Theistic Scientists

[ajb]

I don't see any of my religious views getting in the way of science(again, we can agree to disagree on this). In fact, it encourages.

Maybe it does you at a personal level, but we know that religous views have, for example, hampered stem cell research.

[Unity+]

Maybe it does you at a personal level, but we know that religous views have, for example, hampered stem cell research.

Didn't they just find a way to retrieve stem cells from other sources and clone these stem cells? Or am I incorrect about this?

[ajb]

Didn't they just find a way to retrieve stem cells from other sources and clone these stem cells? Or am I incorrect about this?

I do not know, but that does not invalidate my point.

[Unity+]

I do not know, but that does not invalidate my point.

Well, here is my take on the issue(if I leave something out, then let me know).

 

As I know of, most of the stem cell research that is the main focus is fetal stem cells, which require the use of fetuses of course.

 

 

 

creation, treatment, and destruction of human embryos incident to research involving embryonic stem cells.

This is what the controversial stem cell research requires(though they speak of adult stem cells, but back to the point).

 

Ultimately, there could be cases where researchers clone humans and grow them as carriers of human body parts that would be able to replace bad ones in another. I would definitely disagree with this not just because of ethical reasons, but because of the hazards involved.

 

 

 

In 2006, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts, succeeded in obtaining stem cells from mouse embryos without destroying the embryos.^[12] If this technique and its reliability are improved, it would alleviate some of the ethical concerns related to embryonic stem cell research.

If this is the case, then what is the controversy? When an experiment is too dangerous to do because it ends with the death(or termination, if you want that terminology) of an organism or human being, then the solution is to make it safer for all parties.

 

 

 

Another technique announced in 2007 may also defuse the longstanding debate and controversy. Research teams in the United States and Japan have developed a simple and cost effective method of reprogramming human skin cells to function much like embryonic stem cells by introducing artificial viruses. While extracting and cloning stem cells is complex and extremely expensive, the newly discovered method of reprogramming cells is much cheaper. However, the technique may disrupt the DNA in the new stem cells, resulting in damaged and cancerous tissue. More research will be required before non-cancerous stem cells can be created.

In fact, these alternatives will not just cause less damage. They will improve our understand of cells. I don't see the problem in doing such.

[Fuzzwood]

If this is the case, then what is the controversy? When an experiment is too dangerous to do because it ends with the death(or termination, if you want that terminology) of an organism or human being, then the solution is to make it safer for all parties.

 

The fact that human and mouse embryonic cells are quite different. A therapy which would work with the latter could very well not work with the former for instance. Furthermore, to my knowledge the used human fetal stem cells were harvested after said fetus was aborted and thus already dead.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Fuzzwood

[ajb]

I don't see the problem in doing such.

Of course one should look into all possible methods here. But this again does not invaidate the point that religous views, which are a seperate issue to ethical or moral views, have hampered stem cell research. If methods of creating stem cells with out the use of fetuses become viable then there will be far less hampering in the future.

 

 

Anyway I think we digress here.

[Unity+]

 

The fact that human and mouse embryonic cells are quite different. A therapy which would work with the latter could very well not work with the former for instance. Furthermore, to my knowledge the used human fetal stem cells were harvested after said fetus was aborted and thus already dead.

Then couldn't they use miscarriaged fetuses?

Of course one should look into all possible methods here. But this again does not invaidate the point that religous views, which are a seperate issue to ethical or moral views, have hampered stem cell research. If methods of creating stem cells with out the use of fetuses become viable then there will be far less hampering in the future.

 

 

Anyway I think we digress here.

Yes, let us end this thread which was pointless.

[Arete]

 

 

The fact that human and mouse embryonic cells are quite different. A therapy which would work with the latter could very well not work with the former for instance. Furthermore, to my knowledge the used human fetal stem cells were harvested after said fetus was aborted and thus already dead.

 

I believe that many of the stem cells used come from unused 3 day embryos left over from IVF treatments, once consent of the patients had been gained.

 

The issue is a cluster of 6-10 cells is not biologically, or physiologically considered a human. Given that many more such embryos are created fro IVF than used, there are an inordinate number of such embryos perennially frozen, never to be implanted. As such, for most people, given parental consent, there is no ethical issue in using these for research.

