FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com

Rastafarians, Muslims, Mormons, etc. all also feel like they have experienced a huge detriment to their freedoms too. And maybe they have. But your faith does not say that you need to prevent other people from living their own lives according to their own moralities.
The mandate passes the Lemon test. So you can complain all you want about how you are no longer free to tell people how to live or control their lives, but it's a Constitutional limitation on your so-called freedom to control others. If you don't like it, write your congressman and say you want a public option.

And do you think medicine just comes from the sky? Yes, they are still available at low cost...until the government stops funding them because they feel like funding them impinges on their religious liberties to control others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/savita-halappanavar-death-irish-woman-denied-abortion-dies_n_2128696.html

Just one example of why allowing hospitals to pick and choose what safe and (in the US) legal procedures they can perform negatively impacts others.

Wow. This is quite the post that spans a broad spectrum isn't it? Philosophy, Religion, Science and politics! So many subjects to address, so little time!

First off: I want to say this - I appreciate the attempts you made at providing sources, I honestly do. There are so many debates and arguments on the internet (And other Media) without any data to back them up. Person to person discussions, sure, it's difficult to remember and rattle off website addresses or bibliographies, but online forums? So much data at our finger tips! Now on to your discussion points.

Moral Relativism: Do you know what this is? Or... did you just hear someone else use this term before? I ask because your use of this term, which is an actual term, makes absolutely no sense (to me) in the context of your first paragraph response to Infidel. Moral Relativism ISN'T Moral Ambiguity. Furthermore; We have laws and punishments associated with breaking those laws. This, and of itself, demonstrates that 'anything and everything' is not acceptable. Moral Relativism, as far as I can tell, boils down to 'You have your morals and I have mine, but that's ok'. The term is so broad, that I think you should probably rethink using it in this particular debate point. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Your second paragraph response to Infidel: I would suggest checking the citations you use in your blog post backing up your assertion. One can not argue that the church has been involved in the progress of science. One can, however, argue the assertions that the Catholic Church founded the 'University System', the Scientific Method and modern genetics. You point to wikipedia pages on Grosseteste and Roger Bacon, but I don't feel that they lend your argument anything. Using Grosseteste's wiki page as the basis for your assertion, that he formulated the scientific method, does a disservice to your argument. If you even go to that wiki page it doesn't mention he's the first to codify the scientific method and it lacks citation for the assertion that he laid out a framework for the method of science. I am also unsure of where it has been determined that the Catholic Church created the University system. Where did you learn that? And genetics? I imagine that is a reference to Gregor Mendel who was a Franciscan Friar. However, is this an instance of a man who happened to be a Friar coming up with these laws of what would become a basis of genetics, or was it a systematic Catholic endeavor for better understanding of natural phenomena?

Onto Stem Cells!: The funny thing about Stem Cell Research and the phrase "scientifically challenged" is, well, your use of the term "scientifically challenged". Are you a scientist? Do you at least play one on TV? How do you know Embryonic Stem Cell Research is "scientifically challenged"? Certainly nothing from your own blog post would seem to enforce that point. Human Embryonic Stem Cells were isolated by scientists in '98, not 30 years ago. And why is adult stem cells, at this point, out pacing embryonic? Perhaps it's due to Federal Funding to the science? I can't find any limits to the funding of adult stem cell research, but even a cursory search on the web has pulled up oodles of info concerning the bans against embryonic. Scientists need a salary too and are unlikely going to pursue research in something that can not be paid to research. More money and less regulation on the types of stem cells scientists can study could probably help with the whole "scientifically challenged" thing. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/health.asp ; http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={A604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BECED}&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs.asp&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#bestresearch

Evolution!: You honestly taught me something there. I have never heard that the Catholic Church warns against the literal interpretation of creation. Where can I learn more?

As for Microevolution and Macroevolution; I'm going to need you to teach me something else. What definition of these terms are you utilizing? They appear to refer to timescales of evolution, so I am not sure why one is rejected and the other is not. My reading material: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47 and http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_02

As for your last paragraph: I certainly hope the Catholic Church will not stop doing all those good deeds and good works that it does. To stop these things over the simple matter of providing a level of health coverage for the people that help to spread the good will and good works of the Church seems counter to the mission of the Church. Packing up and closing up shop sounds like the anti-thesis of everything you've tried to describe to us.

I appear to be a little late to the party.

It is the moral relativism of the secular society today that has no objective standard of morality so consequently anything and everything is acceptable.

To suggest that religion is the only source of morality is ignorant and insulting. Full stop.

A secular person who has basic empathy understands that others should be treated with dignity and respect, and that you should treat yourself with respect.

Following these principles will prevent a moral person from murdering someone and from engaging in dangerous behaviours that could cause harm to themselves and others. No religion involved.

Full disclosure: I am a Christian, although that's really between me and God.

Trey, I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful responses (for the most part). That said, I am very aware of what moral relativism is and have written on the topic many times, including here:
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2011/03/theory-of-moral-relativity.html I agree with the context of your definition, and if I intimated that moral relativism was something other than that, then I apologize for not writing with greater clarity accordingly.

