Science must not become criterion of good (VIS)

Originally posted by Palynka
I've often seen the percentage of Christians being wrongly used to defend the position that the RCC's position about condoms is a key factor.

This are the stats, according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_by_country#Africa

Southern Africa is the most HIV/AIDS affected region in the world and why I mentioned those two countr the idea that the Pope plays any significant role is simply throwing sand in people's eyes.

I come from Zambia where the Catholic Church is by far the largest denomination - and the HIV infection rate is very high (and higher than in South Africa). I doubt that the statistics you give are very accurate - for a start their calculation method as far as I can tell ignores the factor of children. Since children make up more than half the population the calculation could be off by more than 100%.(of the stated figure).

In the Zambian media, the Catholic Church and its messages about condoms is fairly prominent and almost certainly has some impact on condom usage. It is a known and indisputable fact that condom use has proven to be the most successful preventative measure for preventing AIDS in Africa.

Although I agree with you that the reasons behind the spread of AIDS do not lies solely with the Catholic Church and its message, the reasons behind the failure to use condoms to prevent or at least reduce that spread is significant.

Keep in mind that the percentage of Catholics in the country is really irrelevant for the discussion, because the real issue is whether and to what extent, the use of condoms as a prevention is promoted in the media. In Zambia, and probably in other countries in Southern Africa, the Catholic Church is a significant influencer of the media and has had a significant impact on the presentation of the condom as a preventative measure. I am talking from experience, not Wikipedia. I have lost a large number of friends and acquaintances to AIDS, and have seen the Catholic propaganda on TV and in newspapers.

1) Go to Google Scholar
2) type HIV and Religion

The first active link is:

Religion and women's health in Ghana: insights into HIV/AIDs preventive and protective behavior

Quote from the article:
For the most part, women from the Christian churches (56 percent of Protestants, 55 percent of Catholics, and a similar percentage of other Christians) were more likely to report a lower level of AIDS risk than those among the non-Christian groups (49 percent for Muslims and 48 percent of ATR).

And these results are robust to including controls for respondent's age, current marital status, ethnic background, place of residence and education.

If you measure risk only by "probability of use of condoms", then Catholics fare somewhat worse, but this just highlights that looking only at that variable is neglecting other, apparently more important behavioural differences, that actually reduce risk.

Originally posted by Palynka
1) Go to Google Scholar
2) type HIV and Religion

The first active link is:

[b]Religion and women's health in Ghana: insights into HIV/AIDs preventive and protective behavior

Quote from the article:
[i]For the most part, women from the Christian churches (56 percent of Protestants, 55 percent of Catholics, and a similar percentage of other Chri ...[text shortened]... lecting other, apparently more important behavioural differences, that actually reduce risk.[/b]

Did you read my post? Did you miss what I was saying? It has nothing to do with the religion / denomination of the people getting AIDS. It has to do with the influence of the Catholic Church on the media and the general government response to AIDS. For example we have another problem here in South Africa, and in Africa in general - the political leaders do not take sufficient action and in some cases even deny the existence of AIDS. If the political leader is either Catholic or is influenced by the Catholic Church - as we know does happen - then he may take less action in promoting condoms.

If you had lived in Africa you would know that AIDS is a very complicated disease socially and the worst part about it is denial. Giving people an excuse - any excuse - to not put on a condom before sex is a very very bad thing and does contribute to the spread of AIDS.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you read my post? Did you miss what I was saying? It has nothing to do with the religion / denomination of the people getting AIDS. It has to do with the influence of the Catholic Church on the media and the general government response to AIDS. For example we have another problem here in South Africa, and in Africa in general - the political leaders d ...[text shortened]... t put on a condom before sex is a very very bad thing and does contribute to the spread of AIDS.

I posted this because you're sticking to anedoctal evidence and conjecture.

For you to hold your point, you still have to explain why this so called influence is equal (i.e. no significant statistical difference) across religions and therefore not showing in the data as a religion effect (even with the above mentioned controls).

There are two explanations:
- The effect of Pope's words is statistically equal regardless of the religion of the listener.
- The effect of the Pope's words is statistically non-significant on prevalence rates.

The thing is that the case against the RCC is fundamentally flawed. You pick the recommendations that increase risk (condoms) and neglect those that decrease it (abstinence, fidelity).

The argument for neglecting the second part is simple and powerful. People will not feel inclined to follow the Pope's advice on sexual behaviour. The problem is that this is contradictory with the original accustation that the Pope's position is influencing in sexual behaviour, thus increasing risk.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the percentage of Catholics is much higher in other parts of Africa and the RCCs position has most definitely had a significant impact. It may even have a significant impact in areas with relatively few Catholics because the message and behavior is carried over to people of other denominations (and faiths). If a prominent and well respected person in ...[text shortened]... aging the distribution of condoms - for slightly different reasons than the Popes stated reason.

Twhitehead: "If a prominent and well respected person in your community says something, it carries weight far beyond his religious circle."

Then I wonder why you claim people are so eager to "obey" the Roman Catholic Church in not using condoms and at the same time do nót obey the Church when she says that you should stick to one partner and be faithful to him or her.

This whole "The Catholic Church is discouraging the use of condoms, therefore she bears responsibility for the spreading of the AIDS virus" is as bogus as can be.

