It's hardly her fault. She reads every newspaper every day; how is she supposed to have time for geography?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
American Scientists Create First Synthetic Living Cell - Vatican Warns them to Not Play God
- Thread starter MSizer
- Start date
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
I've met dumb blodes that are smarter than her!
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
It does not strike me as odd at all.
Having control of peoples beliefs is really easy.
Now actually doing something that you believed only god could do, now that is something that is not so easy.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I have had more intelligent conversations with Rice Krispies.
I came across this a few days ago, and frankly my first thought was that this is unlikely to be the first time they've synthesized a new life-form. Nothing like this is ever put out to the public unless the possibilities of extent and limitation have previously been researched in full, usually in secret.
MSizer said:
Well, the RCC is just saying what is to be expected of it. That they urge that man exercise caution in interfering with nature and natural processes is one thing, but no-one would ever accuse them of being naturalists all the same.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
The article cited in the OP does not quote anyone in the Church as having actually used the words "only God can create life". The Catholic position is more nuanced than that. The article does quote Church officials saying that "we need God, the origin of life" and "there is only one creator: God" so I can see how the journalist who wrote this article might paraphrase these statements by saying only God can create life. But the position is more nuanced than that.
LoTrobador
Active Member
Smoke
Done here.
... because that's the Vatican's job.
MSizer
MSizer
I'm well aware of the scientific representatives of science in the Vatican. They don't belong there. Theology is not science, and the two don't mix, no matter what Francis Collins says.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
I don't think the Vatican is in anyway overstepping it's area. They are making statements concerning the moral and ethical repercussions of science and those are certainly questions within the scope of religion. The moral ramifications of science are the Church's business, and the Church is filled with people who are trained in philosophy, bioethics and other related fields and so are qualified to discuss this matter. They are not interfering with the science itself. The article does not quote the Vatican as condemning the new advancement only cautioning against any potentially negative moral outcomes and I think it is a rather reasonable stand.
Now as to the moral authority of the Church I cannot argue with that. The sex abuse scandals have called the Church's moral authority into question and I cannot nor would not reasonable ask other people, especially non-Catholics, to simply ignore this fact.
However, I would say that even the most simple study of Catholic Church history will show that this is nothing new. The Protestant Reformation was driven, at least in large part, by rampant corruption in the Church. The only thing I can say is that I separate the Church as the body of Christ having the authority to discuss morals from the Church as a human organization, filled with human people who are just as imperfect, corrupt and downright evil as any other group out there. The moral authority of the Church does not come from the mortality of its members.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
I find this to be a classic misrepresentation of the Church's relationship to science. The Galileo controversy was much more than a simple conflict between science and religion. Historians who have studied the case have shown that there were other issues, political, social, as well as personality conflicts involved in the controversy. Granted the Church's initial reaction to the emergence of science was a conservative one. They tried to maintain the old teachings but when it became apparent that was no longer possible the Church changed its position. And the way the Church works that movement took a few hundred years to accomplish. today the Church is far more open to science than when it first emerged.
The Church is not out to stop scientific advancement. But the Church does ask for consideration of the consequences of science.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Would you prefer the Church take a fundamentalist position and teach YEC? Or is it not better and more reasonable for the Church to take seriously the discoveries of science and work those discoveries into its worldview? I prefer the later. I really don't see the problem with the Church engaging with the scientific community in discussing the nature of reality. If the Church's theology is to be realistic it must understand the real nature of the world and in many cases those are things that only science has been show to be capable of revealing. There are many scientists in the Church who have made invaluable contributions to the world of science. Gregor Mendel and Georges Lemaitre just to name a few.
LoTrobador
Active Member
But they are there and the Vatican can ask them for their opinions on scientific subjects.
I recently saw a TV documentary about this project, just a few days before they actually did "create# life. In thee documentary he mentions that they are already contracted by a oil company to create an organism that can create petroleum. My though is that petroleum are needed a lot so it will have to be industrial scale production most likely involving feeding garbage to this organism, right now natural rot processes create gasses that are collected at some garbage dumps. I foresee a slight risk for a living goo scenario an organism gets out that convert biomass to petrolium. Be careful when playing god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo#Living_goo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo#Living_goo
Beyondo
Active Member
This idea of some how nature has everything under a controlled balance is non-sense! Nature has enacted mass extinctions, if goo gets loose then hopefully man can fix the problem, but if it can't then we've done nothing worse than what an ice age, caldera or asteroid would have eventually done. Let science do what science can do without restrictions, better to learn and master a discipline than bow before an invisible being hoping you or a loved one is spared from hunger or disease.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
If we are going to place science and religion in separate spheres with no contact with one another then I say scientists stay out of religion (Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg Et. Al.)
Actually, runlikethewind, I guess I mostly agree with you. Religion is everyone's business, and science does not have inherent moral guidelines, so it is proper to watch it in that sense.
That still doesn't quite excuse the RCC for its stance on birth planning in my eyes, but then again it is mostly the fault of those who listen to its advice on the matter.
Of course, once upon a time it was claimed that kings had divine right to rule, that Jerusalem was destined to be freed from Muslim rule by Christians, and that it was God's wish that african-americans be kept separate from caucasians.
Biotechnology is really no different.
That still doesn't quite excuse the RCC for its stance on birth planning in my eyes, but then again it is mostly the fault of those who listen to its advice on the matter.
Of course, once upon a time it was claimed that kings had divine right to rule, that Jerusalem was destined to be freed from Muslim rule by Christians, and that it was God's wish that african-americans be kept separate from caucasians.
Biotechnology is really no different.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
This is exactly the kind of attitude the Vatican is warning against. The Vatican says if the science and technology are used for good then by all means continue. But don't be so reckless in the pursuit of science that you risk a disaster. I mean on the one hand you say science should go forward unrestricted and you argue this because it is beneficial to people, saving them from hunger and disease. But then on the other hand you don't care about taking any sort of precautions to prevent hunger and disease if the science should get out of hand, just hope for the best. Your contradicting yourself and that position is reckless, careless and not for the betterment of humanity.
If the goal of science is to better humanity then restrictions must be in place to that end. Reasonable people can and will disagree on what those restrictions should be but I see no reason why the Vatican should be left out of the discussion. For example, I think we can all reasonable agree that innocent people should not be used as test subjects without their consent. I think that when the Vatican extends those protections to embryos and embryonic stem cells people can reasonable disagree as to whether they qualify as innocent people in need of protection.