[sunnykerr]

You'd be surprised, though. Laura Bush's father had severe Parkinson's, did he not? (Or does he not? since I don't know that he's dead)

I remember people thought she might champion the right to pursue these avenues for scientific research, but she stood by the usual "it's a life and therefore research would be immoral."

So, you know, self-interest aside, people who oppose stem-cell research on religious grounds, theoretically speaking, should not have a change of heart as they near their own mortality. And, seriously, I have to say that it seems to be the way it goes with the people I know.

[Callace]

it makes me wonder if their morality is really their own, or just something dictated to them. Your own morality can be adjusted to the circumstances. But a dictate is not yours to interpret, just to blindly obey.

[sunnykerr]

I imagine it's like the old saying, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is enough."

I think some people have very specific beliefs that not all of us share, but it doesn't mean that these beliefs were imposed on them. I don't personally believe it makes them wrong, even.

The only issue I have is when the beliefs of a group, any group, are imposed on the population at large as the foundation for moral behaviour and thus as the guiding line for policy-making. That bothers me.

But it must be difficult to navigate. After all, ethics are needed to check wanton scientific exploitation.

[4N6 DNA]

Banner and related threads for the OP.

Man Threatens to Clone Himself 14 Times
Stem Cell Debate
Ian Frazier, Australian Scientist to trial Skin cancer vaccine

[Callace]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) I imagine it's like the old saying, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is enough." I think some people have very specific beliefs that not all of us share, but it doesn't mean that these beliefs were imposed on them. I don't personally believe it makes them wrong, even. The only issue I have is when the beliefs of a group, any group, are imposed on the population at large as the foundation for moral behaviour and thus as the guiding line for policy-making. That bothers me. But it must be difficult to navigate. After all, ethics are needed to check wanton scientific exploitation.

Good points. But I wasnt talking about people being "right or wrong", or proof behind things. My point was about morality, about what is the basis for your morality. is it your own values, which you have found good, and wish to follow, or is it a set of dictated statements from someone else, who must be obeyed at all time, regardless of it's consequences?

I think stem cell research is a good example to illustrate this with.

The value of respect for life. If this is your own value, you are free to think it through, what would serve the protection of peoples lives the best in this situation? The embryos are dying anyway, you cant save them by not doing stem cell research.People who need the medical care this reseach can give them may not die. Thus the best protection of lives will be to allow the research.

if the value of respect for life on the other hand is just dictated to you, and the dictator says that it means no abortion, and thus no deliberate destruction of embryos, such as is required in the reearch, you just obey this, accept that interpretation as the right one, since the value is not yours to interpret.

Many religious people do indeed own their values, are able to think through what they feel is the right way to uphold them. But religion as a construction, I feel very much demands that people dont do that. The values and how to uphold them are given by God, and if you have doubts about how they are to understood, you pray, and go ask a priest.

[sunnykerr]

Well, those are two very specific subjects and you make some valid points on all fronts.

I agree that our morality is our own and that religion should be kept out of the public sphere, inasmuch as policy-making goes especially. And I so freaking agree on the fact that stem cells are gonna die anyway, so there really isn't a moral debate to be had there. Of course, some fundamentalist movements (though I don't think there are too many) have begun to lobby for the adoption of these embryos by mothers willing to carry them to term.

It must be weird for these people. They don't believe in science getting in the way of the "Lord's plan" where fertility is concerned, but they're willing to have embryos implanted in volunteers if it means they won't "die." I wonder how you walk that lie without developing a split personality.

Anyway, the other thing, and it's weird to discuss this on the Science Thread, but whatever, is the fact that religion isn't about robbing anyone from their ability to question and figure things out for themselves. Not when it's done right anyway. If anything, religion is about the bigger mysteries of the world.

Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who use religion to gain control over people or to get their way in life. There are people who use religion to fit their own beliefs and give them greater stature. And I have no idea how many these people are, or what kind of proportion they have in terms of the general population who consider themselves religious. I'm just saying, just because it seriously does happen doesn't mean it's the real deal.

[4N6 DNA]

I think one of the standpoints people forget to take is the personal one. For those who are opposed to stem cell research, would you accept the benefits of research you opposed?

A segment from a hypothetical I came across:

Would you refuse -- for your parent, your child or yourself -- a treatment for a terrible ailment because it was developed with embryonic stem cell research? Would you want your doctor to keep you in the dark about such a treatment because he or she is morally opposed to it? Before I get into the arguments about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, I wanted to get those questions out there. The issues at hand are not just arguments for scientists, politicians, clergy and theologians. These are questions that you and I may one day face.

It is all too easy these days to make a decision about something that does not apply to you.