As for the Catholic Church and its support of science, there are myriads of examples where such is the case over the past two millennia, particularly in the last five hundred years. Science and faith are not a dichotomy. Each very much supports the other. As an engineer, I could not commit myself to a faith that was not logical or that did not make sense. One of the ways to tell if something makes sense is whether it can be defended. True Catholicism is quite defensible. Oh, and yes, I was indeed referring to Friar Mendel regarding genetics. (I will take your advice regarding using Wikipedia in future posts, by the way. While I wasn’t expecting the link to be absolutely authoritative on the subject, it was something that was readily available and gave adequate summaries, hence my use of Wikipedia. In order to lend greater credence though, perhaps something more esoteric would have been better as a supporting source.)

Continuing, in the Middle Ages, education in Western Europe was VERY poor. In fact, about the only people who COULD read and write were priests and monks, and the highest levels of royalty. During the Cluny Reform Movement of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Catholic Church made it a requirement for priests to go to seminaries, and so schools for priests attached to cathedrals became quite common. From time to time, royalty or a few wealthy merchants would ask to "sit in" on these classes, as it was one of the only ways to receive an education. As Europe revived, more and more secular students started joining the seminaries, and by the mid-eleventh century, the pope decreed that universities for lay people would be branched off of many of these seminaries. The University of Bologna was the first in 1158, but others included Oxford and Cambridge in England, Salamanca in Spain, Heidelberg in Germany, and the University of Paris (the Sorbonne) in France (which, in fact, was once part of Notre Dame's seminary). These institutions were still run by the church, but they were designed for a lay education. Hence the beginning of the university system.

Next, Catholicism has always taught against a literal interpretation of the scriptures in many areas, particularly in the Old Testament. This is not just a phenomenon regarding the church’s teaching on creationism. It is many of our fundamentalist Protestant brothers and sisters that insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. While they have every right to believe as they wish, I was always amused by this. After all, it was the Catholic faith that actually canonized the Bible. Indeed it was the ONLY Christian faith until Martin Luther and the reformation came about in the 16th century. It was at that time that our Protestant brothers and sisters basically challenged what had been dogma, doctrine, and sacred tradition that had been taught from the time of Christ for the first 1500 years of Christianity. I would prefer to go with what has always been taught and handed down from Christ to his apostles through an unbroken chain of apostolic successors all the way to Pope Benedict XVI today.

The Church teaches that Micro-evolution is not in opposition to a divine creator’s will. Macro-evolution is nonsensical to that will, as stated by the Pope. It also appears to have serious scientific challenges. For the purposes of greater clarity, let me describe those terms more fully. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunctional in-between species.

No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature.

Lastly as to your last paragraph, the Catholic Church teaches that we must all be good citizens and work responsibly within the frameworks of secular societies. We render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, in other words. That said, when secular law dictates that Catholics must do something that is contrary to God’s law, then the church understandably has a moral obligation to ignore it. God’s law clearly trumps man’s law. Such is the case with the pernicious HHS mandate. If the federal government fails to renege on its requirement, the Catholic church will not comply. Unfortunately the results would likely be as I already described them.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a catechist for my Catholic parish. I am a member of the team that teaches RCIA classes (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). These classes are weekly classes provided to people inquiring about the Catholic faith in order to join the church. Before these good folks can be in full communion with the church and partake of all of the sacraments, they must attend these classes over the course of a full year. On the Easter Vigil Mass, if they so choose, they are brought into the Church. While I am hardly a theologian, I am fairly well versed in much of the day to day Catholic teachings and doctrine. What I have described in preceding paragraphs is indeed what the magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches.

For Your Consideration, I did not mean to suggest that only through religion can one be a moral person and live accordingly. Clearly that is not so. I simply meant to suggest that it is through such various religious faiths that one is more likely to be rooted or at least have a fundamental understanding of morality. Obviously there are millions of very moral people in the world that live without the dictates of a given faith.

"it is through such various religious faiths that one is more likely to be rooted or at least have a fundamental understanding of morality."

Do you have a source for this statistic?

Many combinations of beliefs and desires (and external incentives, such as the law) can yield good behavior. Religion is necessary for some of these combinations, but not all of them.

I second the motion for a source on the claim that "one is more likely to be rooted or at least have a fundamental understanding of morality" (whatever that means) if one is religious. Please make sure that the source (1) accounts for the prevalence of religion in comparison to atheism, both in terms of the number of people who are religious and their influence in societies around the world throughout history; and (2) somehow determines how currently religious people would have behaved if they were raised in a completely secular society with good values.

Good luck.

Again I must lament the seeming death of common sense. If one is raised in a society that has religious underpinnings that subscribe to a certain morality, it stands to reason that a moral society and culture will largely result from it.

If one is raised in a secular society with no over-arching structure of instilling morality, then it seems obvious that a larger percentage of that society will develop in either a morally relativistic or amoral way. And yes, Ryan, that is a generalization and not necessarily all-encompassing.

