The Pope and Condoms

[Jono]

How about Christians? Because I've never met one. I've met lots of people who claim to be Christian, but they all fail to follow the teachings of Jesus - to varying degrees.

Yeah... but humans are inherently flawed and therefore expected to fall short of the standards of behaviour set by the Lord God. God's patience is infinite however, so as long as people try to follow the gospels, they'll be rewarded, even if they do keep straying from the path. Of course, I tried to make a theological point earlier, and got shot down for it (Last time I get my information from a Roman Catholic priest, rather than an eminently more learned Sinner user).

[Gregory]

Red Celt,

Any philosophy (theological or secular) which doesn't take into account human nature is flawed and doomed to failure

may I ask who your authority on the human condition is? I kind of thought the purpose of philosophy was the study of the human condition.... like it isn't agreed on by all

There are many purposes of philosophy. Not just one. I wasn't referring to the human "condition", the definition of which is open to interpretation. I was referring to human nature. As for an authority... take a look at any history book, turn on your TV. Hell, just look out of your window. Or inside your own mind. Human nature, as an observable phenomenon, is freely available to any who care to look.

A philosophy which suggests that we act against human nature will fail.

Met many Kantians? Anyone who will act as though their actions be universally adopted? Who will never lie? Not even a white lie?

How about Christians? Because I've never met one. I've met lots of people who claim to be Christian, but they all fail to follow the teachings of Jesus - to varying degrees.

My point was your conception of human nature is just that. Your conception of human nature.

As to authority, you interpret a book, you decide what to believe etc, you will have some world view or 'philosophy' that you will apply in order to understand the world. Well, at least that is one possible line of philosophical enquiry. On that view you have the authority to choose a reliable teacher - whether that be yourself or whatever, although choosing yourself would be retarded as you'd have difficulty discerning truths.

Your human nature can be observed by yourself no doubt, but in totallity I doubt it.

Your human nature may be different to others you know - so is there no philosophy that works for everyone?
Perhaps there is and people have to conform to that philosophy? would have to be on good authority...just a thought

I haven't met any Kantian's but then I don't think Kant's philosophy maps onto reality, or our experience thereof, so I wouldn't expect to meet many.

You've also never met a Christian. I suppose you decide who or who is not a christian too? Im not sure I follow. What do you think a christian is exactly?

Curious now with all this philosophy garble, do you care to tell us who you subscribe to? Nietzsche ? i mean you seem to not think very much of human nature, but then you have too much faith in philosophy I suspect.

[RedCelt69]

My point was your conception of human nature is just that. Your conception of human nature.

Yeeees. By definition, my perceptions of human nature are my perception of human nature; thus it is very subjective - yet well-formed.

As to authority, you interpret a book, you decide what to believe etc,

I don't interpret a book. I read lots of books - none of which I judge to be the "gospel truth". Truth doesn't come into it. If an author tells a fabricated story (it's called fiction) then that gives me a glimpse into the nature of the author. If an author gives an account of actual events (ie non-fiction) I will balance that information against the accounts held in other books... and from other sources. No single book should be held up as a "proof" of itself.

you will have some world view or 'philosophy' that you will apply in order to understand the world.

The world can be perfectly understood in abstentia of world views or philosophies.

On that view you have the authority to choose a reliable teacher - whether that be yourself or whatever, although choosing yourself would be retarded as you'd have difficulty discerning truths.

Hey. Jesus! <pointing> Gregory just called you a retard!

Your human nature can be observed by yourself no doubt, but in totallity I doubt it.

Human nature is the collective whole - not the individuals who make up the species. My nature is my nature - not my human nature.

Your human nature may be different to others you know - so is there no philosophy that works for everyone?

My nature may be different to others? Well, of course it is different. We're not cookie-cutter beings. A philosophy that works for everyone? Not one that has been universally adopted... thus far.

I haven't met any Kantian's but then I don't think Kant's philosophy maps onto reality, or our experience thereof, so I wouldn't expect to meet many.

Therefore it is a flawed philosophy. Glad we can agree on that.

You've also never met a Christian. I suppose you decide who or who is not a christian too? Im not sure I follow. What do you think a christian is exactly?

I'd be happy if everyone who considers themselves to be Christian could come up with a working definition. As they can't decide between them, I'm not about to choose the "bad" Christians from the "good" Christians. I will only say that of those that I have spoken to, none of them have followed the teachings of Jesus. Which, to me, is a pretty good foundation on which to build any definition of the term "Christian".

Curious now with all this philosophy garble, do you care to tell us who you subscribe to? Nietzsche ? i mean you seem to not think very much of human nature, but then you have too much faith in philosophy I suspect.

Is this where we get to pigeon-hole ourselves into neat categories? Do I have to subscribe to any particular philosophy, or can I pick the best parts from many? If I were filling my bag at the philosophers' pick'n'mix counter, I'd probably scoop up some Voltaire, Sartre & Hume. And if I was still feeling peckish, a sprinkling of Hicks. 2 Frenchies, a Scot and an American. If it helps you any, I don't rate Nietzsche... nor any of his countrymen. Not at philosophy, anyway.

