Cardinal Speaks Out on Science

[TheBlackCat]

Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

Any comments? I personally think this is a valid and logical position for religious people to take.


Note: I'm posting this under the "12 C: Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion" rule, but if mods disagree please feel free to delete this topic. I cannot seeing this topic being offensive and I hope it won't lead to offensive discussions, but once again if a mod disagrees feel free to delete the topic.

[Enzp]

Of course it is. But do the faithful listen with their ears open? Not long ago I was in a discussion with a young person, and we touched upon evolution. She assured me that because she was Catholic, she didn't believe in evolution. I suggested she read the Pope's own message regarding the matter, but she was not open to even going that far if it contradicted what she wanted to believe.

[Ken G]

I think Enzp touches on an important problem, which plagues religions as much as it does science. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! Scientists are often frustrated at how uneducated people can take up a few scientific-sounding words to make up smokescreen-science explanations that are obvious bunk. But do we stop and consider at how frustrating it must be for people of faith when droves of zealots make all kinds of misrepresentations of the religions they purport to follow? In my experience, there are very few truly religious people, including Christians, maybe especially Christians. True religions are extremely challenging to follow, and all too often religions serve merely as a way to draw that ever-present line between "us" and "them", rather than serving as an "expert voice on humanity" in practice. But that is not the fault of the religions, or the truly religious, and I feel that scientists should avoid such line-drawing also, so I agree with the sentiment of the OP.

[devilmech]

I used to be religious, although Bertrand Russell kind of made me lose it, but even coming from a non-religious standpoint as I do now, I do think that if properly used, science can benefit religion, and vice versa.

Since they are really two completely different fields, neither one has to contradict the other. InCatechism of the Catholic Church, the official text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, it's stated in section 159 that, "There can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason." and "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with faith".

I use Christianity because it is what I am most familiar with apart from Buddhism, and true Buddhism cannot be considered a religion. Any Christian with a little bit of intelligence will take much of the content of the bible in the sense it was meant to be taken, allegorically, metaphorically, etc. As such, nothing prevents the biblical world view from conflicting with evolution. Again, I use evolution as it is the main area where science and religion seem to clash. True macroevolution(i.e., common ancestry, descent with modification, etc.) can be taken as the process by which an intelligent Creator brought about life. Provided those of religious persuasion can accept science for what it is, observation and experimentation into how our universe works, science can shed light on many areas of religious study, particularly genesis.

As for religion having benefit to science, it has benefit in the sense that persons of religion have provided us with many scientific advancements such as the gregorian calendar which we use today, given to us by Pope Gregory. There are various other scientific accomplishments made by religious figures, some of which would never have been made had the person in question not been religious.

To put it shortly, science is not the devil, and religion need not hamper scientific advancement.Theoretically, we can all play together nicely. Practically, the situation is a bit different, with evangelical fundamentalists opposing the biological sciences at every opportunity, and scientists pointing fingers at religion instead of finding avenues that would allow them to explain things in ways that the typical religious person might understand and agree with. It reminds me of a quote I saw on the forum a day or two ago from the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

[Maksutov]

[edit]To put it shortly, science is not the devil, and religion need not hamper scientific advancement.Theoretically, we can all play together nicely. Practically, the situation is a bit different, with evangelical fundamentalists opposing the biological sciences at every opportunity, and scientists pointing fingers at religion instead of finding avenues that would allow them to explain things in ways that the typical religious person might understand and agree with.

Since when is it required of science to couch its information in religion-friendly terminology? Plus I don't recall "scientists pointing fingers at religion", instead scientists deal with objective evidence, and unfortunately some of that evidence, both historical and current, has to do with the suppression of science by various dogmatic belief systems.

It reminds me of a quote I saw on the forum a day or two ago from the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

What Strother Martin, as the Captain of Road Prison 36, actually says is, "What we've got here is...failure to communicate." Science has been communicating its discoveries for centuries. Finally a portion of one religion has decided to listen.

[Ken G]

Yet what devilmech says is still true-- science is a human endeavor, and as such, must appeal to humans or humans will discontinue endeavoring in it. Science is here by virtue of its benefits to humanity, not by virtue of being "right". It is true that scientific discovery may represent the highest achievement of humanity, but it also may represent its downfall if we cannot couple intellectual and technological growth with growth in wisdom and a sense of connectedness with the universe we study. Science is our chance to understand our master the universe, not an opportunity to master the universe. Such an attitude, I am convinced, is utter folly for so immature a species as humanity. At least religion starts at a place of having a master rather than being a master-- science does have something to learn from (true) religion.

