is it ethical to attack a scientific theory because it goes against a religous belief

To some degree of course you are right. But you are also wrong. Some of these guys spent a lot of time measuring craniums and giving out intelligence tests - with zero sociological or anthrolopological knowhow, but that really is beside the point. Some of today's theories may turn out to have been stretched to far, based on false interpretations, considered fundamental but were actually surface, etc. Some theories now accepted as THE TRUTH May turn out to fit perfectly with other ways of looking at humans or the universe. The objections may turn out to be right on.

Tacit current scientific theory seems to be that gene modification risks can be kept to a minimum. Some people whose gut feeling goes against this tacit theory are seen to be irrational.

We'll see.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes and No.

Religion by definition is a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

Science by definition is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

NO because by standards of conventional religion, science and religion do not mix because general religion is a set of personal beliefs not proven as fact, aka opinions. For example, the story of Jesus and his holiness, Buddha and his enlightenment, Muhammed and his holiness and others cannot be proven as fact from use of the scientific method.

Now the answer can be YES if your religion is rooted in science. For example, if your beliefs are the continuous results by use of scientific method, such as worshiping the FACT that if most plants grow by use of photosynthesis, and you take that belief as your religion, then the answer is yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, but you badly apply the term 'religion' as do some others here.

A religion is defined as a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to the supernatural.

Photosynthesis or any other natural process and or combination of physical laws or processes HARDLY relates to the supernatural!:bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Negative, a religion can be about anything. Not neccessarily supernatural. If your faith lies in french fries. Thats your religion. If your faith lies in the latest fashion trends. That is your religion. Religion does not have to be about the supernatural, though most are. And even IF you were to limit religion to the supernatural, it would still be impossible to prove a religious belief with use of the scientific method.

For more of an example, take nature worshipping. Nature = scientifically proven. But many people worship nature, not as a superior or supernatural being, but rather as nature itself and nothing more.

 

Nope, you are really, really streching things and abusing the use of the word.

And no one in their right mind would EVER claim that it was possible to prove a religious belief through application of the scientific method. That's an absurd thought right on the face of it - so I'm not even sure why you bothered to inject that into the discussion. Note: I'm not saying you believe it's possible because you obviously don't and neither do I. I just fail to see why you included it.

 

And I am not exactly sure what you are coming from. I see my point as completely valid as well as the definition of religion and relation to the supernatural, or lack thereof.

 

Look despite the definition and all that, it comes down to this. As it stands now in the scientific world and our technology, I believe it to be unethical to attack a scientific theory from a religious stand point because the two are completely unrelated, thus cannot cancel eachother out.

 

Where am I coming from? from the clear and proper use of terms in describing things - not using them in some distorted fashion as you might perceive them as an individual. If we did that with every term, people would not be able to communicate at all since the words would/could mean different things to everyone.

Religion is just as I defined it - it always involves the supernatural.

 

Fair enough. Suppose "faith" would have better fit my definition?

 

Yes!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now you've got it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Read-Only, your definition of Religion, necessarily including the supernatural is faulty. It does reflect the more common usage of the term, but it does not cover all valid definitions. I include this substantial quotation from wikipedia, since it makes my point more succinctly than I can.
"Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include:

a notion of the transcendent or divine, often, but not always, in the form of theism
a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents
Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[6] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions."

I applaud your appeal to MZ3Boy84 that we should be correct in our use of terminology, but I think in this case it is you who are being pedantic to the point of error.

With respect,
Ophiolite

 

Thank you, Oph. I certainly concede that I was using THE most common definition - because that's the one most understood by the VAST majority of people. Many words have many, many different usages but I've always felt it best to use the most common one. If I'm going for a different meaning, I'll choose another word that has THAT common meaning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not ethical.

 

Science is not perfect. It is not static. It must overcome social bigotries.

Here, I'll throw in a controversial one: Why would/should pedophilia be removed from the DSM?

In the end, it's a matter of definitions and scientific integrity. (See Morahan)

(What's really strange is that the argument against removal included in that article is ... well, stupid. I really would think there are better arguments.)

Now, perhaps certain outcomes suggest that scientists applied the wrong definitions or boundaries, but even that objection is scientifically relevant.

"It's offensive to God" is not exactly a scientific thesis.

• • •​

General Note:

Just out of curiosity, and largely because I'm really not up to doing the research right now ... can anyone tell me the biblical passage that specifically forbids having sex with children?

I mean, I'm sure there is one. But it stuck me, as I read through the article above--which includes NARTH, but not Christianity, but still ...--that I know about the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, against bestiality, and against adultery (which would cover homosexuality and bestiality). But for some reason, I don't think I've ever come across the "thou shalt not f@ck children" passage.

Anyone? Anyone?

 

Actually, I've always been told that the definition of "adultery" as it was used in Biblical times referred to sex with another man's wife. Which is to say that it wouldn't include sex with unmarried women, other men, animals, etc. Also note that it does not imply a prohibition on men cheating on their wives, as long as its not with someone else's wife.

 

Interesting. I admit I've never heard the proper rabbinical perspective on the word, and have let my immersion in a Christian-influenced society set the biblical definition.

 

It's always ethical to challenge scientific theories.

 

Yes but not from a religious stand point

 

That only matters because the religiously motivated often don't understand the science or aren't willing to accept the weight of evidence.

 

Exactly