 

Imbuing such an entity with the same rights as a walking, talking human stems from the belief that their creation is the divine will of a creator, and not bound to any of the physical attributes of the entity itself - which again biologically and physiologically is nothing more than a ball of cells. As such, the implicit assertion in UNity+'s posts that there is a necessity to find alternative,non destructive menas of harvesting cell rather than using these unwanted embryos stems from religious belief.

 

Ergo, religious belief has unequivocally impeded some branches of stem cell research. Furthermore, misunderstanding of the multifaceted science of stem cells has led to campaigns against other branches of stem cell research, and a blanketed stigma towards the approach in general.

[Unity+]

 

 

I believe that many of the stem cells used come from unused 3 day embryos left over from IVF treatments, once consent of the patients had been gained.

 

The issue is a cluster of 6-10 cells is not biologically, or physiologically considered a human. Given that many more such embryos are created fro IVF than used, there are an inordinate number of such embryos perennially frozen, never to be implanted. As such, for most people, given parental consent, there is no ethical issue in using these for research.

 

Imbuing such an entity with the same rights as a walking, talking human stems from the belief that their creation is the divine will of a creator, and not bound to any of the physical attributes of the entity itself - which again biologically and physiologically is nothing more than a ball of cells. As such, the implicit assertion in UNity+'s posts that there is a necessity to find alternative,non destructive menas of harvesting cell rather than using these unwanted embryos stems from religious belief.

 

Ergo, religious belief has unequivocally impeded some branches of stem cell research. Furthermore, misunderstanding of the multifaceted science of stem cells has led to campaigns against other branches of stem cell research, and a blanketed stigma towards the approach in general.

 

I thought we were going to end this discussion(even if you missed some important pointers I made).

[Arete]

I thought we were going to end this discussion(even if you missed some important pointers I made).

 

I must've missed the pointer where you decided what was and wasn't up for discussion.

[swansont]

A-theist --> anti theist --> non believer. Ergo an atheist does not believe. Don't make it sound like an atheist does.

 

Kindly try to refrain from engaging into scientific discussion where you claim something to exist without providing tangible proof.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

This is not the only straw man I've seen in this discussion, so don't make the mistake of thinking this caution applies only to Fuzzwood.

 

I don't see where Unity+ made any claims that you are attempting to counter, so please stick to the actual discussion points, and not make any up.

 

[zorro]

Theists were the Greatest and only Scientists before the 18th Century. Modern Scientists have yet to fall from these great shoulders.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Theists were the Greatest and only Scientists before the 18th Century. Modern Scientists have yet to fall from these great shoulders.

 

I don't think they had any choice in the matter before Darwin came along , or it would be like them saying they had no father ! They might not have liked the established hierarcy of the church , but I think most of them would still believe in God . As I said what alternative was there at that time ? Now , everybody has all sorts of choices ! Possibly many of them , not very good choices !

Edited August 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[zorro]

Very true mike, thanx.

 

The Church owned the salaries of the Sciences from the 18th century and before. Now we are paying the high prices for the inquisitions Fascism.

[Unity+]

Theists were the Greatest and only Scientists before the 18th Century. Modern Scientists have yet to fall from these great shoulders.

There are some very intelligent atheistic scientists as well. Leonard Susskind(I read his book called The Cosmic Landscape), Albert Einstein(who was religious but did not believe in God, at least from what I have heard), Steven Hawking(even if I don't agree with some of his philosophies), Michio Kaku, and others. I would say the amount is equal.

 

Christian scientists like Faraday also have made the light of greatness in the eyes of discovery.

Furthermore, misunderstanding of the multifaceted science of stem cells has led to campaigns against other branches of stem cell research, and a blanketed stigma towards the approach in general.

Well, yes I would agree that ignorance does get in the way of development(and I am not implying the supposed ignorance of religion, I meant the ignorance of the knowledge that impedes on research, such as what has been brought up).

[iNow]

Let's remember, stem cells are hardly the only example where religious belief has stood as an obstacle to scientific progress.

[Unity+]

Let's remember, stem cells are hardly the only example where religious belief has stood as an obstacle to scientific progress.

Well, if you are talking about the Catholic church during the Dark ages, I would agree to an extent.