T. Paine,

Thank you for your response. I find it difficult responding to it, though. I sincerely hope you will take my advice on Wikipedia. It is easy to find information on a wide range of topics but, at best, it's a third-hand source. I encourage you to seek out other sources or even look up the sources listed under 'References' in many wikipedia pages. The closer you get to first-hand sources the better you make your argument.

That said: I'm finding it difficult reconciling your original comment on Morality, your blog post you reference and reality. I do not understand, still after reading your own blog article, what you mean or what you find offensive re: You're Morality vs Society. I am uncertain of how you've come to determine that society leads to Nihilism.

"It is the moral relativism of the secular society today that has no objective standard of morality so consequently anything and everything is acceptable." - From your original post above. " This is a belief that comes about when one accepts the premise of moral relativism as being true. Since moral beliefs and judgments are all relative to the individual or group and there is no overarching standard of reference, all moral conversations are meaningless. Morality is a relative thing and therefore the definition of it is abandoned. It is a belief in nothingness." -- Your definition of Nihilism from the blog post you cited.

Help me understand. Moral Relativism = A. Nihilism = B. A = B. Moral Relativism = Nihilism.

From your same blog post, the one you referenced, a paragraph below your definition of Nihilism, you write: "For those that know me or have read my blog for any length of time at all, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that I fall into the moral absolutism category, as it is my considered opinion that the belief in moral relativism creates the slippery slope that invariably ends with a belief in nihilism and a certain kind of secular totalitarianism."

You are telling me that those who do not believe as you, Moral Absolutism, than invariably they believe in nothing or nothingness.

Since Philosophy hurts my head, I move on to something more up my alley, History: Middle Ages - The Catholic Church being the originator of the University System is arguable. You've listed some places of education, all of which are European. Perhaps in your original comment you meant to say something along the lines of 'The Catholic Church founded the European University System'? There are certainly older examples of education systems predating the UNiveristy of Bologne. For Example: The University of Karueein http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485494/Qarawiyin

Next: Catholicism - I guess I will have to take your word on the whole literal interpretation point you made. I asked where I could learn more on this, so I guess you leave it up to me to research and learn more on my own.

Your point about it being the ONLY Christian faith until Martin Luther, and yes ONLY in all capital letters, I can't let pass though. That is patently untrue and you should know that. Before the Lutheran Reformation there was this thing called the East-West Schism. The split from the Roman Catholic Church of Eastern Orthodoxy; This was in 1054 AD http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587056/Schism-of-1054. Of course there's also the Council of Nicea, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm which kind of codified Catholic Dogma, but that was in 323 AD. It can be reasoned to believe that prior to 323 AD Christian thought on faith and practices varied.

Oh and an unbroken chain of apostolic successors? You should read up on the Western Schism sometime. Remember hearing about Popes and Anti-Popes? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640848/Western-Schism
But all of this is just a distraction and a quibble, I was going to let it pass but just couldn't help myself!

Evolution: You're saying a lot of stuff here. A lot of stuff. You cite nothing. Nada. To build the house that is your scientific argument, you need bricks made of data and sources. Right now, all of these, are just words without foundation. You are forcing me to do the research in an effort to verify what you typed up. And you know what? I can not find it. The interpretation of Macro- and Microevolution that you are using... I can not find it. Rather, I should say, I can not find it in science resources. Is the sticking point Speciation? Because of you I've learned more about macro- and microevolution than I have ever known. It's pretty fascinating. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (Fair warning, as far as I can tell, this organization exists to refute anti-evolutionary claims so take it as you will)

To conclude: I do not wish to come off like I'm 'attacking', as it seems a lot of my comments tend to come after your own comments. Your comments and posts inspire me to respond and inspire within me a desire to initiate a conversation. When I comment, I'm trying to inspire that within you and the rest of the community here at FU. Please, though, I implore of you: When you post and comment- Don't make statements like 'Many scientists are making a shift...' or 'Many psychologists are trying to explain...' without cited sources. These sources would ideally be where these Scientists or Psychologists or whatever the noun is in the assertion you are making actually do the things you say they are doing. MANY READERS have noticed you have a habit of making those kinds of statements without sources backing it up. Unfortunately, I don't have a source to back up my last sentence... so you can't verify if it's true or not. Lacking that evidence, you'll dismiss it as false. :)

Your statement, T. Paine, lamenting "the seeming death of common sense" could probably be true if that society were small, like-minded and in a vacuum of solitude. Unfortunately, in reality, our society is an amalgam of many different groups of people with various underpinnings (Religious or otherwise). There are majorities and minorities of beliefs. So society has evolved to accommodate, as best it can, as much as is fair (At least OUR society). At least that is what common sense tells me. However, what's common to me may not be common to you? Different strokes!

T. Paine,

We are in agreement over your most recent comment. However, you have constructed a scenario that is biased in favor of religion, such that it no longer supports your point.

Here is the original point:

"It is through such various religious faiths that one is more likely to be rooted or at least have a fundamental understanding of morality."

You cannot prove this by comparing a religious society with good values and structures to teach them to a secular society "with no over-arching structure of instilling morality."

You must instead prove it by comparing a religious society with good values and structures to teach them to a secular society with good values and structures to teach them -- or somehow show that such a secular society is impossible whereas such a religious society is not.