tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post3010317724276852042..comments2023-09-21T03:35:55.369-07:00Comments on Ohio University Skeptic Society: The Catholic Church gets it wrong AgainSam Greenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12940556461298318627noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-63512611420926232592009-04-01T12:01:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:01:00.000-07:00That religious trade-off, like the case was with e...That religious trade-off, like the case was with evolution, would need to be able to be constructed so that it is consistent with the world-view he has adopted. Change will need to be made, but it must be veiled, or made to seem as if it is not a "real" change, but merely aligning one's beliefs with the truth of God. One needs the scientific data, as you say, as it is necessary for the change.<BR/><BR/>AIDS became to be a problem in the early 80s. As other factors (scientific development, for example) now progress at a higher rate, I would hope that if a solution to this problem, if one is at all practically possible, will be reached more quickly.<BR/><BR/>& if it cannot be done through some Kantian argument about means & ends or some utilitarian consideration of earthly human suffering, what should our response then be? I've no clue myself.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00668237445239789106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-29857893625631276002009-04-01T11:46:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:46:00.000-07:00To convince the pope it would certainly have to be...To convince the pope it would certainly have to be on his terms - I just don't know if that is possible. Maybe, just maybe, we could try to convince him of the facts that have to do with the effect of condoms on the HIV epidemic, then given that hope he'll consider a religious trade off. I really don't know if he could be sold on a utilitarian argument - but damn, I'm just at a loss.Davidhttp://ouskeptics.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-23312608643534954352009-04-01T11:09:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:09:00.000-07:00That is, I think that it is rather obvious who is ...That is, I think that it is rather obvious who is right & who is wrong on the issue(s) which we can reach a conclusion on in this case. On my view, the most interesting & important issue here is how to change the situation. Approaching the Pope with a stack of scientific papers or telling him his beliefs are (on our view) immoral won't accomplish anything.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00668237445239789106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-60508133453372188552009-04-01T10:58:00.000-07:002009-04-01T10:58:00.000-07:00Monster comment:I'm assuming that the Pope has...Monster comment:<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that the Pope has certain religious precepts which he might hold dear & be justified in (& I would think we should assume this is so), & which form the basis for how he evaluates of the world. Thus I think that even if you were to criticize his views based on medical evidence which runs contrary to his medical claims he could hold his position without having to discount that evidence, as that bit is ancillary to his main concern: the moral status of an action & the consequence that has for a person's soul.<BR/><BR/>I would think that on his view no amount of harm to the physical body could be said to outweigh a blemish on one's soul. One cannot jail him for making comments based in ignorance or stop him from doing so, especially when he appears to have done nothing that could ever be construed as criminal (except possibly in our "if only" worlds). I, & I think most of the authors & readers of this blog, would agree that what he has done was terribly wrong on some level. However, one must, I think, be able to convince him on his own terms or present him with a new way of looking at the issue that does not significantly stray from his pre-existing beliefs, unless they are at root wrong, as we cannot show his moral concerns to be wrong in the way we can show his scientific claims to be.<BR/><BR/>The Church's current position on evolution, despite being inconsistent with former papal decrees, was adopted in the face of evidence, along with recent pronouncements on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, & a surprising number of once thought to be important moral prohibitions were lifted due to changing moral climes. These were certainly changes in beliefs, some drastic. However, in order for these changes to be accepted & decreed they needed to be formulated into a sensible form within the framework of Catholic belief. They were not adopted merely because of overwhelming evidence or public whim.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, that is why I think that this needs to be solved in this manner. I could be wrong, as this is nothing but personal conjecture, but I think it is borne out. You are right in re-phrasing the problem I myself attempted to express which really takes to task the suggestion I made. I'm not sure if my route (an attempt to shift the end of the action & thus its moral significance) is best, or if other routes could be more valuable.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00668237445239789106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-11628271317309738982009-04-01T09:05:00.000-07:002009-04-01T09:05:00.000-07:00Steve,I know what you're saying, and it's an inter...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I know what you're saying, and it's an interesting solution. However, I think the Catholic Church would respond to only considering condoms as AIDS prevention by saying that condoms are only used during sex, and sex is only used for reproduction, so it can't be said that they have a use other than contraception. Let me know what you think.<BR/><BR/>-DavidDavidhttp://ouskeptics.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-20746848295851488852009-03-30T20:08:00.000-07:002009-03-30T20:08:00.000-07:00Sorry about that. Decided to post only what I thou...Sorry about that. Decided to post only what I thought most interesting instead of just hoping the rest of the text I posted wouldn't distract from it.<BR/><BR/>Leaving aside observations on his personal moral worth, I think a question worth posing is whether or not the Pope must prohibit the usage of condoms even after assuming orthodox Catholic precepts as true. On the Pope's view (if I am correct in describing it), the use of condoms is a moral wrong because they are towards contraception. However, in the case of distributing condoms to parts of Africa where the population is experiencing an AIDS epidemic, it would seem that the condoms are not being used towards or for contraception, but towards or for the prevention of transmission of a disease gripping the population. I think that this change of the moral situation could be significant enough to make the use of condoms permissible in AIDS-afflicted African communities. Of course, on the Pope's view the resulting contraception is a regrettable side-effect of condom use, but one would not think that the use of medications which make one sterile in order to save one's life would constitute a moral wrong on the Pope's view. The only problem which I think one would need to solve is that which Bhavasindhu dasa raised, or at the least alluded to: that the actions during which one would use a condom towards preventing the transmission of AIDS are very wrong in themselves if one adopts the Pope's beliefs. I cannot see an easy solution, but perhaps there is one (even if it isn't easy).Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00668237445239789106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4711433352175875700.post-63476808907099675122009-03-30T14:16:00.000-07:002009-03-30T14:16:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00668237445239789106noreply@blogger.com