Religion/Technology

[sandorski]

Religion keeps technology from getting out of hand by setting moral boundaries, and ensures people generally behave themselves so that engineering types have the leisure to mull technological issues.

Religion inspired science. People reasoned that as God established laws ordering human behavior, he must also have established laws ordering physical matter. And these can be discovered, hence inspiring scientific inquisition. God is rational, ergo the universe is rational.

I've noticed the less religious scientists are, the more likely they are to hide the truth. Science is only as trustworthy as scientists. Ostensibly, science is about a search for truth/facts, so should be reliable, but if you have scientists who don't mind lying, it's easy to fool the public. Some religions preach against lying so those ones are more science-friendly.

What?

 

[Charmonium]

Anytime I witness someone dismiss it as a religious issue I picture the most ignorant person hand-waving away the relevant details so that they can ignore reality and go on believing whatever they want. That's not a particularly well-reasoned position to be in.

If people are opposing something on religious grounds, that sort of makes it a religious issue. You can choose to look at it differently, in some broader context, and that's fine, but it doesn't make the original contention wrong.

 

[CZroe]

If people are opposing something on religious grounds, that sort of makes it a religious issue. You can choose to look at it differently, in some broader context, and that's fine, but it doesn't make the original contention wrong.

Except that's just it: not EVERYONE is opposing it on religious grounds and even the ones who are don't even realize that it's not a religious issue! Other than the Catholic Church dictating a moral position on the issue however long ago, there was NOTHING religious telling us how early "Thou Shalt Not Kill" applies. It always was and still is a debate on when the definition "kill" applies to ending a life e.g. "when" the life becomes a protected human life entitled to rights like everyone else.

The people saying that they are against abortion "for religious reasons" are just as annoying.

Apply reasoning to either side and the true debate emerges.

 

[sandorski]

Except that's just it: not EVERYONE is opposing it on religious grounds and even the ones who are don't even realize that it's not a religious issue! Other than the Catholic Church dictating a moral position on the issue however long ago, there was NOTHING religious telling us how early "Thou Shalt Not Kill" applies. It always was and still is a debate on when the definition "kill" applies to ending a life e.g. "when" the life becomes a protected human life entitled to rights like everyone else.

The people saying that they are against abortion "for religious reasons" are just as annoying.

Apply reasoning to either side and the true debate emerges.

To the ancient Jews "Life" began when the newborn took its' first Breath.

 

[Charmonium]

Except that's just it: not EVERYONE is opposing it on religious grounds and even the ones who are don't even realize that it's not a religious issue! Other than the Catholic Church dictating a moral position on the issue however long ago, there was NOTHING religious telling us how early "Thou Shalt Not Kill" applies. It always was and still is a debate on when the definition "kill" applies to ending a life e.g. "when" the life becomes a protected human life entitled to rights like everyone else.

You're comparing two very different situations. Society has an interest in preserving the rights and lives of their citizens. Well, anything that we would call civilized society anyway. So there are plenty of things that will be regulated simply on pragmatic grounds. Murder is one of those. You may try to buttress those laws by some claim to religious authority. Hell, that's what religion has traditionally been used for. But even in the absence of religion, you still want predictability and consistency. Hammurabi realized that 3 or 4 thousand years ago. So did the Greeks and Romans.

There is no pragmatic basis on which to challenge stem cell research. You can sort of find one with abortion. Which is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. The reason that they permitted 1st trimester abortions was because of technology. We didn't have the ability to grow a 1st trimester fetus to the point of being viable. They actually rested their decision, in part, on this fact.

They reasoned that as the fetus approaches viability it gains more rights since society has an interest in preserving life.

 

[Charmonium]

Since some people will find the technology argument hard to believe, here's a synopsis of that part of the opinion.

Blackmun's opinion carefully steered between the right to privacy and the question of compelling State interest. On the first point, he wrote, the majority of the justices “do not agree” with Texas that the State “may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” On the other hand, the State does have an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life” and in protecting the mother's health. Blackmun's decision revolved around the development of the fetus during pregnancy. He held that during the first trimester, or three months, of a pregnancy, the woman in consultation with her physician had an unrestricted right to an abortion. During the second trimester, States could regulate abortion to protect a woman's health. Finally, during the third trimester, the State's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus was sufficient to justify severe restrictions.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar35.html

 

[CZroe]

You're comparing two very different situations. Society has an interest in preserving the rights and lives of their citizens. Well, anything that we would call civilized society anyway. So there are plenty of things that will be regulated simply on pragmatic grounds. Murder is one of those. You may try to buttress those laws by some claim to religious authority. Hell, that's what religion has traditionally been used for. But even in the absence of religion, you still want predictability and consistency. Hammurabi realized that 3 or 4 thousand years ago. So did the Greeks and Romans.