[Ken G]

And note JessM has brought to our attention this quote by none other scientific authority than the legendary Albert Einstein:
"Science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind."

Personally, I wouldn't say that faith and science could ever be married, they have too little in common. Rather they can inform each other, like separate branches of government. Checks and balances, that sort of thing.

[Maksutov]

Yet what devilmech says is still true-- science is a human endeavor, and as such, must appeal to humans or humans will discontinue endeavoring in it. Science is here by virtue of its benefits to humanity, not by virtue of being "right". It is true that scientific discovery may represent the highest achievement of humanity, but it also may represent its downfall if we cannot couple intellectual and technological growth with growth in wisdom and a sense of connectedness with the universe we study. Science is our chance to understand our master the universe, not an opportunity to master the universe. Such an attitude, I am convinced, is utter folly for so immature a species as humanity. At least religion starts at a place of having a master rather than being a master-- science does have something to learn from (true) religion.

Wrong. Very weak straw man, plus a false dichotomy. Science is about knowing, not "mastering".

This is reminiscent of the religionists claiming exclusive rights to ethics. To quote Sportin' Life in Porgy and Bess, "It ain't necessarily so".

BTW, what's (true) religion?

[Maksutov]

And note JessM has brought to our attention this quote by none other scientific authority than the legendary Albert Einstein:
"Science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind."[edit]

"Appeal to Misleading Authority" logical fallacy.

Einstein's pronouncements on religion are about as useful and meaningful as various theologians' pronouncements on science.

[Zogski]

They should all read Thomas S. Kuhn.

[devilmech]

Since when is it required of science to couch its information in religion-friendly terminology? Plus I don't recall "scientists pointing fingers at religion", instead scientists deal with objective evidence, and unfortunately some of that evidence, both historical and current, has to do with the suppression of science by various dogmatic belief systems.

It's not required to make science religion-friendly, but in the interest of progress. You may not "recall" scientists pointing finger at religion, but that is exactly what you're doing. It doesn't matter what has been suppressed, what matters is that we educate religious people so that they'll understand that there isn't a need to suppress science. Otherwise, many diseases may never be cured, much information may never be dug up. Putting religion on the defensive will never get stem cell research expanded, will never allow cloning to become useful for human medicine. Perhaps you'd rather our children receive inadequate education in high school biology because people erronously believe teaching evolution will warp their children's minds.

Religion isn't the problem, communication is, and unless science "couches it's information in religion-friendly terminology", there will continue to be a lack of communication, and by proxy, a lack of progress in many areas of science which could produce immeasurable benefit to humanity.

[Ken G]

"Appeal to Misleading Authority" logical fallacy.

Einstein's pronouncements on religion are about as useful and meaningful as various theologians' pronouncements on science.

Poppycock. Not another one of the "fallacy" spouters, please! Here's the logical fallacy I would add to the list: the fallacy of spouting fallacies in place of an actual argument.

In fact, the mindsets of successful scientists is an important aspect of doing science. Science is a human endeavor, how many times must that simple fact be repeated before the "purists" clue in?

[Ken G]

It's not required to make science religion-friendly, but in the interest of progress... Religion isn't the problem, communication is

Perhaps another way to say this is, scientists should not hamper their definitions (which are designed for clarity) by trying to incorporate ideas that sound less alien to faith-based thinkers, but they should avoid making sweeping generalizations about the impact of their definitions and concepts. It can be stated simply: science should stay within the confines of science, just as should religion.

The main fear of the faith-minded that could lead to the problems devilmech mentions is not scientific discovery, it is the philosophy of materialism and determinism that can stem from scientific discovery. Religious people are in a precarious position, they want to know the truth because they have faith in their view of the universe, but they don't want to know the truth if it upsets their comfortable ignorance. So do you shove the truth down their throats simply because it's the truth? You'd make a lousy doctor, if that's your attitude. Instead, you first have to get them in a position to handle the truth. That means you teach them the meaning of a scientific truth, and let them believe whatever they want. If you can get them to admit that according to science, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and reject creationism as a science, you're work is done. You don't need them to disavow any belief that the Earth is actually 6000 years old, you only need them to know that it isn't science! And, you need to ask them if they are going to drive over a bridge that is built using scientific principles, or one that uses creationism to make the bridge. At that point, you are finished, there is no need for further discussion of their beliefs. And there is no need to characterize scientific truth as absolute truth, it simply isn't necessary! Why not focus on the accomplishable objective I've outlined, which is in fact the only self-consistent application that science permits.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov
"Appeal to Misleading Authority" logical fallacy.

