he think that it is ethic to condemn use of condoms, and be a part of the spread of AIDS, in Africa and elsewhere, then this is the vew of the catholic church too. What individual catholic believers thinks about it is anothe since the days of Galileo, we all know that.

And again, BnN, skip the personal attacks.

Being a jerk doesn't 'promote you very well' either. Nor do I give a fart for what impression I make in these forums. (And aren't you making personal attacks on the Pope? Poor Pope.)

By far the majority of Africans, with Aids or without, are not Catholic. The reluctance of African men to don condoms has more to do with cultural attitudes than what the Pope says. Why don't you have a go at African culture as well?

Please answer this question:
If the Pope is excluded from speaking about science merely because he is a Catholic, shouldn't Catholic scientists also keep their mouths shut?

Your implication is that anyone who is a Catholic has no right to speak about ethical issues. I find that simply mind-boggling.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Being a jerk doesn't 'promote you very well' either. Nor do I give a fart for what impression I make in these forums. (And aren't you making personal attacks on the Pope? Poor Pope.)

By far the majority of Africans, with Aids or without, are not Catholic. The reluctance of African men to don condoms has more to do with cultural attitudes than what t ...[text shortened]... s a Catholic has no right to speak about ethical issues. I find that simply mind-boggling.

Please, don't lower yourself by continue to give personal attacks.

You put words in my mouth which doesn't come from my mouth. Please, let this debate stay proper.

Yes, I can critisize the pope, because he doesn't speak for himself, he speak for the catholic church. I don't think the pope is so weak so he can't take criticism.

If the cardinals in Africa condemn condoms, even give 'scientific arguments' like condoms help spreading AIDS, and these cardinals serve under the pope, then I am in the full right to criticize the pope.

You avoid the question about lack of ethics in the catholic church when they still, despite times of spreading AIDS, don't want people to use condoms.

And here is my answer of your question: The pope isn't an individual, he is the church. The word of his mouth is the word of the church as a whole. Scientists are, on the other hand, individuals, and can say pretty much whatever they want. Because if asientist say "I'm against the use of condoms because condoms are spreading AIDS actively!" then he speaks for himself and not as the head of the scientific community. You can of course see the difference.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You avoid the question about lack of ethics in the catholic church when they still, despite times of spreading AIDS, don't want people to use condoms.

They want people to maintain monogamous relationships that should make the use of condoms unnecessary. That's the standard argument, I gather. It amounts to demanding a higherethical standard. Personally I think it's bunk, but I wouldn't call it unethical. And apparently it's working in Uganda.

Now is it ethical to impose a standard of monogamy on a culture that favours polygamy? Probably not!

And what would you do? Since so many Africans don't want to wear condoms or abstain from risky sex, whether they are Catholic or not.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They want people to maintain monogamous relationships that should make the use of condoms unnecessary. That's the standard argument, I gather. It amounts to demanding a higherethical standard. Personally I think it's bunk, but I wouldn't call it unethical. And apparently it's working in Uganda.

Now is it ethical to impose a standard of monog ...[text shortened]... ans don't want to wear condoms or abstain from risky sex, whether they are Catholic or not.

The pope, his cardinals and all the other catholic priests give advice in sexual behaviour? Do they have any experience in sex, whatsoever? And still they tell people how to behave sexually?

But they don't say that it's unethical to have extramarital sex, some of them even say that they spread AIDS *by* using condoms. Now this is unethical!

What I have said again and again is - if they are unethical in the name of religion, they shouldn't tell scientists what's ethical. They should act ethical within the religion first!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How about 'goes against ethical principles' in general? And why don't you answer your own question? It's a bit broad, it could cover anything from mandatory euthanasia of the insane to that well trodden topic abortion.

Okay, I'll give an example. The Church remains steadfastly opposed to the use of condoms for
ethical reasons even in places such as Africa where AIDS runs rampant. Even if they were to
diminish the incidence of AIDS by 10%, this seems a rational course of action. There is no non-
theological rational reason to believe that two people suffer because of the use of condoms during
coitus.

In this case, reason and theologically-borne ethics are in conflict. What does the Pope suggest in
this case? Answer: Deference to ethics (i.e., the Church) in spite of reason.

This undermines the Pope's claim that Faith and Reason simply compliment each other.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Okay, I'll give an example.

