Originally posted by Conrau KThis is incorrect, the Vatican has some essays regarding bioethics. That's as far as it should meddle, obviously, but they definitely don't argue theology as if science didn't exist.
It argues its theology as if science doesn't exist. I'm thinking of embryonic research and the like.
You may disagree with their views but your accusation is unfair, IMO.
Originally posted by Conrau K"One of the central subjects in the discussion about whether abortion, experiments on embryos and so called therapeutic cloning is licit is that of the status of the embryo. The reaching of the status of a human individual or human person means that the embryo has a connected moral status, a dignity from which come the rights attributed to all human beings. Before reaching this status it is said to be licit to abort the embryo or use it as material for experiments, thereby eliminating it."
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.
".................................."
The link where you can read the whole lecture held by Mgr.Dr. W.J. Eijk:
http://www.medische-ethiek.nl/modules/news/article.php?storyid=205
4 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirBelow you'll find a website in Dutch where lefties (Anarchist) look at bio-ethical issues in a serious and critical way.
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.
I find it worrying that there are very few European lefties who are prepared to follow the developments in the bio-ethics field. Issues like abortion performed on handicapped children, euthanasia, bio-ethics in general, health care, etc.
http://www.biopolitiek.nl/pivot/entry.php?id=190
Take a look for instance at an article called "Anarchisme en gezondheidszorg" ("Anarchism and Health Care" ):
"Anarchisme en gezondheidszorg.
Dinsdag 25 april 2006 vond tijdens het Anarchisme en Verzet Festival in Wageningen bij Studium Generale een avond plaats over anarchisme en gezondheidszorg.
De actuele thema`s eigen verantwoordelijkheid en collectieve verantwoordelijkheid zouden in anarchistisch en in liberaal perspectief worden geplaatst, maar vertegenwoordigers van het liberale gedachtegoed konden niet bereid worden gevonden te komen. Wel spraken Jeroen Breekveldt van Werkplaats Biopolitiek en Jan Verhaegh van het Clientencentrum GGZ in Zuid Limburg. .............................enz. "
I sincerely hope that the progressive forces in Dutch and European society will get interested in these issues and will be willing to look at these issues seriously and honestly from their different political perspectives.
Why ? Because I do not want to let the Right , the Dutch liberals (PvdA, D'66, Groen Links, VVD), set the agenda and get away with everything they propose.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't recall your exact words, but I seem to remember you saying that Darwin was responsible for Hitler.
Stoning? 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.
Why don't you find it morally reprehensible to carry out experiments on chimpanzees?
He (knowingly or unknowingly) laid the scientific groundwork for Nietzsche, Marx (to a slightly lesser degree) and ultimately Hitler to base their social philosophies and political theories on it. He was only one of the many links in the chain that resulted in the bloodbath of the previous century.
Why don't you find it morally reprehensible to carry out experiments on chimpanzees?
Red herring. This is specifically human experimentation that is being discussed. Why do you think chimpanzees don't have the identical recognition (legal/philosophical/moral) that humans have?
Reign in that martyr complex, it'll tear you apart.
Please. It would take more than outrage from a select few on this forum to get me ruffled.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlso look at (in Dutch):
Below you'll find a website in Dutch where lefties (Anarchist) look at bio-ethical issues in a serious and critical way.
I find it worrying that there are very few European lefties who are prepared to follow the developments in the bio-ethics field. Issues like abortion performed on handicapped children, euthanasia, bio-ethics in general, health care, etc. PvdA, D'66, Groen Links, VVD), set the agenda and get away with everything they propose.
http://www.biopolitiek.nl/pivot/entry.php?id=283#body
http://www.biopolitiek.nl/pivot/archive.php?c=Euthanasie
Originally posted by HalitoseScientific consciousness- An awareness of science and its theories.
This 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?
Define "scientific consciousness".
By the way, it is not a "logical consequence". Embryonic research is very different to experiments performed on intellectualising people. It is very much a scare campaign.
Originally posted by PalynkaI have read through the Catholic catechism- and yes, they do teach as if biology did not exist. What else do you expect of dogma?
This is incorrect, the Vatican has some essays regarding bioethics. That's as far as it should meddle, obviously, but they definitely don't argue theology as if science didn't exist.
You may disagree with their views but your accusation is unfair, IMO.