Einstein's pronouncements on religion are about as useful and meaningful as various theologians' pronouncements on science.

Poppycock. Not another one of the "fallacy" spouters, please! Here's the logical fallacy I would add to the list: the fallacy of spouting fallacies in place of an actual argument.

If what you've written is a logical fallacy, then it's a logical fallacy, no matter how much you either object to it or fail to recognize it. Calling that which points out the fallacy "poppycock" just helps make my point.

For example: "the fallacy of spouting fallacies in place of an actual argument". That describes the fallacious components of your statements quite nicely. Thank you.

An essential part of a meaningful discussion is the requirement for participants to be able to spot logical errors. This is a result of the use of critical thinking. When a participant who has employed logical errors goes into denial, as you have now done, then the discussion becomes unproductive, as this one has become.

In fact, the mindsets of successful scientists is an important aspect of doing science. Science is a human endeavor, how many times must that simple fact be repeated before the "purists" clue in?

All of which means what? If you're referring to the personal lives and philosophies of scientists, then, guess what, they're humans too, with all the attendant shortcomings such a condition entails. But one should not confuse the person with the science they do. The personal lives of scientists are one thing, the results of their research and experiments are another, separate thing.

[Ken G]

An essential part of a meaningful discussion is the requirement for participants to be able to spot logical errors. This is a result of the use of critical thinking.

How interesting is it then, that the only aspect of what I said that you chose to leave out of your quote was actually the only part where I made my case? Hmm? This is just what I mean about fallacy spouting, it's like you think this is a competition. High school debator, am I right? This is the fallacy of spouting fallacies. Every statement can be construed as incorporating a logical fallacy of some sort, if that is your goal. Want an example? OK, I'll choose the easiest one. Citing logical fallacies falls under the logical fallacy of assuming that logic is the only path to reaching a valid conclusion, when in fact it is the path to a logical conclusion. So in effect, you are stating that the only discourse of importance is a logical one. Are you Spock? That is a fallacy, I thought Star Trek covered that quite well. Nevertheless, it's a bit unfair of me to quote that fallacy (as it would imply that I too was trying to win some kind of competition), as it seems natural for you to conclude that the only type of discourse we would be embarking on here was a logical one. Not true of course, but I'll play by those rules since they are pretty well agreed upon, and return to my original point that you ducked-- how exactly do you characterize Einstein as, how did you put it, a "misleading authority" on the foibles and limitations of science? I kinda missed that "logic".

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov
Since when is it required of science to couch its information in religion-friendly terminology? Plus I don't recall "scientists pointing fingers at religion", instead scientists deal with objective evidence, and unfortunately some of that evidence, both historical and current, has to do with the suppression of science by various dogmatic belief systems.

It's not required to make science religion-friendly, but in the interest of progress. You may not "recall" scientists pointing finger at religion, but that is exactly what you're doing.

Really? Referring to historical facts is finger-pointing? Well, I guess we need to rewrite history so it's friendlier to non-scientific pursuits, eh?

BTW, I asked for examples of this (i.e., scientists pointing a finger at religion, which I take to mean "unjustified accusations") but so far, no meaningful evidence.

It doesn't matter what has been suppressed, what matters is that we educate religious people so that they'll understand that there isn't a need to suppress science. Otherwise, many diseases may never be cured, much information may never be dug up. Putting religion on the defensive will never get stem cell research expanded, will never allow cloning to become useful for human medicine. Perhaps you'd rather our children receive inadequate education in high school biology because people erronously believe teaching evolution will warp their children's minds.

Nice straw man. The fundamentalists, who as an article of belief will never accept anything scientific that contradicts their beliefs, are already well along on the road of doing what you described, plus it's current practice in religious schools and that wonderful euphemistic institution, "home schooling".

It's up to each individual to figure out what they hold as true. If a person's mind has been taken over by dogma, then there's not much that the educational process can do. Presenting science in a context that affirms dogma won't help at all. Only the individual can break free of such constraints. Having access to unadulterated scientific information typically aids immensely in gaining such freedom.

Prostituting science in the name of religious harmony will result in one thing only, the dilution of science to the point of ineffectiveness. BTW, this is the whole point and plan of the "Intelligent Design" folks, and is a key component of their "wedge" strategy.

