Originally posted by ivanhoeIsn't the Nuremberg Code enough?
....... "science is not capable of establishing ethical principles. ... In this context, philosophy and theology become an indispensable aid which must be taken into account to ensure that science does not advance alone along a difficult path full of pitfalls and not without risks. This does not mean limiting scientific research ... but in keeping alive the ...[text shortened]... which reason and faith must have towards science, to ensure it remains at the service of man".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOkay. How about masturbation? The Roman Church claims that it is 'self abuse.' However,
Do you have any others? Because frankly, I'm bored of discussing Aids.
science indicates that it's actually salubrious with many (minor) health benefits.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html
Further, apart from those who experience religious guilt, there are no known negative psychological
side-effects from masturbation. That is, if one isn't taught to hate oneself for masturbating, then
one doesn't experience ambivalence about it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou don't know that there are a bunch of us Christians out here that are NOT Catholics? They call us "Protestants." 😀
They did?
Oh, then why isn't evolution a scientific fact for christians as a whole? Why are christians still against evolution? Why are some christians so anti-science?
You avoided the other un-ethical standpoints that the pope has. As long the pope is anti-science, then he shouldn't talk about ethics within science, of which he obviously doesn't understand.
Originally posted by NemesioYou do focus on the most crucial issues.
Okay. How about masturbation? The Roman Church claims that it is 'self abuse.' However,
science indicates that it's actually salubrious with many (minor) health benefits.
Traditional Church teaching on masturbation is antiquated and absurd. I gather that most Catholics privately think so as well.
However, I don't see the relevance of Catholic masturbation theory to science ethics. Unless you share the view that the Pope is disqualified from making statements about ethics because his organisation has some unscientific doctrinaire views.
The Pope's statement is very general: merely a call for science to be tempered with ethics. It's wording is much the same as you'd find in the preamble to the constitution of an ethics committee. In fact he's pretty much stating the obvious, as the existence of science ethics committees and the Nuremberg Code would indicate.
An interesting topic to go on with might be whence a future science ethics might be derived.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You do focus on the most crucial issues.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the Roman Church, but it's an all or nothing proposition. The
Pope doesn't suggest that you follow the Church's teachings, he insists on it, lest you are not a
Roman Catholic. A number of Romans on this site have asserted that disobedience to Her
teachings means you are not a Roman Catholic -- if you practice birth control, if you masturbate,
if you assert and believe in your hearts that men and women are spiritual equals, if you don't
recognize the personhood of a zygote.
The Pope's statement is very general: merely a call for science to be tempered with ethics.
Well, gee whiz! If that was all he was saying, then I wouldn't be quibbling. But if you read the
whole encyclical (I have!), you'll find that this is not all he's saying. Pope Paul II's heuristic
was theological, not philosophical. As he writes:
Were theologians to refuse the help of philosophy, they would run the risk of doing philosophy unwittingly and locking themselves within thought-structures poorly adapted to the understanding of faith. Were philosophers, for their part, to shun theology completely, they would be forced to master on their own the contents of Christian faith, as has been the case with some modern philosophers. Either way, the grounding principles of autonomy which every science rightly wants guaranteed would be seriously threatened.
When it adopts this stance, philosophy, like theology, comes more directly under the authority of the Magisterium and its discernment, because of the implications it has for the understanding of Revelation, as I have already explained. The truths of faith make certain demands which philosophy must respect whenever it engages theology.
In other words, the truths of Christianity are so pervasive, that philosophers who avoid (Roman)
theology would simply come to accept the teachings of the Church apart from Her. This is a
basic conclusion of the encyclical, not simply that reason and faith can inform each other.
As I have already noted, philosophy must obey its own rules and be based upon its own principles; truth, however, can only be one. The content of Revelation can never debase the discoveries and legitimate autonomy of reason. Yet, conscious that it cannot set itself up as an absolute and exclusive value, reason on its part must never lose its capacity to question and to be questioned. By virtue of the splendour emanating from subsistent Being itself, revealed truth offers the fullness of light and will therefore illumine the path of philosophical enquiry. In short, Christian Revelation becomes the true point of encounter and engagement between philosophical and theological thinking in their reciprocal relationship. It is to be hoped therefore that theologians and philosophers will let themselves be guided by the authority of truth alone so that there will emerge a philosophy consonant with the word of God. Such a philosophy will be a place where Christian faith and human cultures may meet, a point of understanding between believer and non-believer.
Again, you see that the late Pope is advocating beginning at a point of established Truth (the
teaching of the Church) as a way establishing healthy philosophical thought. That is, a good
philosopher will engage in catechetics before he examines the big philosophical questions because
catechetical teachings already open up the Revelation of God and thus the Truth faster than
what the Church believes is the ultimate conclusion that the philosopher will reach in the absence
of such teaching.
There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for action.
This sort of claim is exactly why I cited my two examples. You were bored with the one, you
are unimpressed with the other. If you strip down the specific teachings of the encyclical and
just come up with a basic notion that science and ethics ought to form a partnership, then you're
not really addressing the late Pope's claims. You're simply watering it down to a statement that
just about everybody can agree with.
