The Cost of Fundamentalism

I don't trust anybody with the technology, frankly.

The solution to the problem is clear. Defeat bush in the oncoming election. Religion and progress mix as well as oil and water.

There is more to being human than science. Our experience and our societies are based on ideals, philosophy, values and morals that can not be based on or informed by science.

Religion is an central part of our culture that has an important role to play in shaping and expressing our values and our indenty as human beings.

Cloning raises very interesting (and perhaps troubling) moral and ethical questions.

Religion should have a prominent place at the table for this discussion.

I disagree religion and voodoo have no place other than in places of worship and the personal lives of people. It does not belong in the policy making apparatus of a diversely cultural, religious and secular nation.
Under Bush and people like him it can only lead to tyranny of the religious majority.

The technology is here whether we like it or not. By running away from it we no longer have a voice in determining its direction. That direction will now be determined by other who share neither our philosophy, values or morals.

Deciding that some particular use of technology is immoral is not the same as running away from it. Some things actually are immoral, although people differ about what is and isn't.

We have become disengaged from the debate. Three technologically advanced nation are now using the technology and increased use will lead to simpler more effective cloning technologies. As it becomes simpler it will spread and its use will be completely beyond control. If we had taken the lead in this and worked bilaterally to establish world guidelines for continued research and use. This technology would not be out of control which it is rapidly becoming.

But if it is immoral, as some believe, then the proper response to other countries' use being dangerously out of control would not be for us to use it. In that case, it would be appropriate for us to try and exert some influence, if possible, but not for us to do so by employing the technology ourselves.

How would you suggest we decide as a society what is moral and what is immoral. These are essentially personal decisions that each person will make based on their religious beliefs.

You can't separate religion from these types of issues. Science tells you that we can do cloning. It has absolutely nothing to say about whether we should do cloning.

There are many laws we have that are based on social mores that were unquestionably based on our religious heritage, an example I don't think you will question is monogamy.

We are part of a society. As in all societies, religion shapes many parts of our culture.

I expect religion to have a big role in this discussion. Science simply can't provide any guidance on issues of morality.

Brown
What is morality and who is to determine what is and what is not immoral. I for one do not want to have it determined by the dogma of someone's religion that I may believe is immoral. IMO the presidents stand on stem cell research could be called immoral. IMO the preemptive invasion of Iraq could I suppose be called immoral. The lies of this supposedly religious president are immoral.
I should note that IMO politicians are now using values in place of morality.

We should as a society determine what is moral and what is immoral. I would suggest that our system of democracy with the protected freedoms of speech, and religion is a pretty good way to make these determinations.

Each person should have the right to vote for elected officials who should pass laws based on public mores and standards. Controversial issues should be open to public debate.

Of course voters will cast their votes and decide to support issues and candidates based on their personal beliefs which will undoubtably be greatly informed by their religion. Candidates and public officials will also have religious beliefs that will shape their values. They will make decisions based on these values.

I don't understand the difference you are making between values and morality. They are both subjective things based on culture and belliefs. Finding voters, or officials who do not have any values is extremely difficult and probably not desirable.

Are you proposing something different that my plan?

Brown.

I just meant that values is the new catch word replacing morality. Not much difference if any IMO.

Brown
Difficult to put this into words. However, let me try.
The religious right believes that life begins at conception therefore abortion at any time is immoral. And thus based upon their religious concepts abortion should be made illegal. My answer to that is if you believe it to be immoral don't practice it. However, what right do you have imposing your religious beliefs upon me.

Decisions about the direction and value of scientific and medical research should be left to scientists and doctors, not ignorant religious fundamentalists whose morals are based on the values of nomadic herdsmen thousands of years ago.


Whose religious heritage are you talking about? All of the Abrahamic religions (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam) have a history of polygamy, as do Mormons, Hindus, and various African tribal religions.


Science can provide more guidance on ethical issues by studying the biological and social basis of behavior and cost/benefit assessments of proposed research than relying on ancient superstitions and the questionable morals of the Bible.

Terry,

You misunderstand what I mean by religion. Religion expresses the beliefs, values and hopes of a cultural group. I am not proposing that we rely on "ancient superstitions". Rather I am pointing out that religion evolves with society to meet changing values and needs.

Most Americans value religion and the majority consider themselves Christian. Many of our laws and values can trace their history to Christianity (specifically European Christianity). But this doesn't matter.

What matters is that Americans have values. They happen to be greatly informed by religion. As a democracy these values (and thus the religious beliefs) affect our laws and our society as a whole. Looking down on people, or valuing their opinions less, because they are expressed or informed by religion is fruitless.