Religion isn't the problem, communication is, and unless science "couches it's information in religion-friendly terminology", there will continue to be a lack of communication, and by proxy, a lack of progress in many areas of science which could produce immeasurable benefit to humanity.

On the contrary, religion is the problem, as has been demonstrated quite well over the past 500 years (or ~2200 years if you count what happened to the Ionian scientists). As the Cardinal implied, it's time for less preaching and more listening and thinking.

[Maksutov]

How interesting is it then, that the only aspect of what I said that you chose to leave out of your quote was actually the only part where I made my case? Hmm? This is just what I mean about fallacy spouting, it's like you think this is a competition. High school debator, am I right? This is the fallacy of spouting fallacies. Every statement can be construed as incorporating a logical fallacy of some sort, if that is your goal. Want an example? OK, I'll choose the easiest one. Citing logical fallacies falls under the logical fallacy of assuming that logic is the only path to reaching a valid conclusion, when in fact it is the path to a logical conclusion. So in effect, you are stating that the only discourse of importance is a logical one. Are you Spock? That is a fallacy, I thought Star Trek covered that quite well. Nevertheless, it's a bit unfair of me to quote that fallacy (as it would imply that I too was trying to win some kind of competition), as it seems natural for you to conclude that the only type of discourse we would be embarking on here was a logical one. Not true of course, but I'll play by those rules since they are pretty well agreed upon, and return to my original point that you ducked-- how exactly do you characterize Einstein as, how did you put it, a "misleading authority" on the foibles and limitations of science? I kinda missed that "logic".

Ducked? What I wrote was

Einstein's pronouncements on religion are about as useful and meaningful as various theologians' pronouncements on science.

Perhaps you need a translation into general terms to understand this. It means, "Being an expert in one field doesn't automatically qualify a person as an expert in other fields." Got it?

Seems you're one "ducking" here, as you haven't answered my question posted earlier:

BTW, what's (true) religion?

But, considering the overall gist of your current post, in which you seem to be saying that conclusions don't have to be logical, then there's no point in any further replies. Enjoy your illogical, little world.

[Ken G]

Ducked? What I wrote was

Perhaps you need a translation into general terms to understand this. It means, "Being an expert in one field doesn't automatically qualify a person as an expert in other fields." Got it?

Seems you're one "ducking" here, as you haven't answered my question posted earlier:

But, considering the overall gist of your current post, in which you seem to be saying that conclusions don't have to be logical, then there's no point in any further replies. Enjoy your illogical, little world.

Arrogant to the end. I am not surprised, but what you must realize, is that when people like you are making the case for scientists, our chances go way down.

[SolusLupus]

Okay, I'm going to get this out of the way before I forget about it. I might add that I haven't read through the other posts, so sorries if I just repeated a previous point.

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb...

I disagree with that particular idea of the Atomic Bomb. Scientific reason proclaims that people can die from radiation and bombs. They could also predict that if everyone got involved in nuclear warfare, everyone would die. Science then could say that this would be the end of the Human race. So... since we don't want to die, Science by itself could easily cause us to not want to use the nuclear bomb.

Also, the idea that we need spirituality to show us morality is a myth. I see people picking and choosing what to believe according to their personal morality. For instance, focusing on biblical messages of peace is more acceptable today than focusing on biblical messages of war. This denotes morality BEFORE belief, NOT after.

...and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

There's little benefit to cloning human beings. Our wish is not to focus on cloning humans, but instead to clone body parts and organs so far. Cloning humans are entirely inefficient. To deny research towards cloning in the name of religion is to deny life to those people that could do with a replacement heart, kidney, etc.

[grant hutchison]

If what you've written is a logical fallacy, then it's a logical fallacy, no matter how much you either object to it or fail to recognize it.

The trouble with some of the so-called "logical fallacies" is that they have rather limited roots in logic. They're at best a means of identifying where the argument lies, rather than conclusive arguments in themselves.
Saying "straw man", for instance, is a non-argument: I have to say why I think my opponent has raised a straw man, while my opponent will almost certainly argue that his/her claims have substance.
"Appeal to misleading authority" similarly has no logical strength to overturn an argument. There is no logical reason that a person's lack of experience or expertise in some matter will prevent them from ever uttering a true statement about that matter, or indeed prevent them from being able to encapsulate that truth in a pithy summary that's worthy of quotation. To win the argument, you must address the statement itself and ignore its provenance.
The use of these dubious manoeuvres as "trump cards" in order to skip out of real discussion has unfortunately become so rife among some sceptic groups that it's pretty much counterproductive to wheel them out. Far better, IMO, to go straight to your disagreement with what your opponent has said.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

The use of these dubious manoeuvres as "trump cards" in order to skip out of real discussion has unfortunately become so rife among some sceptic groups that it's pretty much counterproductive to wheel them out. Far better, IMO, to go straight to your disagreement with what your opponent has said.