There is no pragmatic basis on which to challenge stem cell research. You can sort of find one with abortion. Which is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. The reason that they permitted 1st trimester abortions was because of technology. We didn't have the ability to grow a 1st trimester fetus to the point of being viable. They actually rested their decision, in part, on this fact.

They reasoned that as the fetus approaches viability it gains more rights since society has an interest in preserving life.

Right, which I why I said that I disagree with the Catholic Church and others opposing stem cell research. After that, it's either strictly arbitrary (birth) or nebulously arbitrary. "Trimester" was an arbitrary distinction. What if we split up the development process into seven instead of three and we were arguing about the third interval that the end of the first trimester would fall on?

If someone wants to err on the side of caution for protecting human life that is entitled to life, then the less arbitrary distinction is the safest/surest. Nothing is less arbitrary in this context than conception. Even if I, as a pragmatist, disagree with it and DO believe a less arbitrary distinction than unborn/born may be required, I do not have an equally less arbitrary proposal. The first trimester is a marginally less arbitrary proposal, but still arbitrary.

 

[sandorski]

Right, which I why I said that I disagree with the Catholic Church and others opposing stem cell research. After that, it's either strictly arbitrary (birth) or nebulously arbitrary. "Trimester" was an arbitrary distinction. What if we split up the development process into seven instead of three and we were arguing about the third interval that the end of the first trimester would fall on?

If someone wants to err on the side of caution for protecting human life that is entitled to life, then the less arbitrary distinction is the safest/surest. Nothing is less arbitrary in this context than conception. Even if I, as a pragmatist, disagree with it and DO believe a less arbitrary distinction than unborn/born may be required, I do not have an equally less arbitrary proposal. The first trimester is a marginally less arbitrary proposal, but still arbitrary.

Why does a fertilized Ovum need Human Rights?

 

[CZroe]

Why does a fertilized Ovum need Human Rights?

That's not the question. The question is: at what point is ANYONE, including you or I, entitled to human rights? ALL of the debate stems from an inability to adequately answer this question without an arbitrary distinction.

 

[Charmonium]

The trimester argument is definitely arbitrary, up to a point anyway. If you take the Supreme Court opinion at it's word though, once we have the ability to gestate a fetus in vitro, it gives the state interest in protecting potential life a lot more weight.

I suspect that we will always observe some sort of arbitrary distinction though simply because you have competing interests that can't be reconciled otherwise - the privacy and health/happiness rights of the woman and the interest of the state in having a new taxpayer. 🙂

 

[sandorski]

That's not the question. The question is: at what point is ANYONE, including you or I, entitled to human rights? ALL of the debate stems from an inability to adequately answer this question without an arbitrary distinction.

You seem to think Conception should be that point. I think Birth makes far more sense. So, sell me on why the moment of Conception makes more sense.

 

[CZroe]

You seem to think Conception should be that point. I think Birth makes far more sense. So, sell me on why the moment of Conception makes more sense.

Except that I specifically said that I don't. On the contrary, I simply pointed out that it is the LEAST arbitrary point which some would choose for an entirely SECULAR reason: out of an abundance of caution to protect human rights without arbitrary distinctions for who deserves said rights.

 

[Ichinisan]

Why does a fertilized Ovum need Human Rights?

If you don't have a non-arbitrary point to declare the fetus as a human life with basic human rights, then an increasingly corrupt government could continually redefine things to suit their liking.

Removed from the mother by C-section? Not born. No rights. I guess that means this hypothetical future government can do whatever they want with you, including forced servitude.

"Hey! Let's farm some disposable soldiers, raised and brainwashed by the State. A slave workforce to enrich the country would also be beneficial."

So I can understand why allowing the government to choose an arbitrary point where we obtain our rights can be a slippery slope. The founders thought about it too. It's why they said "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights." They wanted to be specific in saying the government does not grant those rights. The people should be able to overthrow a government that gets corrupted to the point that it no longer respects those rights.