And I don't have faith in philosophy. Philosophy isn't something that demands nor requires faith. Just understanding... or the quest towards understanding.

[RedCelt69]

Yeah... but humans are inherently flawed

If something is flawed, that suggests that there is a model of perfection against which it can be compared and deemed flawed. Where's this perfect human model - this Platonic form upon which we are all based?

Humans aren't inherently flawed. They're inherently human.

and therefore expected to fall short of the standards of behaviour set by the Lord God.

So... does it take into account human nature, or doesn't it? If it doesn't, then it is flawed. If it does - but says "that's ok, you were bound to fail, just keep trying" then what is the point of trying? If expectancy of failure is built in, that sounds like a flawed philosophy.

[exnihilo]

Yeah... but humans are inherently flawed

If something is flawed, that suggests that there is a model of perfection against which it can be compared and deemed flawed. Where's this perfect human model - this Platonic form upon which we are all based?

I'd imagine most Christians would answer that the perfect human was Jesus, or even that we're all perfect humans made, as we are, in the image of the perfect being that is God.

[Humphrey]

I'm loving the fact that the Sinner is rapidly becoming a theology board.

[munchingfoo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7967173.stm

One of the world's most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use.

[T]he London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal.

[Gregory]

Truth doesn't come into it

The world can be perfectly understood in abstentia of world views or philosophies

I think these two points are where I, and many others would depart from your understanding of the practice of philosophy. One's philosophical or relective dispositions seem to effect our interpretation of the world around us.

Hey. Jesus! <pointing> Gregory just called you a retard!

Well, I wasn't talking about Jesus when I said choosing a teacher who was yourself was daft. Does God learn is another question. But safe to say I was talking about humans with original sin, or at least a concept of morally broken character.

Human nature is the collective whole

you say this then you disagree with Jono (supposively) due to Platonic forms. Maybe ive misunderstood.

you say that

Jono wrote:Yeah... but humans are inherently flawed


If something is flawed, that suggests that there is a model of perfection against which it can be compared and deemed flawed. Where's this perfect human model - this Platonic form upon which we are all based?

Humans aren't inherently flawed. They're inherently human.

well there is a distinction to be made between humans in the world around us and the platonic form - or perhaps 'ideal' - human isn't there? You may or may not encounter the perfect circle, but you may conceive of it. This is obviously a contentious point .... but an obvious one to consider.

The reason the Church has creeds is for people to profess the faith. Christ came to call sinners, and there is a distinction to be made between saints and christians. They are obviously not mutually exclusive though.

Mixing philosophies would be fine if they aren't so inconsistent. I think the brightest philosophers find a marriage of two philosophies to be a newsworthy acheivement - Aquinas was for bringing together Augustinian and Aristotlian tradtions. You listed a few more, though in different categories I suppose. Philosophy does require trust that your method of understanding - and there are different methods - are the right ones. All understanding then depends on that initial trust in the practice you undertook, that was why Nietsche found it so objectionable in many respects as philosophy seemed to him to infer theism, faith in an ultimate truth and that our practice was orderly - only theism could seem to justify such a claim. Such a claim was false so 'God is dead'

[Haunted]

Lancet > Celibate ex nazi

[Jormungand]

The world can be perfectly understood in abstentia of world views or philosophies.

Um. What?

[RedCelt69]

The world can be perfectly understood in abstentia of world views or philosophies.

Um. What?

Science doesn't require a world view nor a philosophy. At least not the last time I checked.

[the Empress]

Physical science does have a worldview: positivism, that is, evidence can be gathered and a single 'right' answer can be known. Social science encompasses multiple theories, including positivism, structuralism, post-modernism etc.

[Jormungand]

The world can be perfectly understood in abstentia of world views or philosophies.

Um. What?

Science doesn't require a world view nor a philosophy. At least not the last time I checked.

[URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/]That's far from uncontroversial.[/quote]

Not to mention that science requires a language, and languages encompass a world view.

[Jono]

The world can be perfectly understood in abstentia of world views or philosophies.

Um. What?

Science doesn't require a world view nor a philosophy. At least not the last time I checked.

Yes, yes it does! You only have to look at the way science has been percieved through history to realise that that statement is simply not true. The enormous (Some would argue, excessive) respect we have for our modern science is as much a product of our society as were the mediaeval views that priests were more important than doctors in the healing process, or that Gallileio was a dangerous heretic.

This is exactly the same thing. Taking a broad-brush here, but we seem to have two camps emerging from this discussion appearing: 1) The view that there is a moral dimension to the AIDS problem. 2) The view that condoms and science can solve the problem for us. I'm painting this in extremes, but that's pretty much the gist of it.