I couldn't agree more, although I do apologize to Maksutov for this being such a raw nerve with me. Grant Hutchison has put it much better, and more cool headedly. But I further add, that this thread is about the complementary nature of science and religion, and hence must admit of points of view that are not solely rooted in logic (even if that were possible, as Grant points out), but rather are rooted in certain valuable elements of human nature.

So... since we don't want to die, Science by itself could easily cause us to not want to use the nuclear bomb.

I think that Lonewulf's points are valid as far as they go, but they fall short of absolving science of its ethical responsibilities for things like the bomb. I am sure that people who participated in the Manhattan Project, for example, must have had to consider issues of ethics that are completely outside science and are not informed by science. Could we cite any scientific subfield in the determination of whether or not it was appropriate to build this weapon? To use it? It is true that religion can be used to justify horribly immoral acts, as history has shown, but I would argue this is a misapplication of religion, just as much as we would argue that ID is a misapplicaton of science. We cannot absolve ourselves of bad astronomy but hold religion responsible for bad religion-- the fact is, human morality has always been a key component of the mission of the world's religions, and the extent to which they have succeeded or failed is a measure of the monumental difficulty of the task in the face of human foibles, more than it is a comment on religious people or religious institutions.

[SolusLupus]

To use it?

If you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm pretty sure I can use non-religious means to show how it was necessary and beneficial in the long run.

It is true that religion can be used to justify horribly immoral acts, as history has shown, but I would argue this is a misapplication of religion, just as much as we would argue that ID is a misapplicaton of science.

Ah, but here's where you prove my point again, and I'm glad you did!

People picked and quoted only what justified their personal vendettas, decisions, and land-grabbing. It was not religion that caused them to be violent, no. It was not religion that was the reason for the warfare, or for the land-grabs.

So why should I believe that religion causes ethics and morality? You've already shown that people decide how to use religion, not religion that decides hwo to use people.

Also, what parts of religion should I use? The parts that promote warfare and hatred and genocide and slavery? Or the parts that promote peace and love?

Why should I pick either/or? Shouldn't I buy all of it based primarily on it being the religionI subscribe to? No, what most people do is pick the parts that promote peace and love - then claim that that's what the religion itself is supposed to be all about.

People set their own rules. This has happened with religion and without. religion has not caused morality - morality, that we learn from SOCIAL, not RELIGIOUS means - is what has caused us to decide which to believe and which not to believe when it comes to religion.

[publiusr]

Science needs all the friends it can get inside or outside the pews. Only Nixon could go to china, so the more that people of faith go with the Cardinal, the better off we will be. Even M. Gardner--in the forward of Rudy Ruckers' book on the fourth dimension, said that while he didn't go for Rudys Tao approach, quoted a nice saying about how every man is entitled to his 'over-beliefs." Interesting quote.

[SolusLupus]

Science needs all the friends it can get inside or outside the pews.

Maybe, but never at the cost of science itself (ID would be an example of said "cost"). Nor should the teachings of any religion be thrust upon scientific or political actions.

[Ken G]

religion has not caused morality - morality, that we learn from SOCIAL, not RELIGIOUS means - is what has caused us to decide which to believe and which not to believe when it comes to religion.

Actually, I was not trying to argue that religion causes morality, any more than I would argue that science causes logic. You are right that morality, as well as logic, are human capabilities whose origins are deeply rooted in social and intellectual evolution of our species. But some point along the way, with both of these processes, humanity has tried to take it out of the hands of survival-based evolution and into the self-referential domain of a controlled feedback. We attempt to bootstrap these capabilities, artificially if you like, in the hopes of accelerating progress toward a beneficial direction. Religion has this mission with regard to morality, science has this mission with regard to the application of logic and quantitative reasoning to the understanding and mastery of physical principles. The success or failure of each will ultimately be measured by their impact on the survival of our species, make no mistake.