Nemesio
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's not at the root of my objection. I make moral pronouncements all the time (e.g., don't kill
It seems to me that most who have disputed the validity of the Pope's opinion seem to think that only morally perfect beings (or, in this case, belonging to a morally perfect institution) are allowed to make ethical recommendations.
innocent people), but I'm by no means morally perfect.
The root of my objection is the point of origin of the late Pope's assertions: 'Truth first, then
philosophy,' where 'Truth' is defined as 'the Teaching of the Magisterium.'
Perhaps Bosse de Nage hasn't read the encyclical, but the notion that the Roman Church's way is
the best way to approach philosophy and reason I think might raise an eyebrow or two.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioGuilty as charged. I haven't read the encyclical myself, just the small sample that ivanhoe posted here.
That's not at the root of my objection. I make moral pronouncements all the time (e.g., don't kill
innocent people), but I'm by no means morally perfect.
The root of my objection is the point of origin of the late Pope's assertions: 'Truth first, then
philosophy,' where 'Truth' is defined as 'the Teaching of the Magisterium.'
Perhaps Bosse de Nage ...[text shortened]... to approach philosophy and reason I think might raise an eyebrow or two.
Nemesio
Nevertheless, this seems like a completely different argument than the one I thought you were pursuing, which concerned Vatican's stance on the use of condoms or the practice of masturbation. This latest line of argument is more appealing to me but I'll have to read the whole thing before I comment any further.
Originally posted by PalynkaOne of the chief claims made in light of Pope Paul II's encyclical (which is a beautiful text if you
Nevertheless, this seems like a completely different argument than the one I thought you were pursuing, which concerned Vatican's stance on the use of condoms or the practice of masturbation. This latest line of argument is more appealing to me but I'll have to read the whole thing before I comment any further.
accept it heuristic, mind you), is that, in the full blossom of Truth, faith and reason do not compete,
but compliment each other.
I gave two examples in which I find faith and reason are in competition. With respect to the situation
in Africa, the Church's political lobby against condoms which, even if it saves a few lives, is worth
it since the only argument the Church can offer against them is theological and not one founded
in reason alone. With respect to masturbation, the Church would have us ignore the salubrious
benefits of that act which is the antithesis of reason.
I'm challenging a basic assertion of that text -- that faith and reason don't compete. Inasmuch
as the text calls for caution, introspection, the willingness to reëvaluate one's scientific or
philosophical position in light of new evidence, &c, I think it's dead-on right. Inasmuch as it
claims that philosophy will languish in the absence of faith, I think it's totally wrong.
Consider this passage:
But this does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.
This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason.
Again, 'Faith' in the late Pope's mind is the belief in the 'Truth,' where 'Truth' is defined as the
teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Church, which as She teaches, cannot err in matters
of morals or faith.
This is, of course, a very bold claim -- that reason becomes impoverished if not checked by the
specific teachings of morals embraced by Holy Mother Church.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI still haven't read the whole thing, but I would like to leave a few comments. Please feel free to put my comments into proper context, if needed.
One of the chief claims made in light of Pope Paul II's encyclical (which is a beautiful text if you
accept it heuristic, mind you), is that, in the full blossom of Truth, faith and reason do not compete,
but compliment each other.
I gave two examples in which I find faith and reason are in competition. With respect to the situation
in Africa, the C by the
specific teachings of morals embraced by Holy Mother Church.
Nemesio
The Pope (seems to me) is clearly says that using faith to contradict reason is a mistake. This part is particularly clear about it (emphasis mine).
Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.
So it seems to me clear that he says faith and reason do overlap and from that clash faith might to be revised accordingly, lest it becomes myth or superstition. So it might also call for proper re-evaluation and caution on science, but it also clearly does so regarding faith.
So it's not that they are not competing, in principle, but that an approach that uses them as complements and not as alternatives is preferable. I see nothing wrong with it, so far.
Originally posted by PalynkaIf this is true, then the Pope must support masturbation since it's healthy for a number of clearly-
The Pope (seems to me) clearly says that using faith to contradict reason is a mistake. This part is particularly clear about it (emphasis mine).
established reasons and not harmful in any way not associated with a faith-based hermeneutic.
The same thing can be said for married couples using birth control in order not to have children
before they are ready, or to keep from having more children after they've already had the number
they believe they can emotionally nurture or financially manage.
But that would mean that the Magisterium may have erred, which contradicts a basic tenet of
Roman Catholic doctrine.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTwo quick points:
If this is true, then the Pope must support masturbation since it's healthy for a number of clearly-
established reasons and not harmful in any way not associated with a faith-based hermeneutic.
The same thing can be said for married couples using birth control in order not to have children
before they are ready, or to keep from having more children a terium may have erred, which contradicts a basic tenet of
Roman Catholic doctrine.
Nemesio
- Regarding birth control:
The position of the Church is internally consistent. If their faithful follow their teachings, then no children will be had before the couple is ready nor they'll have more children after they've already had the number they believe they can emotionally nurture or financially manage.
I don't see how the Church can be blamed if the faithful are rejecting their recommendations.
- Regarding masturbation:
I don't think that the mere claim that an activity has some marginal health benefits (or not) is enough reason to endorse it or to change any moral pronouncements about it.
The Magisterium has erred and affirmed several times that it did. This does not contradict a basic tenet of Roman Catholic doctrine. Only ex catedra pronouncements are supposed to have the property of infallibility and these are extremely rare.