[Callace]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) Well, those are two very specific subjects and you make some valid points on all fronts. I agree that our morality is our own and that religion should be kept out of the public sphere, inasmuch as policy-making goes especially. And I so freaking agree on the fact that stem cells are gonna die anyway, so there really isn't a moral debate to be had there. Of course, some fundamentalist movements (though I don't think there are too many) have begun to lobby for the adoption of these embryos by mothers willing to carry them to term.

Thank you As to the adoption idea, i think that is an admirable endeavour if someone really wishes to do it. But that would, as you said, not be many, so most of the embryos should still be available to stem cell research

It must be weird for these people. They don't believe in science getting in the way of the "Lord's plan" where fertility is concerned, but they're willing to have embryos implanted in volunteers if it means they won't "die." I wonder how you walk that lie without developing a split personality.

It really must be I have read an article about that, where such an adoptive mum was interviewed about this, and told that she had had severe qualms, prayed a lot on the matter, and talked to her priest, and he had told her that "in order to save the innocent, you some times have to strike a deal with the devil."

Anyway, the other thing, and it's weird to discuss this on the Science Thread, but whatever, is the fact that religion isn't about robbing anyone from their ability to question and figure things out for themselves. Not when it's done right anyway. If anything, religion is about the bigger mysteries of the world.

I dont think it is too weird it is like when we discussed science and politics earlier. They go together in such a way that it is only natural to discuss them together. But you are the mod. If you feel this discussion is better fit at the Religion thread, you may of course move or copy this post there

as to the mysteries, science is all about them too. The marveling over mysteries is the starting point of most scientific advance. But there is this difference in the way science and religion take delight in mysteries:

I could make the same point about our world view (including those parts of it we dont understand - the mysteries) as I did about morality. Is our world view ours, to interpret and explore, or is it dictated to us, and simply to accept?

Religion marvels over mysteries, but makes it rather clear that they are to remain mysteries. Only God knows, so there is no way for us to learn the full answer to those mysteries untill we get to Heaven. We must just accept that our world view is very vague and uncertain, and admire the Almighty, who has brought all these mysteries about, and knows all about them.

Science also marvel over mysteries, but takes the standpoint that our worldview is ours, The mysteries dont have to remain mysteries untill the Almighty who created them decides to let us know more about them. They are ours, to marvel and wonder at, to get curious about, to investigate, research and try to figure out. In this way, we can get closer and closer to unveiling the mysteries, probably never figure the big ones out entirely, but get to marvel at each little puzzle piece we can manage to assemble, and see how things might fit together. The mysteries are still intrigueing, puzzling and amazing, but ours.

Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who use religion to gain control over people or to get their way in life. There are people who use religion to fit their own beliefs and give them greater stature. And I have no idea how many these people are, or what kind of proportion they have in terms of the general population who consider themselves religious. I'm just saying, just because it seriously does happen doesn't mean it's the real deal.

First, let me make the point that God's (and thus, by proxy, the Church's) ownership of the mysteries are very useful to maintain such control. Knowledge is power. If the answer to everything you dont understand is "only God knows" then it is good advice to always follow the directions that He gives, through his representatives on earth.

Secondly, I get a little curious about what you mean by "real". Real, as far as I can understand it, means existant, in some form. Rocks and rivers, mud and trees, they are all very observable, and thus we can clearly establish that they are real. Good and bad practices, they both happen, they are then for real. In a fantasyverse "real" means canon. What we can read, or see on screen, and thus know exsists in that world.
What is the basis of religious "reality"?

Or did you rather mean "the real deal" as the ideal? As how utopian religion should be, where noone takes advantage of it's useful mind control?

[sunnykerr]

Oh, I just mean real inasmuch as religion has been perverted many a time before. The easy example here being that people who detonate bombs in the name of God have, in my humble opinion, no concept of what their alleged religion is really about.

That's what I mean: the gap between what people claim is religion and what it actually is. Religion, in my personal experience, is entirely about love, compassion, personal responsibility and a personal quest for self-realization. So, again, religion and faith, to me, have an enormous amount to say about things that transcend the physical sphere.

But it certainly never means that religion has the dominion over any of it.

[Callace]

I see but my question was: how do you define "real" as to religion. What is the basis of it's reality, the reference point which we can go back to to check something that claims to be religous up against to see if it is real? How can you tell what is "true" religion and what is a pervertion?

I mentioned two different standards: real = existant in the physical world, so that we can go out and try to observer it, and real = canon, what can be read from the book where the story is written down. If you have another standard of realness, I would be interested to hear it.

I totally agree that your version of religous belief is more good than the other examples you mention. But that is not the same as being more real?

[sunnykerr]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was trying to be as clear as I could, but allow me to try again.