Do you have any others? Because frankly, I'm bored of discussing Aids. If the Pope did a turnaround and ordered the flock to use condoms, the impact on Aids would probably be negligible. Because the major contributing factor to the spread of Aids in Africa is cultural attitudes towards promiscuous sex -- not to mention the peculiar views concerning Aids that flourish in this continent.

Besides, if you're a good Catholic, sex that requires a condom is a sin. So if you're going to sin, you might as well use a condom and trot along to confession. See? Faith and reason complement each other perfectly.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What I have said again and again is - if they are unethical in the name of religion, they shouldn't tell scientists what's ethical. They should act ethical within the religion first!

I don't see the Pope telling scientists how they should behave. He's saying that science should be tempered with ethics. Presumably, that applies to non Catholics as well.

As for condoms spreading Aids -- according to the BBC, 'Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio claimed some anti-retroviral drugs were also infected "in order to finish quickly the African people".' Now that's a prime example of African Aids paranoia. Where on earth could that idea have come from?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't see the Pope telling scientists how they should behave. He's saying that science should be tempered with ethics. Presumably, that applies to non Catholics as well.

Oh, that's what all is about? That the science community should act according to ethics? Oh, well, then I'll bring the news to him - they already are. There are lots of ethical committees in various branches of science.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, that's what all is about? That the science community should act according to ethics? Oh, well, then I'll bring the news to him - they already are. There are lots of ethical committees in various branches of science.

Where do the members of these committees get their ethics from?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Where do the members of these committees get their ethics from?

This is turning off-topic.
You can google as well as I can do.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is turning off-topic.
You can google as well as I can do.

No, Bosse is exactly ON topic. This is what this thread is all about.

From my first post:

....... "science is not capable of establishing ethical principles. ... In this context, philosophy and theology become an indispensable aid which must be taken into account to ensure that science does not advance alone along a difficult path full of pitfalls and not without risks. This does not mean limiting scientific research ... but in keeping alive the sense of responsibility which reason and faith must have towards science, to ensure it remains at the service of man".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No, Bosse is exactly ON topic. This is what this thread is all about.

From my first post:

....... "science is not capable of establishing ethical principles. ... In this context, philosophy and theology become an indispensable aid which must be taken into account to ensure that science does not advance alone along a difficult path full of pitfalls and ...[text shortened]... which reason and faith must have towards science, to ensure it remains at the service of man".

"science is not capable of establishing ethical principles" and this is exactly where you are wrong. And I've proved so by the popes unability to establish ethics to handle its denial of the problem of the condom usage. If the chatolic church is unable to have its own ethics, and the fact that the church isn't exactly rocket scientists about science, then they shouldn give any advice.

I haven't so far mentionned the church inability to handle its pedophilic priests, its a blow under the belt... Non-existing ethics, if you ask me.

Do I repeat myself? Yes, I do.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is turning off-topic.
You can google as well as I can do.

Off topic? What a peculiar thing to say.

Anyway, I googled "science ethics committee", as you suggested. For some reason this came out on top:

"Ethics is a branch of philosophy whereby human beings question the foundations of a moral life, and proceeding from these foundations, try to distinguish “right” and “wrong,” and to develop theoretical tools and the social means for finding and implementing models forappropriate behaviour. Science ethics is an integral part of the definition of what scientificresearch and development, i.e., scientific production entail, and how it is conducted. As such,it is one of the constitutive elements of the edifice of science itself. On the other hand, it encompasses the professional ethics of scientists, the wide range of rules and regulations thatthey have to uphold, in the discharge of their professional duties. Ethics, and in particular,science ethics, are areas of thought and action which are under continual evolution,with the diversification of social activities, the acquirement of new knowledge and the critical evaluation of social practices."
http://www.tuba.gov.tr/userfiles/file/files_tr/projeler-calismagruplari/TUBA_etik_Ing.pdf

So, according to the Science Ethics Committee of the Turkish Academy of Science, science ethics is, surprise, surprise, a branch of philosophy. Which pretty much supports the opening post.

Here's an example of what can happen if ethics are ignored:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

Originally posted by FabianFnas
the church isn't exactly rocket scientists about science

"Many people will be surprised to learn that the Catholic Church has its own crack team of scientists - mainly Jesuits - who do front line research. For example, there's a team who study the heavens through telescopes at the Vatican Observatory. The Pope can also turn to his own academy of sciences."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/vaticanscientists.shtml