Balancing The Two

b0urgeoisie

I am the Bourgeois
Registered Senior Member
I am preparing to attend law school. My career ambition is to play a role in bioethics for the United States. I have both some formal religious training and a background in biology.
I often envy people who are one side or the other. I would be easier to close my eyes and say "God will take care of me if I believe." But, that is not the nature of the God I believe in. (parable of the talents)
Also, it would be easy to disregard God altogether. I would enjoy more respect from my professors. But, I do believe in God and have evidence that is appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural claims)
Are their other persons here who can relate?

Also, there should be a forum for Bioethics.
 
Last edited:
Why should religion be involved in bioethics, except to further impede the search for knowledge? Religion, specifically Christianity, has a history of interfering with scientific progress and has always been wrong. It would seem to me to be irresponsbile of you to further religious dogma at the expense of science. If you are religious then become a priest or religious minister and stay away from scientific progress.

Remember science and religion are opposites and can never reach a balance. Science is based on reason, logic and proofs, while religion is based on faith (absence of evidence) and irrationality.
 
Cris said:
Why should religion be involved in bioethics, except to further impede the search for knowledge? Religion, specifically Christianity, has a history of interfering with scientific progress and has always been wrong. It would seem to me to be irresponsbile of you to further religious dogma at the expense of science. If you are religious then become a priest or religious minister and stay away from scientific progress.
Where in my post do you read that it is my intention to govern science and progress by my religion. I don't want to be a priest. Who are you to say what my career must be? You are taking examples of persons who corrupted religion as much as they impeded science and suggesting that I would have no choice but to do the same.
 
Simply because science and religion are incompatible. You have stated that you believe religion is truth and hence it must dominate any decisions you make regarding the furtherence of science if you impose a religious interpretation of ethics.

You will never be able to give justice to either side if you think they can be balanced, you will always be torn one way or the other. Choose one or the other or a neutral discipline where one side cannot conflict with the other.
 
Cris said:
Simply because science and religion are incompatible.
I think you are wrong.
Cris said:
You have stated that you believe religion is truth
I believe certain things that you could call religious.
Cris said:
and hence it must dominate any decisions you make regarding the furtherence of science
You are absolutley wrong there. If you knew the opposing argument (first rule of debate) You would know that the bible starts with an example of human cloning. You would know that in the first book of the modern Bible it says life sprang from the water.
Cris said:
There atleast you unintentionally acknowledge that I have a choice in how I act.
Cris said:
... impose a religious interpretation of ethics.
If I chose to impose what you believe religion to be. How do you know what I believe?

Cris said:
You will never be able to give justice to either side if you think they can be balanced, you will always be torn one way or the other.
I am comfortable with what I believe. What is not easy is listening to people from both sides telling me I should only do one or the other. I was asking, because I'm sure that I'm not alone, if there is any other persons who feel the same.
Cris said:
Choose one or the other or a neutral discipline where one side cannot conflict with the other.
Perhaps you could tell me what I'm fit to do.
 
Religion and science are completely compatible provided what you believe in religion is consistent with physical observation.
 
okinrus said:
Religion and science are completely compatible provided what you believe in religion is consistent with physical observation.

Therein lies the fertile ground of neurosis - believing that one can actually perceive symbolic metaphorical constructs in the apparent world.

Insane.

Religion should be understood as, again, a symbolic metaphorical representation of the truths and values that underly our cultures. Science will forever concern itself with seeking life's meaning within mathematical equations and manipulation of particles, while religion affords one the opportunity to nurture their spiritual understanding of nature's processes. Both systems are two different ways of perceiving the apparent world, with differing personal results, and drastically different consequences are gained from such perceptions.
 
(supernatural evidence for supernatural claims)
Hi Bourgeoisie,
What do you mean?
Are you suggesting that natural evidence is inappropriate for supernatural claims?

shaky evidence for shaky claims ??? :)
 
Therein lies the fertile ground of neurosis - believing that one can actually perceive symbolic metaphorical constructs in the apparent world.
Scientific study concerns itself with what is physically observable; that is, with our five senses, with the restriction of what is measureable. Religion concerns itself with our way of life, what is spirtually observable, and the deeper meaning for the physical reality. A religious perspective of science would hold that the laws of nature are set forth by God. How is this antithetical to science? They answer different questions, in different domains.
 
