[Science] [Newscientist Articles] Science And Religion - Persistent Radioactive Discharge In Japan - Possible Cancer Cure

[Asheekay]

After an era of researchers and clergymen standing up against one another, now some of the the scientists are trying to bridge the gap between people of science and people of religion (not between science and religion, but people representing them) by discussing scientific finds with representatives of the religions.

This step is based on the fact that the public have always had their political say as to decide what type of research could be allowed in the country and which not (for example human cloning is not allowed in most countries due to public disapproval). Now some scientists are raising the question of discussing their scientific finds with religious people so that a new era of harmony between science and religion might be started.

Science and religion do not have to be at loggerheads - opinion - 26 October 2012 - New Scientist

After the last year's nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the fish
are still showing signs of elevated radioactive elements presence. Scientists are trying to find the reasons, but assure that its not anything to start panicking at.

Radiation still high in Fukishima fish

After groping in the abyss of synthetic chemicals to fight cancerous cells, researchers have now found inactive dna codes to assemble new types of chemicals they have called nullomers. They have an outstanding ability of killing cancerous cells without affecting the healthy cells. So in the end, nature could be the answer of the test where the humans have failed.

Molecules 'too dangerous for nature' kill cancer cells - health - 25 October 2012 - New Scientist

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by First article

The last thing science needs is a reputation for elitism and for riding roughshod over the concerns of religious communities. No government has ever got away with that for long – and there is no reason to think that science will either.

...Other than three centuries or so of triumphantly riding roughshod over the concerns of religious communities and the concurrent global rise in atheism mentioned earlier in the article. The day scientists are afraid of the repercussions of defying religious authorities is a sad day indeed, a slide back to the dark ages which must never be misrepresented as some shared victory of common humanity. Any concept of a compromise between scientific exploration and the absolute demands of religious ignorance is inherently nonsensical as anyone who understands the nature of either worldview should realise.

But good news about the cancer research!

[Asheekay]

It does not mean that science would be nose-led by religious representatives or that they would be able to limit scientific research or to direct it.

It implies however, that if scientists and religious representatives discuss scientific findings together, they might be able to explain things in a manner that does not offend the religious sentiments of people.

For example, statistics saying that majority of scientists believe in the big bang model of beginning of universe does not offend anyone. But if a scientist comments that the big bang theory automatically proves the absence of God, it would definitely offend many people.

Religious people are never offended by scientific research (in fact many of them are scientists themselves). Its the claim that xyz fact proves that abc religious belief is invalid that offends them.

Oh and religion does not shun scientific knowledge. You would find many Muslim, Christian and Jew scientists of global fame. In fact in Islam it has been declared the divine duty of every Muslim man and woman to continue seeking knowledge from the cradle to the grave.

[Nemmerle]

This sounds less like a cause for scientists and more like a cause for a good PR firm.

That said, religion's not really that big a deal in UK. Or, in my experience, in much of Europe. It's more like, well....

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by Asheekay

It does not mean that science would be nose-led by religious representatives or that they would be able to limit scientific research or to direct it.

It implies however, that if scientists and religious representatives discuss scientific findings together, they might be able to explain things in a manner that does not offend the religious sentiments of people.

For example, statistics saying that majority of scientists believe in the big bang model of beginning of universe does not offend anyone. But if a scientist comments that the big bang theory automatically proves the absence of God, it would definitely offend many people.

I don't see that trained scientists need to consider religious people with no scientific knowledge as an authority on what their research does and doesn't disprove. I'm not sure what reason they have to go out of their way to keep religious people happy, either. As I say, I think science has been doing OK for the last couple of centuries without the need for navel-gazing about its relationship with religion. All signs are that this will continue into the future.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Emperor Benedictine

I don't see that trained scientists need to consider religious people with no scientific knowledge as an authority on what their research does and doesn't disprove. I'm not sure what reason they have to go out of their way to keep religious people happy, either. As I say, I think science has been doing OK for the last couple of centuries without the need for navel-gazing about its relationship with religion. All signs are that this will continue into the future.

Religious people still claim a monopoly on moral behavior guidelines, so in that respect they can be an obstacle to science. I guess it is good if there is some communication between the parties. It would be even better if someone would clue the religious guys in that atheists have been capable of moral behavior for a while as well.

[Emperor Benedictine]

Communication is one thing. Trying to appease religious groups by pretending they have anything serious to contribute is just a head-in-sand exercise. If they're fanatical enough to pose an obstacle to science then it's doubtful they're going to listen to a well-reasoned argument for the morality of whatever area of research they've decided to condemn.

In the end one either thinks that the practice and evaluation of science should be limited by the self-proclaimed moral arbiters of religion, or that religion must leave just science alone altogether. There isn't any more amicable arrangement than these. So I think what will be most productive in the long run is to try to make clear the benefits of science and the absolute failure of religion to justify its presumed place in the "debate".

[Adrian Ţepeş]

Originally Posted by Emperor Benedictine

Communication is one thing. Trying to appease religious groups by pretending they have anything serious to contribute is just a head-in-sand exercise. If they're fanatical enough to pose an obstacle to science then it's doubtful they're going to listen to a well-reasoned argument for the morality of whatever area of research they've decided to condemn.

I agree, even though there are plenty of religious people out there who do "believe" in science (and evolution), you can never be too sure that they won't cherry-pick what is right and wrong. Not that only religious people do that, mind you.

Funny thing, my parents started attending an apologetics class at my former church a month or two ago and I sat in with them on the first day to see what kind of ammo they would have. Most of it was the stuff you'd expect: Deistic arguments that don't support one god over another, or very flimsy theistic arguments, but the really funny part is how some of the class members have this sort of luddite. An example was this one guy saying, "It's scary to think of those scientists messing around with cloning and stuff."

[Asheekay]

If non-scientific people should have no say in matters pertaining scientific research, governments would not take public pressure into counting when it concerns human cloning and some aspects of stem cell research. So maintaining that religious people should have no say in matters of scientific research would mean that you are favoring discrimination in this aspect as atheists would still have their say in the matter.

[Nemmerle]

I'm inclined to say that the ethics boards should be the main people with control over what scientists are allowed to do. I'll give up my say over the issue if in return religious people have to give up theirs, that's something I'm comfortable with - and people who have a higher standard of expertise decide the issue. Moral philosophers and the like.