 

In fact, here is more information on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

 

 

 

The Jesuits also introduced Western science to India and China and translated local texts to be sent to Europe for study.

I do not see how in this case religion had stood in the way of scientific progress when they introduced the scientific fields to other parts of the world, in which increased the amount of scientific progress.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Unity+

[Conjecture]

Let's remember, stem cells are hardly the only example where religious belief has stood as an obstacle to scientific progress.

That one is less religious belief, and more personal morality. Morals like that more or less coincide with religious beliefs, but I have met many atheists that are against stem cell research. To respect their privacy, I won't be citing them.

[iNow]

Well, if you are talking about the Catholic church during the Dark ages, I would agree to an extent.

That is included in my comment, but I certainly was [edit] NOT [/edit] speaking exclusively of that era. Even today, the religious are very vocal in many important fronts relating to science. Trying to change textbooks in biology classrooms today in legislatures is the easiest example where right now... like this week... there are dozens of fights taking place.

 

Here's a good resource to learn more. They are actively defending us against much of the religious ignorance that pervades our nations laws and education. Be sure to click through farther than just the home page if you truly want to educate yourself on this topic and correct your impression that "the obstacles religion poses to science primarily took place during the dark ages:" http://ncse.com/

Edited August 14, 2013 by iNow

[Ringer]

Well, if you are talking about the Catholic church during the Dark ages, I would agree to an extent.

 

In fact, here is more information on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

It's not only the Catholic church nor was it only in the Dark Ages. The town I was raised in never taught evolution, sex education was abstinence only, etc. Further more, we have religious institutions attempting to throw out climate change because god said he wouldn't kill everyone again. You have people saying overpopulation isn't a problem because God has infinite resources. These are just a small sample of some of the religious ideas that have been given for reasons research shouldn't be done in areas.

 

I do not see how in this case religion had stood in the way of scientific progress when they introduced the scientific fields to other parts of the world, in which increased the amount of scientific progress.

Using a single sect of a single religion doesn't allow you to see a trend of overall relations between religion and scientific progress.

 

That one is less religious belief, and more personal morality. Morals like that more or less coincide with religious beliefs, but I have met many atheists that are against stem cell research. To respect their privacy, I won't be citing them.

But the idea that life starts at conception tends to be a religious belief. What are these atheists' objections?

[iNow]

I have met many atheists that are against stem cell research. To respect their privacy, I won't be citing them.

I never suggested only theists were against stem cell research. I said stem cells are hardly the only example of religious belief being an obstacle to scientific progress. I also suggest your attempt to separate "personal morality" from religion in the way you have here is disingenuous, or misguided at best. For the religious, very many of their moral positions are derived directly from their religious beliefs.

[Unity+]

That is included in my comment, but I certainly was speaking exclusively of that era. Even today, the religious are very vocal in many important fronts relating to science. Trying to change textbooks in biology classrooms today in legislatures is the easiest example where right now... like this week... there are dozens of fights taking place.

 

Here's a good resource to learn more. They are actively defending us against much of the religious ignorance that pervades our nations laws and education. Be sure to click through farther than just the home page if you truly want to educate yourself on this topic and correct your impression that "the obstacles religion poses to science primarily took place during the dark ages:" http://ncse.com/

Now we are entering a realm of culture and religion.

 

Even people of the same sect may have different view points depending on what culture they are from. I never said it was right to withhold scientific information. Even the Catholic Church is against such things(if you even payed attention to the link I gave you).

 

Now you are beginning to judge all religions based on a certain few of them, which is way more ignorant.

It's not only the Catholic church nor was it only in the Dark Ages. The town I was raised in never taught evolution, sex education was abstinence only, etc. Further more, we have religious institutions attempting to throw out climate change because god said he wouldn't kill everyone again. You have people saying overpopulation isn't a problem because God has infinite resources. These are just a small sample of some of the religious ideas that have been given for reasons research shouldn't be done in areas.

[Citation needed]

Edited August 14, 2013 by Unity+

[Conjecture]

I never suggested only theists were against stem cell research. I said stem cells are hardly the only example of religious belief being an obstacle to scientific progress. I also suggest your attempt to separate "personal morality" from religion in the way you have here is disingenuous, or misguided at best. For the religious, very many of their moral positions are derived directly from their religious beliefs.