I believe that trees are an important part of our global ecosystem.
I understand the truth that marine phytoplankton are much more important. I recognize the value of our coral reefs as the environment for unimaginable numbers of endemic species.

I understand that trees are living creatures created by God for a purpose that has for a long time been greater than our understanding. It is because a system that would be almost completely closed would have to be created by itself to be stable.

The universe is an evolving place. It is difficult to determine its purpose. The rules of creation are even greater than that for creating life. Because, I believe in God I believe he had a number of hours greater than my ability to assign a number to. It is for that reason, prophets in the Bible would say he always has been. To say that does not say he has always been how He is now. With knowledge greater than I am able to describe we could call him omniscient and who would argue. I believe that God has an understanding of physics that he can perceive time the way we perceive space. With a knowledge of all manner of science he could start the tiniest reaction that would have the greatest over all result. As an observer of his creation he could influence the overall reaction and yield.

I believe that it is more personal than just an experiment. I believe we are His children. I think that He has done things to help us. I think there have been a lot of people that have twisted and morphed the meaning of His directions. I think there have been too many wicked things done in His name. I think he would want us to do what we could to better our lives.

I think it is the best interest of our species to maintain a healthy planet. I believe all people have a responsibility to clean up after themselves. I value life. I believe that no matter what happens next; we should try to help those that will be happy to be happy. We should allow for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which means we should investigate where the answers to our health may be waiting. God allows us to be imperfect. If stem cell research is the answer then we should look where it goes. I recognize that it is a huge step from human cloning. (most religionists I know do not) I do not believe anything we can do with science is going to make God jealous. Let us examine King David. I believe that he ruled and his people accepted him as called of God. But, I know that if God is all knowing and would never choose to establish a monarchy. The people were just doing that. And, it was not going to wipe them out and was reasonable for the culture. So perhaps he was called by God directly our merely by him being a product of a system. I don't know. I wasn't there. I know that not every person who claims to be God or a prophet will be.
I think we have a responsibility to respect the rights of the people who would pay for that kind of research. We should consider what we can do with the research before we dive in. Because, if we chose health over the beliefs of the people who have concerns of any kind it should be so we can offer results. We must know more before we can start cloning. There is still so much to learn that we could not in good conscious create an intelligent person. I am not against it because God said so. I have only read one passage that concerns cloning and it was an example of God doing it. I just don't think we know enough about intelligence to have to tell someone they are an experiment that the world is watching. Unless you harvest a cell from a zygote and can preserve it to find out what kind of person it will be before the experiment you can't be sure of the genetic material. Until you can scan a person genome down to the last base pair in an instant you can't clone him/her.

The impression I get from most people is they will only believe in God if He/She fits what they want. Or they refuse to believe because the understanding they have does not allow for it. They understand God to be a certain way but it conflicts with something they believe so they choose not to believe. Either way that is your choice.

Some people think they have a right, given by God, to force peaceful people be a certain way. I don't think anybody has that right. Very rarely, for criminals and times of war, some people have that duty. But, it has never been about religion. Even when the war was over religion. The war is wrong but people on both sides have a duty to preserve life and liberty.

I believe God wants us to do the right thing and we should look for it. I don't believe we are supposed to sit and wait for God to come down and cure disease. He would never say "Hey your moving in on my turf. Quit with all that evil science! Unless it was evil. It shouldn't take God to tell us what is right and wrong. If we are to get anything after this life we need to take our talents and increase them. The guy who lost everything is the guy who buried his talents for fear of getting punished.

Now where can you demonstrate for me where my religion tells me I can't learn about and teach and live bioethics. You may not agree with my stands an some issues. But, you cannot say that it is because my religion is in the way.
 
Pete said:
Hi Bourgeoisie,
What do you mean?
Are you suggesting that natural evidence is inappropriate for supernatural claims?

shaky evidence for shaky claims ??? :)

I believe they are different spokes on a wheel. Natural evidence can't prove or disprove Gods existence. I think natural evidence could show us how He interacted in the past and present with the Earth. But it does not speak to his existence.
I would only present evidence to you if I felt I had to convince you. You should be looking for evidence and make your own decisions. I am only saying that you don't look for a lesson in math at a concert. The signature of math is there. But, there are more effective ways.
The same is true for spiritual matters. I could never prove or disprove God's existence in a study of lobster migration. Both sides could argue that evidence is there but there are more effective ways to discover spiritual understanding.
 
b0urgeoisie

I think you are wrong.