Real religion and faith: love, compassion, personal responsibility and a personal quest for self-realization.

I understand what you're saying about fandom's interpretation of these words, so I guess that's where the confusion happened.

Not to mention that these things are inherently deeply personal.

[Callace]

I got what you meant I guess I was the one that wasnt being clear enough (I might not be now either, but I can give it another try

What I was trying to do, was to seperate two fundamentally different questions. the question of what is real, and that of what is good This has a close connection with the difference between the descriptive and the normative. (as described in philosophy)

Some people are religious bc they are of the opinion that religion expresses the truth about reality, about how it came about and why. Then I feel the need to ask the question of why they consider this to be the truth. Is it bc they have observed things in the physical world that indicates that it must be so, or is it just that "it must be so, since it is written in the Holy Book" (an approach to defining the truth about reality which I find appropriate only if the reality you seek to establish is that of a fantasyverse.)

The other approach, which I get the impression that you are taking, is not caring much about the truth in religions claims about reality, but rather using God as a provider of good values. But then (and now we are indeed leaving the realms of science ) why put in the extra construction of God? Why dont we rather hold Goodness sacred in itself? pay tribute to the good values you mentioned simply bc they are good? I totally agree with the virtue and importance in all the values you listed, but arent they good enough in themselves?

[sunnykerr]

Well, I would argue that what is good arises from what is true.

I don't know. It's really weird trying to approach my faith with an intellectual perspective. It's like trying to describe the way air looks, or what music tastes like.

I do think that religion expresses the true about a reality, but it's not necessarily the physical one, but rather the spiritual one. So it's like comparing apples and oranges. Different, but still connected.

Good values are probably an aspect of religion but, like you say, you don't need religion to have good values.



I don't really fancy myself being a spokesperson for all things religion, especially with regards to values, truth and good, since there is such a wide variety of perspectives and approaches in the world of religions. All I know is what I believe and what I know.

For instance, I believe, to the depth of my being, in karma. I've seen it in action. I have seen how the universe has brought me, repeatedly, the lessons I needed to learn when I needed to learn them.

So, you know, a guy commits a horrible crime, I truly believe the universe will take care of him. I don't know how. It's not for me to worry about. It doesn't mean I think he should get away with it. I believe in consequences. A person commits a crime, there are laws, there is punishment. I believe in the rule of law, too.

That's all I'm saying. It is quite possible to believe that there is a great plan while still being a functional member of society, without looking to a book somewhere to provide all answers, without co-opting one's brain.

In any case, I am quite happy to continue this discussion, but we're REALLY so not talking science anymore. So, I'll follow you to the Religious News (and discussion) thread if you want to continue this discussion. But I do think we're veered off quite considerably off topic.

And, in an attempt to bring this back to actual science discussion...

Tired Brain Defaults Differently SAN FRANCISCO — Sleep-deprived people make mistakes. New research suggests that a tired brain may turn on the equivalent of an internal screen saver instead of concentrating on mental tasks, which may explain those blunders. Ninad Gujar of the University of California, Berkeley and colleagues presented evidence March 22 at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society that sleep deprivation affects the brain’s default network. Scientists describe the default network as the parts of the brain that deactivate when a person is doing a specific mental task, such as having a conversation, reading or memorizing a list of words, or solving a math problem. The network is active, though, when people are ruminating, daydreaming, recalling the past or when the mind wanders. Researchers still don’t fully understand how the network works and how it affects cognition. Gujar wanted to find out if sleep deprivation affects the default network. His team tested 28 young adults; half got a normal amount of sleep and half were kept awake for 35 hours before testing. The volunteers did memory tests while in an fMRI scanner. Every time the volunteers saw a particular picture, they were supposed to punch a button. But Gujar was more interested in what happened in the volunteers’ brains while they waited for the picture to pop up. He left enough time between the correct picture and other images to allow participants’ brains to slip into default mode, and then he looked at brain activity. In default mode, sleep-deprived volunteers displayed less activity than those who had enough sleep in the anterior cingulate cortex and also displayed an overactive precuneus, key parts of the default network. Gujar was able to predict with 93 percent accuracy whether a volunteer was sleep deprived just from the activity pattern in the two areas. The sleep-deprived pattern in those two areas was also associated with more misses on the memory tests. Gujar says that the pattern he saw in sleep-deprived people suggests that information is not flowing correctly in the brain’s default network. He speculates that the default network could be turning on or remaining on when sleep-deprived volunteers are trying to concentrate on mental tasks, which could explain the misses. The study gives more information about how the default network works and indicates that sleep is essential for its proper functioning, says Damien Fair, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. More research is needed to confirm the Berkeley team’s findings, he said.

Science News / Tired Brain Defaults Differently

Well, finally!