I strongly reject the claim that science can provide any guidance on ethical issues. Go ahead and tell me the scientific reason that child marriage, slavery or rape is wrong. Heck, biologically speaking, rape would in many cases be considered a good thing.

In ethics we define "dignity" and "respect" and "rights". We worry about how people, even people who have no bearing on our survival, "feel".

I am a strong believer in ethics and I am a strong believer in science.

I just promise you, you can not base one on the other.

When does life begin? Science doesn't provide an answer for this one. This decision must be based on something more than science.

My wife is 3 months pregnant. We have heard the heartbeat and I must say, to me this baby is very much alive (and you would risk bodily harm if you suggested otherwise to my wife)

The debate about when life begins is interesting. Some way "conception", some say "when the baby is viable" and perhaps others would say "at birth". All three of these points in time are scientifically defined. I can measure the point of conception with great accuracy and the point of viability has a very well defined meaning.

Science says absolutely nothing about when life begins. What you believe about this is based on your values, and yes, your religion.

Finally, I have never argued that I, or anyone else, has the right to impose their religion on you.

However, without question, society has the right to impose values on you. This means that as a society we decide what actions we feel are so immoral that we will not accept from you.

I will not allow you to have sex with kids kids. Period. I will not allow you to own a slave or to buy a kidney from a poor person even if you both agree. These are all morals that are imposed on you. Sorry, but that is the price you pay for living in a society.

The morals are agreed on by us as a society and instituted in laws. We have a democratic process for making these decisions.

Whether people hold these values because of a religion is irrelevent. Like it or not, most of us come from Christian backgrounds and most of us still indentify is Christianity. But it really doesn't matter, people can and will base their values on whatever they want.

If a vast majority of people in a society believe that abortion is immoral, than abortion will be made immoral. Rape is illegal for exactly this reason.

Other than dictatorship, there is no other way.

I understand what you're saying, I think, ebrown.
You are concerned with science, which has maybe no self-imposed morals, making decisions without considering moral thought. Is that right?
I feel that way too. But I'm not calling for a declaration by the pope or anything, as I'm sure brown is not, either. Just an assurance that morals will be a consideration,as far as creating life and how that creation will be used.
That being said, I've already stated that I'm uncomfortable with the entire subject. But I guess if everyone else is already making gains with it, we may as well, too (and we probably are, in secret).
I definetly draw the line at allowing clones to grow into actual living human beings, and I'm not too keen on animals, either, but for stem cells and stuff, to me, that's okay.
But I don't have the slightest doubt that this technology will be taken way too far, and that's what makes me the most uncomfortable.

Most fundamentalist Christians chose to regard the method of creating stem cells, in vitro fertilization of a human egg and the cloning of the results as a form of abortion. They have managed to impose that belief of federal policy to the detriment of stem cell research in this country.

I have a friend who suffers from a genetic affliction that results in what is basically alzhimers. Her brain is slowly being eaten away and her doctors think that within the next six years she will slip into irretrievable dementia.

Her condition is exactly the kind that potentially stem cell research might offer therapies for. So who's values are of more significance here? The over broad definition of abortion offered by fundamentalists or the value my friend place on her life and future well being?

ebrown, some religions evolve to meet changing needs and values. Some don't, and their superstitions hold back much-needed progress.

If religious leaders decree that God-given life begins at conception (despite the fact that 2/3 of conceived embryos die of natural causes and consciousness and viability require at least 24 weeks gestation), people will continue to suffer and die from diseases that could have been treated with embryonic stem cell research, and women who need abortions will continue to be harassed. Religious bans on cloning guarantee that infertile people will never have biological children.

Do you think that educated doctors and scientists are any less ethical than the average citizen? If not, why should religious values prevail over scientific ethics? If the Church is allowed to ban research it deems immoral, shouldn't scientists have an equal voice in banning illogical religious practices?

If society's values are based on the edicts of a God who says that slavery is perfectly OK with him, what justification is there for anyone to oppose God's Will? If the religion of the majority allows child marriage and polygamy, on what basis may society ban these practices? Can society prohibit the eating of cows, pigs, or shellfish if the God of the majority deems it an abomination again? Should we allow people to practice animal sacrifice or the ingest poisonous mushrooms if their religion requires it?

It's really quite simple: Human values are legitimate for making secular laws, strictly religious ones are not.

Rape is never a good thing because it causes pain, injuries, trauma, degradation, and eliminates female selection of the fittest mate. Child marriage is bad because their bodies are not mature enough for the rigors of child-bearing, they are not old enough to make a responsible choice, and their education may be curtailed. Slavery is wrong because all human beings have a right to liberty and self-determination.

You don't need a god to tell you these things.