Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, and you'll find that "men are bigger than women," except that there are lots of women who are bigger than lots of men...and any number of other such generalizations. What point are you trying to make?
Of course. And its to be expected. Much like height. Men tend to be taller and women are oftentimes shorter. But a 5-foot man and 6-foot woman aren't exactly rare. Sometimes theyre even both of average height for either. As for brains, we dont have cookie cutter brains but we can say "this brain looks female and this ine looks male." Much like how most people are easily discernable as male or female, with some being as androgynous as SNL's Pat.
No doubt. Such as those who do not want children. That serves zero use if procreation is the goal, yet it happens. The same with asexuals. Bisexuals, observing other social animals, seem to be the most natural and normal.
Why would it have anything to do with religion? If they’re proposing scientific ideas they should be entirely independent of any theological beliefs (as many religious scientists, even some Catholic priests who are also scientists, manage). If their ideas are based on religious faith, that “This is true because God says so!”, it would be rightly rejected.
On the other hand, I know quite well what it "feels like" to be male, and I have never said it is "just biology." I have no idea what it "feels like" to be female. Now, it just happens that my body exhibits male characteristics, as well...you know, penis and testicles, facial hair, narrower hips and the like. But I have known people with bodies basically like mine who never, ever in their lives felt as if they "belonged" in the bodies they had. They "felt" female. Is that not really the definition of a "female brain?" Is not that the brain expressing its own identity?
To the highly devouted Christian, everything does have to donwith your religion and god. Their world view begins with the assumption god is real and he is aomnipotent/scient/present. Because god is always present, he is involved with everything.
Then why would it be wrong to reject that as unscientific? If we’re free to just assert open assumptions, those with the opposing view could just assert that gender isn’t fixed and that’s the end of it. You’re perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want but you can’t expect anyone else to simply accept your beliefs on the basis of your faith in them.
Science and faith arent the same, and faith is not compatible with science. Science needs facts and data. Faith doesn't.
I agree entirely. Isn’t that in contrast to your initial complaint that “god-hating secular sciences” would reject anything related to religion though?
They'll reject anything not related to their religion.
Despite the similar wording, that’s an entirely different issue (and potentially also what the Vatican is doing in the first place). We need to maintain a clear distinction between legitimately rejecting work because it fails to meet basic scientific method and rigour and illegitimately rejecting work because we don’t like the conclusions. Otherwise we allow people who fail on the former to muddy the waters and falsely claim they’re being dismissed on the latter.