 

[Ichinisan]

You seem to think Conception should be that point. I think Birth makes far more sense. So, sell me on why the moment of Conception makes more sense.

Perhaps some only consider the point of conception because it's the least arbitrary point, and because conception is almost always preventable.

No matter which point you decide on, there are serious issues to consider.

 

[PowerEngineer]

The primary driver in the development of clocks was religious.

Perhaps in Europe during medieval times, but clocks (and other methods of time measurement) had already been around for a long time. It was the navigational need to determine longitude that subsequently drove the development of really accurate clocks.

 

[sandorski]

Except that I specifically said that I don't. On the contrary, I simply pointed out that it is the LEAST arbitrary point which some would choose for an entirely SECULAR reason: out of an abundance of caution to protect human rights without arbitrary distinctions for who deserves said rights.

Is it the least arbitrary for the Woman?

 

[Charmonium]

Perhaps some only consider the point of conception because it's the least arbitrary point, and because conception is almost always preventable.

No matter which point you decide on, there are serious issues to consider.

All that may be true, but if you really belief that life starts at conception, you still have a few problems. First, not every fertilized egg gets implanted. Untold millions get flushed every year. Then there is the issue of IUDs, one of the most reliable forms of conception that works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

And after that you still need to deal with the woman's privacy rights.

 

[IronWing]

Perhaps in Europe during medieval times, but clocks (and other methods of time measurement) had already been around for a long time. It was the navigational need to determine longitude that subsequently drove the development of really accurate clocks.

Eventually, yes. The recognition that accurate clocks would solve the longitude problem came well after clocks had been developed to mark the hours of prayer.

 

[MajinCry]

Least arbitrary? Pah. These lads just want control of women's reproductive organs. It's control, as it always has been. If it were men that got preggers, there'd be none of this self-righteous spoutin'; case in point, these pro-lifers offer fuck all support towards the swathes of women, that they'd prefer give birth instead.

Hunnards of thousands of unwanted children, an' who's gonna take them? Nobody. Woman doesn't want 'em, and the lifers flee the scene. An' orphanages are pretty bloody full as it is.


In regards to the OP, to see how religion impeded societal and technological advancement in the past, look at the present Middle East. Do a bit of googlin': "Freshwater and seawater don't mix".

 

[piasabird]

Bush only banned government funded baby killing.

 

[IronWing]

Bush only banned government funded baby killing.

Nonsense.

 

[Ichinisan]

All that may be true, but if you really belief that life starts at conception, you still have a few problems. First, not every fertilized egg gets implanted. Untold millions get flushed every year. Then there is the issue of IUDs, one of the most reliable forms of conception [contraception] that works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

And after that you still need to deal with the woman's privacy rights.

Exactly. There are problems with any point that we choose.

 

[Ichinisan]

Least arbitrary? Pah. These lads just want control of women's reproductive organs. It's control, as it always has been. If it were men that got preggers, there'd be none of this self-righteous spoutin'; case in point, these pro-lifers offer fuck all support towards the swathes of women, that they'd prefer give birth instead.

Hunnards of thousands of unwanted children, an' who's gonna take them? Nobody. Woman doesn't want 'em, and the lifers flee the scene. An' orphanages are pretty bloody full as it is.


In regards to the OP, to see how religion impeded societal and technological advancement in the past, look at the present Middle East. Do a bit of googlin': "Freshwater and seawater don't mix".

That said, more people would probably take steps to prevent conception/pregnancy if they were forced to live with the choices that allowed conception/pregnancy to happen.

 

[Charmonium]

That said, more people would probably take steps to prevent conception/pregnancy if they were forced to live with the choices that allowed conception/pregnancy to happen.

You're going to ruin lives either way. Plenty of women have abortions and regret it. Others use it as a form of birth control. But if you really want to fuck somebody up, have them be raised by a parent or parents that never really wanted them to begin with.

 

[MajinCry]

That said, more people would probably take steps to prevent conception/pregnancy if they were forced to live with the choices that allowed conception/pregnancy to happen.

You make it sound as if women are thinking along the lines of "Oh, you don't have a condom? Hahah, that's fine, that's fine. I'll just have my womb cut open and the kid yanked out, no biggie."

Jesus christ, dude.