Then you do not see the point I was trying to make.

How many religious people have you gotten to know on a personal level? The way you have worded the last sentence seems to add bias to your argument. From what I have gathered from a brief overview of your posts in this thread, you appear to have an intense dislike for theistic people. Now I won't pretend that I know you nor your upbringing, these are just merely observations I have made from a limited look into your posts. And I am not being disingenuous because I'm not pretending that you know less than I do about this particular subject.

Personally, I dislike abortion as a source of stem cells for research, as I believe that is snuffing out a life. But not a sentient life which is only marginally better.

[Ringer]

Now we are entering a realm of culture and religion.

 

Even people of the same sect may have different view points depending on what culture they are from. I never said it was right to withhold scientific information. Even the Catholic Church is against such things(if you even payed attention to the link I gave you).

No True Scottsman

 

 

 

Now you are beginning to judge all religions based on a certain few of them, which is way more ignorant.

 

 

That sounds almost exactly like what I typed in the part of my quoted text you decided not to respond to.

 

 

 

[Citation needed]

 

 

Of the specific examples I wrote or just examples in general?

 

Here's some about population control and religion:

http://www.pop.org/content/did-pope-paul-vi-think-we-are-overpopulated

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/the-myth-of-overpopulation

 

Climate change:

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-green-dragon-slayers-how-the-religious-right-and-the-corporate-right-are-joining-fo#funda

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

 

Then you do not see the point I was trying to make.

How many religious people have you gotten to know on a personal level? The way you have worded the last sentence seems to add bias to your argument. From what I have gathered from a brief overview of your posts in this thread, you appear to have an intense dislike for theistic people. Now I won't pretend that I know you nor your upbringing, these are just merely observations I have made from a limited look into your posts. And I am not being disingenuous because I'm not pretending that you know less than I do about this particular subject.

 

I haven't seen his dislike for theistic people in general, just the arguments that are being made.

 

 

 

Personally, I dislike abortion as a source of stem cells for research, as I believe that is snuffing out a life. But not a sentient life which is only marginally better.

 

So you don't drive cars, eat anything, drink anything, use any household appliance, move, or breath? Because all of those things kill, and, unlike stem cell research, they kill things that are actually alive.[

Edited August 14, 2013 by Ringer

[Unity+]

No True Scottsman

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds almost exactly like what I typed in the part of my quoted text you decided not to respond to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the specific examples I wrote or just examples in general?

 

Here's some about population control and religion:

http://www.pop.org/content/did-pope-paul-vi-think-we-are-overpopulated

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/the-myth-of-overpopulation

 

Climate change:

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-green-dragon-slayers-how-the-religious-right-and-the-corporate-right-are-joining-fo#funda

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

 

 

 

I haven't seen his dislike for theistic people in general, just the arguments that are being made.

 

 

 

 

 

So you don't drive cars, eat anything, drink anything, use any household appliance, move, or breath? Because all of those things kill, and, unlike stem cell research, they kill things that are actually alive.

From the first source, here is what I found on overpopulation:

 

 

 

In the Responsible Citizens’ Development UPDATE (15 September 1991, p. 2, Quezon City, Philippines), the claim is made that Pope Paul VI recognized the problem of overpopulation. The author of this article fails to distinguish between the Pope’s acknowledgment that some people make the claim of overpopulation, and his acceptance of that claim. Pope Paul VI does not accept that claim.

So, I don't see how that source is relevant.

 

 

 

Land of the Southern Baptist Convention argued that environmentalists’ “exaggerated or baseless fears lead to unreasonable policies that can do a lot more harm than the things feared,” Fischer of the American Family Association said that “exaggerations, myths, and outright lies are commonplace in the environmental movement” and Focus on the Family’s Minnery lamented, “when we think about science, we think about the truth; yet in so-called global warming science, we’ve gotten a lot less than the truth many times.”

Again, my point was you are isolating religion by taking one small part of it.

 

 

 

So you don't drive cars, eat anything, drink anything, use any household appliance, move, or breath? Because all of those things kill, and, unlike stem cell research, they kill things that are actually alive

That isn't even a part of the point or relevant. In fact, this is what we refer to as a straw man argument.

 

EDIT: Just to make sure, you should read the sources you find first because titles can be misleading.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Unity+