Science: fixed truth such as the Law of Gravity which states that if you jump off a cliff without restraint or some lift mechanism, you will fall downward. No interpretation.
Morality: pliable concepts such as the Old Testament stricture “Thou Shall Not Kill”. No interpretation right? Wrong. Mercy killing by Christians. Executions by Christians. Murder by Christians. Rules for how and when to kill. So this is a moral issue.
But, can Science inform morality? You bet it can. It was considered immoral to dissect human bodies, to desecrate the temple of God, and so was a punishable crime both morally by the Church and by civilian authorities who drew their laws from the moral opinions of the Church. Fast forward and find that it is no longer a mortal sin to work on a cadaver. Science trumped morality.
What about the issue of embryonic stem cell research? Opinion on the morality of this prevents the Science of it from being fully realized, in this country. The issue of insoulation (moment when the soul enters the body) and when conception occurs blur the moral arguments, but the fact that thousands of frozen embryos will die anyway and could be used to seriously help people is a fact. No ambiguity. Is a fertile embryo a person? Who knows? When does the soul enter the person? Is there really a soul? Who knows? These questions are argued by religious agents with no basis for ever getting a factual answer. Ambiguity.
Global climate changes? Science is quite clear on the facts. Deniers make up facts and ignore reality in favor of clichés like “I don’t trust Science” or “Not all Scientists agree.” or “You can’t believe what they say.” So deny penicillin or heart/lung transplants.
I vote for Science. Obviously many of you didn’t.
Morality: pliable concepts such as the Old Testament stricture “Thou Shall Not Kill”. No interpretation right? Wrong. Mercy killing by Christians. Executions by Christians. Murder by Christians. Rules for how and when to kill. So this is a moral issue.
But, can Science inform morality? You bet it can. It was considered immoral to dissect human bodies, to desecrate the temple of God, and so was a punishable crime both morally by the Church and by civilian authorities who drew their laws from the moral opinions of the Church. Fast forward and find that it is no longer a mortal sin to work on a cadaver. Science trumped morality.
What about the issue of embryonic stem cell research? Opinion on the morality of this prevents the Science of it from being fully realized, in this country. The issue of insoulation (moment when the soul enters the body) and when conception occurs blur the moral arguments, but the fact that thousands of frozen embryos will die anyway and could be used to seriously help people is a fact. No ambiguity. Is a fertile embryo a person? Who knows? When does the soul enter the person? Is there really a soul? Who knows? These questions are argued by religious agents with no basis for ever getting a factual answer. Ambiguity.
Global climate changes? Science is quite clear on the facts. Deniers make up facts and ignore reality in favor of clichés like “I don’t trust Science” or “Not all Scientists agree.” or “You can’t believe what they say.” So deny penicillin or heart/lung transplants.
I vote for Science. Obviously many of you didn’t.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment