Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOrdaining women to replace the aging preisthood?
What issues should be addressed at Vatican III?
A couple ideas I had:
The Permissibility of Rubbers in Various Scenarios
The Child Molestation Budget
The Doctrine of Infallibility: Have We Been Wrong All Along?
Any others?
One of the largest problems facing the Catholic church (in comparison to other churches, sub-churches and cults like the baptists) is that the amount of men (and women) turning to the "cloth" has been steadily declining over the decades.
To put it quite frankly: "More people want to have sex rather than preach".
So, I reckon the Catholic church will have to face up to this one.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn all seriousness I think the Vatican should discuss biology in more depth. It argues its theology as if science doesn't exist. I'm thinking of embryonic research and the like.
What issues should be addressed at Vatican III?
A couple ideas I had:
The Permissibility of Rubbers in Various Scenarios
The Child Molestation Budget
The Doctrine of Infallibility: Have We Been Wrong All Along?
Any others?
Originally posted by Conrau KMorality precedes scientific pursuit. If you disagree, then you surely wouldn’t have a problem with Josef Mengele and his experiments would you?
In all seriousness I think the Vatican should discuss biology in more depth. It argues its theology as if science doesn't exist. I'm thinking of embryonic research and the like.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDoes morality precede biology?
Does morality precede biology?
(I take it you're against all forms of animal experimentation).
Are you questioning whether morality taints our understanding of biological principles? I think not.
My point is that morality should precede the methodology by which we assimilate scientific data, not how we understand it.
I take it you're against all forms of animal experimentation.
Err... what makes you think that? Experimentation in and of itself is not morally objectionable IMO.
Originally posted by HalitoseI think biology affects our notions of morality, so they're all tied up.
Are you questioning whether morality taints our understanding of biological principles? I think not. My point is that morality should precede the methodology by which we assimilate scientific data, not how we understand it.
Err... what makes you think that? Experimentation in and of itself is not morally objectionable IMO.
Mengele's antics disgust you but the same applied to a family of chimps would not?
Originally posted by HalitosePredictable, I mention embryonic research and someone immediately begins the Nazi-scare campaign. I do not want to become involved in a protracted debate on morality but I will just comment that without a scientific consciousness, morality is vitiated. How do you propose we make moral decisions without an informed scientific knowledge?
Morality precedes scientific pursuit. If you disagree, then you surely wouldn’t have a problem with Josef Mengele and his experiments would you?
The Catholic church is not well informed on biology and are often liable to make embarassing statements (I'm thinking of Intelligent design proponents who completely deny evolution as valid).
And not all scientists who advocate embryonic research are like Josef Mengele either.
Originally posted by Conrau KThis is not a Nazi-scare campaign; it is taking a principle to its logical conclusion. You seem to have no problem doing this with the TOE; why are you suddenly so skittish when it’s applied to another area?
Predictable, I mention embryonic research and someone immediately begins the Nazi-scare campaign. I do not want to become involved in a protracted debate on morality but I will just comment that without a scientific consciousness, morality is vitiated. How do you propose we make moral decisions without an informed scientific knowledge?
The Catholic chur ...[text shortened]... lid).
And not all scientists who advocate embryonic research are like Josef Mengele either.
Define "scientific consciousness".
Originally posted by HalitoseStoning? Reign in that martyr complex, it'll tear you apart. I don't recall your exact words, but I seem to remember you saying that Darwin was responsible for Hitler. Quite ridiculous.
Perhaps. Weren't you one of those who were about to stone me when I claimed that Darwin drastically affected (and changed) the moral perceptions of our society? You can't have your cake and eat it.
Why don't you find it morally reprehensible to carry out experiments on chimpanzees?