And anyway, any bioethics essay is invariably a complex exercise of doublethink. Although ostensibly recognizing biology, the Vatican teaches its theology without considering scientific thoeries. Same goes for philosophy, most philosophy cources run without every considering the findings in biology. Even though biology has many philosophical ramifications.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're barking up the wrong tree here. Nietszche was aware of Darwin's work, and criticised it, but his primary influences were Wagner and Schopenhauer. Hitler was immensely fond of Wagner too, but unlike Nietszsche he did not come to reject his Romantic decadence but took it to its logical extreme with a real-life Goetterdaemerrung production. Wagner--unlike Nietszche-was also a confirmed anti-Semite, and I'm sure it wasn't Darwin that put him up to it. You seem to blame Darwin for the moral climate of the twentieth century (quite forgetting that he wasn't the first to come up with the idea of evolution) and forget the historical events--especially the consequences of Germany's defeat in World War 1. Or was Darwin responsible for that too?
He (knowingly or unknowingly) laid the scientific groundwork for Nietzsche, Marx (to a slightly lesser degree) and ultimately Hitler to base their social philosophies and political theories on it. He was only one of the many links in the chain that resulted in the bloodbath of the previous century.
For a different perspective, here is an article arguing that "evangelicals often accepted eugenics as a part of a progressive, reformist vision that uncritically fused the Kingdom of God with modern civilization". http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm
As for the chimps--if I'm not mistaken you were talking about ethics and biology. It really seems as though you don't consider ethics to apply to human treatment of animals, and by extension the rest of creation. Please show me that I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't strain too hard. You might hurt yourself. This is waaay off topic anyway. đ
You're barking up the wrong tree here. Nietszche was aware of Darwin's work, and criticised it, but his primary influences were Wagner and Schopenhauer. Hitler was immensely fond of Wagner too, but unlike Nietszsche he did not come to reject his Romantic decadence but took it to its logical extreme with a real-life Goetterdaemerrung production. Wagner- ...[text shortened]... ent of animals, and by extension the rest of creation. Please show me that I'm wrong.
As for the chimps... I'm all for the humane treatment of animals. Being a nature lover, I normally have some sort of animal in my care at any given time (there I go, leaving an opening for some sniper to take a pot-shot at my nocturnal activities). Of course one should be realistic; animals are not humans and their elevation to such a level would be absurd.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KIt is very much a scare campaign.
Scientific consciousness- An awareness of science and its theories.
By the way, it is not a "logical consequence". Embryonic research is very different to experiments performed on intellectualising people. It is very much a scare campaign.
I still don't know why we always seem to go around in circles where the giggle-groan lever is painfully jammed on groan. Maybe it is the way I bring my points across, but you never seem to get them... ever! đ
Let's start from the beginning shall we:
I made the statement that as a principle: morality should precede the methodology by which we approach scientific investigation.
Do you agree with this principle or not?
If you do agree with this principle, your qualms with the Catholic church are misplaced, since by their ethical convictions (which are well supported by modern science and biology, but differ with yours in philosophy) an embryo is considered an immature human being and therefore should not be the subject of wanton scientific experimentation.
If you don't agree with the principle I mentioned in the beginning, then you shouldn't have any problem with Mengeler or any other scientist who puts science ahead of their ethical convictions.
Are we clear or do you need anything else spelled out to you?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhatever. You love to latch onto the anti-Semitic punch line, where I never claimed anything of the sort. It is the Darwinian concept of some races evolving into superior races which Nietzsche jumped on with his Übermench and how such a class of "supermen" could define their own morality. It was this concept that Hitler applied to his twisted view of the Jews. You can spew out all the indignation you like and desperately point accusing fingers to all and sundry, but it is undeniable that the scientific Theory of Evolution and Nietzsche’s confused philosophy that created the suitable environment for the Nazi ideology to be born, with resulting in the slaughter of the Jews, gypsies and all other ideologically “unfit” (to use some of Darwin’s phrasing).
I can see you know when you're beaten.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseSo you say, unshakeable in your ignorance. The Confucian or Taoist Superior Man (for want of a better translation) is a lot older than any of these characters, and has a fair amount in common with Nietszche's Uebermensch--having "gone beyond" binary categories of good and evil. What Nietszche have you read, by the way?
It is the Darwinian concept of some races evolving into superior races which Nietzsche jumped on with his Übermench and how such a class of "supermen" could define their own morality. It was this concept that Hitler applied to his twisted view of the Jews. You can spew out all the indignation you like and desperately point accusing fingers to all and ...[text shortened]... r of the Jews, gypsies and all other ideologically “unfit” (to use some of Darwin’s phrasing).
The suitable environment for Nazi ideology was the Weimar Republic. Please explain how Darwin and Nietszche contributed to that.
--the anti-Semitic thing--do you claim that Hitler's primary reason for killing Jews was something other than hatred of Jews?