Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.
Nonetheless
it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:
“
The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin
Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.
Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.
That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.
The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.
Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.
Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.
Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.
And judges when deciding cases.
Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.
We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.
This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?
-DP
Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.
Everyone agrees to this. The question is if a fetus is a self deserving of protection of personhood; and the contradictions it involves. Many people seem to think a fetus is a person when a woman who is 7 months pregnant is murdered and the fetus dies too; but not when a poor woman aborts her 7 month old fetus because she is poor.
Abortions in the 3rd trimester are extremely rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain. They are performed in very dire situations - child rape, fetal abnormalities, etc.
Abortion should be protected for all women up through viability. There is no doubt that women have personhood, except maybe to forced birthers.
Also, if there is a parent taking a child off life support who had no probability of living, the decision is between the parent and the doctor.
When a woman has a child inside their uterus with no brain, or lungs, or an organ that is required for life… and they decide to take that child off life support. They call it an abortion.
No, it’s not an abortion. It’s taking a child off of life support.
If the child is still inside the womb, it's an abortion.
Call it what you will. It’s still a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor..
It’s no different than taking a child off life support.
DP - theist
I agree that reproductive decisions should be between women and their doctors . There are many different reasons why an abortion may be the lesser of evils. The outcomes in states that have imposed abortion bans has been disastrous for everyone - higher maternal death rates, higher infant death rates, maternity services in hospitals and clinics being closed down due to fears of malpractice liability, higher rates of teenage pregnancy, and poorer health outcomes for pregnant women who don’t want abortions.
I believe that it could help for a brilliant female theological to create a solid Just Abortion theory that is similar to St Augustine’s and Thomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory. Just War theory is used by militaries around the world to help determine when wars are necessary. There is always a presumption that moral nations should not enter into war unless absolutely necessary and there are constraints such as minimizing loss of innocent civilian life. Similarly, Just Abortion theory could hold various circumstances when abortion represents a just course of action (rape/ incest/ life of mother/ likely quality of life of baby/ ability of mother to care for existing children if pregnancy continues). Of course, abortions should not be used as contraception but they represent a medical decision between women and doctors. Yes life is sacred but protecting the sanctity of life is not straightforward just as war is never pleasant or straightforward.
I doubt that Just Abortion theory would be accepted any time soon. The abortion issue is exploited for cynical political purposes to create veneers of morality. Jesus had nothing to say about abortion while there are many hundreds of references to helping vulnerable people. Such a theory would need someone brighter than me to articulate it well.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}