Actually, this is not news to me. I have had a pseudo-insomnia (it's on and off, and never really THAT severe) for twenty years now. So, you know, I know all too well the whole impact of lack of sleep on one's ability to have information flow properly.

But, you know, maybe this was news to some of you?

[Callace]

yeah, I know what they are talking about too I am not really suffering from insomnia, but have had times when it is hard to sleep. It has lately particularliy been an "interesting" exercise to go to school the day after a all-nighter My abilities to study, or to partake in a logical debate is really off then

ok, lets move the other convo to the religion thread (probably should have been done a few posts ago)

[sunnykerr]

Science Standards Challenging Evolution Debated in Texas (CNN) -- The Texas Board of Education this week will vote on science standards that critics say seek to cast doubt on the theory of evolution. "This specific attack on well-established science ignores mountains of evidence and years of research done by experts in a variety of fields," said Steven Newton, project director at the Oakland California-based National Center for Science Education, a proponent of evolution. One amendment, critics say, undermines the idea that life on Earth derives from a common ancestry, a major principle in the theory of evolution. It calls for the analysis and evaluation of "the sufficiency or insufficiency" of the common ancestry idea to explain the fossil record. Newton said the board is considering other amendments casting doubt on well-established ideas in the earth and space sciences -- plate tectonics, radioactive decay and how the solar system developed. School board chairman Don McLeroy has wanted to tackle questions that highlight supposed weaknesses in the theory. For example, skeptics of evolution point to what they contend are fossil record gaps casting doubt on the scientific evidence of common ancestry. "I'm a skeptic. I'm an evolution skeptic. I don't think it's true," he said. "You need to present other ideas to the kids." The issue reflects the strong feelings among representatives on the 15-member board, some of whom accept evolutionary theory and some of whom don't. The size of the textbook market in Texas gives it influence nationwide, as publishers adapt their material to its standards. It was replaced by language urging students to use "empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing" to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations." More amendments are expected to be brought up in the three-day hearing. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution proposes that humans evolved over millions of years from animal species -- including, most famously, early primates that also are the ancestors of modern-day apes. Such thinking, which challenged religious accounts of a deity creating humans, was considered radical, even blasphemous, when Darwin published it in 1859. Central to Darwin's thesis was his scientific explanation of life's diversity: that natural selection is enough to explain the evolution of all species. The scientific community has overwhelmingly scorned creationism and its latest incarnation, intelligent design, as a pretext for biblical explanations of how the world came to be, and asserts that there is no weakness or doubt in the scientific community about evolution. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences called for the public to be better informed about the importance of understanding and teaching evolution. The academy released a booklet titled "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" -- the third explanation of evolution put out since 1984 by one of the nation's leading scientific organizations. However, those who take issue with evolution believe it should be treated with healthy skepticism. The San Antonio Express-news quotes Casey Luskin, a policy analyst with the Discovery Institute, a group that questions the theory of evolution: "This debate will impact whether students are taught to think critically and scientifically when you learn about evolution. It's important for students to learn how to think like scientists and not be forced to treat these controversial topics like a dogma," he is quoted as saying. Proponents of evolution say the dogma is on the other side, with the Discovery Institute and others purposely distorting and ignoring scientific evidence to reach their desired conclusion. For decades, the teaching of evolution in public schools has been flashpoint in some states, with proponents of ideas such as creationism and intelligent design trying to gain a place in science classes. The issue has been before school officials, legislators and courts in Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Virginia. The controversy over the teaching of intelligent design came to a head in Pennsylvania, where the Dover School Board voted that ninth-grade students must be read a statement encouraging them to read about intelligent design. A federal judge said the board violated the Constitution in doing so because intelligent design is religious creationism in disguise and injecting it into the curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "Academic freedom" bills have emerged but failed in various state legislatures, the National Center for Science Education said. An "academic freedom" act has been adopted as law in Louisiana, and there is legislation in Florida calling for an "academic freedom" bill that would mandate a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." The center says such bills are strategies by creationists to appeal to the American sense of balance, and give the false sense that there are different sides to scientific issues such as evolution. "Two plus 2 is not 5," said the group's spokesman, Robert Luhn.

Science standards challenging evolution debated in Texas - CNN.com

At the risk of bringing religion back on this thread...

I wanted to see what people thought of this story. I have to say that it makes me a bit ill to hear about these attacks on scientific education. I don't think it's doing any favours to the students. If science is increasingly called into question in schools, I worry the next generation will simply not be able to keep competing in the related job markets.

I have every respect for a parent's right to have their child learn about creationism, if that's what they believe in or if it's what they want. But then send your kid to a religious school or have it taught at Sunday school. Public schools are secular. They're meant to stay that way.