"Listen Margareth .... uhhh ... I mean Lilian ..... sorry, I mean Britney .... the Church says I cannot use condoms ... soooo .... "

........ "Yes, honey, I understand ... that's what Johnny also said last night. Honey, he said, we simply háve to obey the Church in Her teachings.... so, throw away those condoms .... ."

If people would truly obey the Church and would change their sexual behaviour, meaning they would stick to one partner and be faithful to him or her and stop hopping into beds with others ( ... I'm not even speaking about raping adults or having sex with children and raping them) then the spreading of the AIDS virus would indeed be kept within limits.

The use of condoms can only slow down the spreading of the AIDS virus, but it can never stop it.

Why ? Because the use of a condom only REDUCES the chance you catch the virus when you have sex THAT PARTICULAR TIME, but the more times you have sex with a condom the more chance there is you will EVENTUALLY catch the virus.

Therefore the use of condoms does not stop the virus, it only slows down its spreading.

The only way to stop the virus is when people stop having sex with different partners and stop raping others, only then the AIDS epidemic can be controlled and contained.


We need a change in sexual behaviour to stop the spreading of the AIDS virus, condoms will not do the trick. On the contrary, condoms give people a misguided sense of protection and will as such encourage the sexual behaviour which is responsible for the epidemic.

OK...This thread can be salvaged...

Science without ethics--Joseph Mengele. Ethics without science--???? You tell me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK...This thread can be salvaged...

Science without ethics--Joseph Mengele. Ethics without science--???? You tell me.

Science without true religion will lead us astray .... and religion without true science will also lead us astray.

The respect for and the dignity of the human person, of áll human persons, should always be in the center of our thinking and at the top of our priorities, be it in scientific, philosophical or religious thinking.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Science without true religion will lead us astray .... and religion without true science will also lead us astray.

I agree with this, it's predictive. I don't like the follow-on because has 'should' in it. I'll stick with this one. Now, why will religion without science lead us astray? Surely the moral law is sufficient without having to go to the lab?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK...This thread can be salvaged...

Science without ethics--Joseph Mengele. Ethics without science--???? You tell me.

Under science (Ratio) one should also count philosophy. Under religion one should count ethics. ( .... I know. One can have ethics without religion.)

Therefore an example of religion without proper philosophical thinking is the "God hates fags" groups, dark sects like those who committed massive suicide in South America, the Scientology Church and the Nazi movement.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Under science (Ratio) one should also count philosophy. Under religion one should count ethics. ( .... I know. One can have ethics without religion.)

Therefore an example of religion without proper philosophical thinking is the "God hates fags" groups, dark sects like those who committed massive suicide in South America, the Scientology Church and the Nazi movement.

All right, I like your broad definition of science...to include the wisdom of the heart. And I probably, loosely, agree with the Pope on this one...I'm sure he'd be overjoyed to know that.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK...This thread can be salvaged...

Science without ethics--Joseph Mengele. Ethics without science--???? You tell me.

¿A qué está escuchando usted?

Originally posted by vistesd
¿A qué está escuchando usted?

Paco Ibanez.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Under science (Ratio) one should also count philosophy.
Why? What is it about philosophy you consider to follow the notions of falsifiability, repeatability or empirical observation?

Under religion one should count ethics.
Why should ethics fall under religion?

Therefore an example of religion without proper philosophical thinking is the "God hates fags" groups, dark sects like those who committed massive suicide in South America, the Scientology Church and the Nazi movement.
Surely this is a matter of missing ethics, which under your definition leaves us speaking nonsense. What a surprise.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Paco Ibanez.

I'll have to look him up. I understand that he uses some of Lorca's stuff for lyrics. One of the reasons I'm trying to learn Spanish is to read Lorca in the original. Am just starting out, though.

Originally posted by vistesd
I'll have to look him up. I understand that he uses some of Lorca's stuff for lyrics. One of the reasons I'm trying to learn Spanish is to read Lorca in the original. Am just starting out, though.

Oh, me too. Lorca, San Juan de la Cruz...Borges...Just starting out...

A favourite Ibanez rendition is Gongora's 'Dejame en paz, amor tirano':

Pues amarga la verdad quiero echarla de la boca
y si al alma su hiel toca esconderla es necedad
spase pues libertad a engendrado en mi pereza
La pobreza

Quin hace al ciego galn y prudente al sinconsejo?
Quin al avariento viejo le sirve de ro Jordn?
Quin hace de piedras pan, sin ser el Dios verdadero?
El dinero
Quin con su fiereza espanta el cetro y corona al rey?
Quin careciendo de ley merece nombre de santa?
Quin con la humildad levanta a los cielos la cabeza?
La pobreza
Quin los jueces con pasin sin ser ungento hace humano?
pues untndoles las manos les ablanda el corazn
Quin gasta su opilacin con oro y no con acero?
El dinero
Quin procura que se aleje del suelo la gloria vana?
Quin siendo tan cristiana tiene la cara de hereje?
Quin hace que al hombre aqueje el desprecio y la tristeza?
La pobreza
Pues amarga la verdad quiero echarla de la boca
y si al alma su hiel toca esconderla es necedad
spase pues libertad a engendrado en mi pereza
La pobreza
La pobreza