Perhaps it's something to do with the lecturers in the Science faculty, but a lot of the scientists I've met, irrespective of their other traits, have this pride, sometimes bordering on an arrogant streak with regards to their subject, an almost willful ignorance of wider contexts (What do you mean my landslide-clearing chemical compound is going to be used for blowing up people?), and an almost iconoclastic regard for the past. Are you trying to tell me that this is an unbiased stance, free of all world-view?

[LonelyPilgrim]

That's exactly what they're trying to tell you, Jono, and no amount of pointing out the obvious will change their minds. At least it hasn't in the four and a half years I've been trying. This is why I'm of the opinion that EVERY science student should be required to take Philosophy of Science, or at least have Kuhn for required reading.

[Haunted]

The materialistic world view and, to a certain extent, the scientific method are based in philosophies.
An empircal or scientific truth, however, is not.

A hydrogen atom will only ever have a single proton in it's nucleus. Bias and world view do not enter into it.

[the Empress]

RE: Jono. I think you're definately being too black and white here. The three camps I see here are: religous (abstinence), geographical (condom distrubution in geographical context [cultural attitudes]) and philosophy (fighting a broader theological battle) . . . .

As for science and history, some of the big movements in history as a discipline have been institued by scientists, particulalry the development of environmental history, often with roots in 19th century naturalists and Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' but more recently with Jared's Diamond's books, including 'Collapse' and 'Guns, Germs and Steel.' I have quite a few history books written by scientists which are really interesting and being rapidly incorporated into the discipline. NB: This is just a point of interest, as I'm really interested in the confluence of social and environmental factors in history. Another excellent book (although not written by a scienist) is Mike Davis' 'Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World'. I did alot of research into the latter and I tend to think it focuses too much on the British government as a cause of 19th century famine (stupid decisions were made but not for the moral evilness that seems to come through; also Davis strangely neglects the native population, merely regarding them as victims instead of a complex society). It's also really hard to get together a coherent timeline of El Nino and famine events and to make up for the shortfall I ended up using scientific journals combined with economic history papers.

As for science students as whole, I've met the odd tragically misinformed one (spent several hours trying to explain to a chemist why the ecosystem and climate change mattered) but no more so than some economists and management students (human welfare and the environment not always a consideration). I sit on the no man's land between social science and environmental science though so this is my hot topic:) Interestingly within Environmental Impact Assessments the environment is defined as including people, so environmental and human welfare move forward together. That seems to be the current policy focus in general; which is great, except alot of people simply substitute actual research for meaningless buzzwords.

[Jormungand]

The materialistic world view and, to a certain extent, the scientific method are based in philosophies.
An empircal or scientific truth, however, is not.

A hydrogen atom will only ever have a single proton in it's nucleus. Bias and world view do not enter into it.

Of course empirical truths are based in philosophies. For many fact to be useful, it has to be related to a wider network of beliefs.

Let's take your example of the truth that 'a hydrogen atom will only ever have a single proton in it's nucleus.' This is reliant on a number of assumptions, many of which are very hard to justify on empirical grounds alone. These assumptions include 'the future will resemble the past' (in so far as future cases of hydrogen atoms will resemble past cases of hydrogen atoms), 'my senses are in no way categorically deceiving me', 'That the kind of evidence the data I have is the kind of evidence one needs to be justified in believing something to be true', etc.

My point is not to suggest that these presuppositions are false (I think they are true), but rather that these statements seem to have their basis in something philosophical, in the sense that they are not 'straightforward' as they appear.

[munchingfoo]

I don't quite get what you are trying to say here. If I observe an entity that does not resemble a hydrogen atom, then it is not a hydrogen atom. This is a black and white fact, surely?

If I observe an entity that does not resemble a hydrogen atom, but once used to be in the past, then it still isn't a hyrdogen atom. A hyrdogen atom is simply that which is defined by science, anything which does not fit the bill, is not a hydrogen atom whether past, present or future.

[Jormungand]

I don't quite get what you are trying to say here. If I observe an entity that does not resemble a hydrogen atom, then it is not a hydrogen atom. This is a black and white fact, surely?

If I observe an entity that does not resemble a hydrogen atom, but once used to be in the past, then it still isn't a hyrdogen atom. A hyrdogen atom is simply that which is defined by science, anything which does not fit the bill, is not a hydrogen atom whether past, present or future.

For that fact, on it's own (as much as any single fact can be), I can see where you are coming from. Yes, we can define so-and-so as a hydrogen atom, but to get to this point we need to have seen lots of things and established that there are sufficient commonalities between things that make them different from other kinds of things; different enough to put them together as 'hydrogen atoms'. While the definition is fine, the method by which we decide it fits into that category brings in the issues I related above. And you have to have the assumptions in your method, as they form the difference between 'Hydrogen atoms always have one proton in their nucleus' and 'Wonderflonium only occurs during a crazy random happenstance'. One has meaning because we've decided based on empirical data that it is an explanation; the latter is simply made up, lacking the same empirical grounding.