Science and religion are incompatible – one is based on reason the other isn’t. How can they be compatible under such opposing paradigms?

I believe certain things that you could call religious.

Belief in a god is one of them, correct?

You would know that the bible starts with an example of human cloning.

Taking a rib from Adam and creating woman is clearly not cloning. Cloning would be the creation of another Adam, right? You are stretching an idea and trying to make it fit with modern science and it doesn’t fit. The bible authors had no notion of cloning and the bible intended no such thing.

You would know that in the first book of the modern Bible it says life sprang from the water.

Well, no – read the bible more carefully. Plant life came first and that is life, right? And that did not come from the waters according to the bible. And the waters brought forth water living creatures. And later earth living creatures were formed. Again you are trying to stretch a point and are miss-quoting the bible. Neither is it clear from abiogenesis theories that water was needed for very early life to form.

If I chose to impose what you believe religion to be. How do you know what I believe?

Because you said so - ”I do believe in God and have evidence that is appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural claims)”

I am comfortable with what I believe. What is not easy is listening to people from both sides telling me I should only do one or the other.

Perhaps they also realize that the two sides can never be reconciled.

Perhaps you could tell me what I'm fit to do.

When I studied law it became very apparent that a strong ability to use logic was essential. Science is a similar discipline. Religion is incompatible with both. If your religious beliefs are strong then you cannot be a logical thinker and will fail at both law and science. If you ever become logical then logic dictates that you must reject religion. Determine where your strengths are and choose accordingly.
 
Can you provide an example of supernatural evidence?

I'm genuinely interested.
 
Cris said:
Simply because science and religion are incompatible.

Cris:

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist ever, didn't have any problems mixing the two. Or are you going to say that science is different now, and no sane person believes in God because we landed on the moon?

Dave
 
Cris said:
When I studied law it became very apparent that a strong ability to use logic was essential. Science is a similar discipline. Religion is incompatible with both. If your religious beliefs are strong then you cannot be a logical thinker and will fail at both law and science. If you ever become logical then logic dictates that you must reject religion. Determine where your strengths are and choose accordingly.

Cris:

I noticed this about you sometime ago but did not mention it. You seem to think that if someone believes in God this automatically makes them illogical in every area of their life. Why?

Can it be that you are so arrogant as to think there is absolutely no possibility of God existing, and you have the proof for it?

Maybe you're illogical Cris.

Dave
 
Cris said:
Simply because science and religion are incompatible.

Science is a tool. It has no inherent values or ethics -- but those given to it by the users of science.

Science is comparable to a needle: a needle does not decide what I will, can or should do with it. I can sew a dress or poke someone in the eye.

So is science: it can help people to lead healthier lives, or it can corrupt them.
It all depends on who takes science into his hands.
 
b0urgeoisie said:
But, I do believe in God and have evidence that is
appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural
claims)

Now this sounds interesting. What kind of supernatural claims and evidences
are being referred to?
 
Davewhite,

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist ever, didn't have any problems mixing the two. Or are you going to say that science is different now, and no sane person believes in God because we landed on the moon?

But think how much better he could have been had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion.
 
Cris said:
But think how much better he could have been had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion.

How can you know that he indeed could have been "better" had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion?!
 
Davewhite,

You seem to think that if someone believes in God this automatically makes them illogical in every area of their life. Why?

It is a way of thinking that is strengthened by practice and constant focus. If half your time you choose to do the opposite then you weaken and dilute your ability to think logically at other times.

Can it be that you are so arrogant as to think there is absolutely no possibility of God existing, and you have the proof for it?

It is an imaginative fairy tale that has been propagated for thousands of years in thousands of different forms and variations. Why would anyone ever consider that such silly ideas might be real in the light of modern science? It is no more meaningful to attempt to prove that a god doesn’t exist than it is to attempt to prove that the wizard of oz doesn’t exist. They are both fictional characters.

If you want to make a case that such imaginary things are not fictional then show some proof – no one in several thousands of years has yet come close.

Maybe you're illogical Cris.

But I’m not the one being confused by believing fictional characters are real.
 
Back
Top