I think the OP has made the valid point that the complementary action of these missions, done properly, will maximize our chances of development in a positive direction, while the misapplication of either avenue could lead to hardship and calamity. That misapplication is a threat on both fronts, not just the religioius front, and animosity between the camps is beneficial for neither. I echo publiusr in that regard, even though I hear where Lonewulf's frustrations are coming from. I would suspect that the fine Cardinal may have similar frustrations aimed at things that have been done in the name of science, even if bad science. I won't go there here, but the list is not a pretty one.

[publiusr]

That's true of course. Let me give you an example. Here in Birmingham a Doctor of faith was on WERC and talked about how there was nothing unChristian about stem-cell research (which seems to be really coming along: http://www.terradaily.com/news/stemcells-05g.html). I forgot his name.

A unified fron from agnostics, people of faith, etc. makes for a unified front.

Preachers know verses, researchers know science--but politicians know **people** and it takes a lot to get politicos motivated so a unified front, even if folks disagree on things themselves, can be considered a step in the right direction--otherwise you win the arguement but lose the war. A unified front is a pragmatic approach to a more rational future.

[SolusLupus]

I would suspect that the fine Cardinal may have similar frustrations aimed at things that have been done in the name of science, even if bad science. I won't go there here, but the list is not a pretty one.

In the name of science, or in the name of political pressures? Also, please don't make a claim and back out on it.

Personally, I have my own personal dislikes for religion in the first place. I don't think it has much of a place outside of providing a group for people of like faiths to get together, for helping them to be able to provide charity for others, etc.

I don't think that religion should have any place in politics, as I said before - so I don't think that it has an application in the first place, for any major world-altering decisions.

science has this mission with regard to the application of logic and quantitative reasoning to the understanding and mastery of physical principles

You're oversimplifying science.

There's some other things that scientists are attempting to do. This includes:

Curing AIDS. Curing Cancer. Providing longer life.Trying to understand our bodies and minds, which would benefit medical research. Preventing suffering. Preventing disease.

These are a few of the morally fluent ideals of science.

Understanding physics can help us understand how to use it, and how it affects us and our lives.

Understanding the universe is the same, but in the same way, it's mainly a sense of wonder, but not to mention a sense of being able to answer the final question of, "Why are we here?". We've already answered "What are we?", though we are still developing upon the answer to that question, and adding more and more to it.

Meh, I got into a bit of a ramble. I'm not even sure if I'm arguing any more, instead of merely rambling.

[Ken G]

In the name of science, or in the name of political pressures? Also, please don't make a claim and back out on it.

Well, I didn't want to go here, but you are forcing me to bring up the Nazi experiments that were done in the name of the scientific understanding of how humans respond to various horrendous conditions. Obviously these were immoral, and not very valuable science either, but nevertheless they could be construed as science in the complete absence of any moral compass or any valuable purpose at all. That's certainly an obvious example, but generalizing the concept a bit brings other examples to light, such as the "science" of eugenics. Again, bad science, but still done in the name of science.

You're oversimplifying science.
There's some other things that scientists are attempting to do. This includes:
Curing AIDS. Curing Cancer. Providing longer life.Trying to understand our bodies and minds, which would benefit medical research. Preventing suffering. Preventing disease.
These are a few of the morally fluent ideals of science.

All very meritorious applications, I assure you, and not at all in conflict with the general definition I offered (by physical principles, I'm including all that is physical, not just "physics"). But remember, none of these pursuits are quintessentially scientific (which "ideals" are you referring to? Those don't sound like scientific ideals, which have to do with models of how the universe functions) in the sense that they are motivated by something that does not exist within the formal confines of scientific inquiry-- the desire to help, not just the desire to know. I would argue that is science plus something else, something uniquely human and very valuable, something that does not require religion but is nevertheless the area that religion has attempted to "bootstrap" in humans. Not always successfully, of course, but then refer to the "bad science" I referred to above.

Understanding the universe is the same, but in the same way, it's mainly a sense of wonder.

You have rightly identified my own personal bias in how I view science, and you are also correct that this is only a small piece. But I continue to hold that all science is definitively morally neutral. To add "morally fluent ideals" to science, you are going beyond science to something even more human, or even more of what we will need to be human if we're going to make it. So in fact you are not disagreeing with the spirit of the OP, only the method of reaching this important ideal. We can both agree on how crucial it is that we safeguard these morally fluent ideals, and I think this is an area where the majority of faith-based people would stand shoulder to shoulder with scientists, a la publiusr's point.

[Gillianren]

I would like to point out that what Pope actually said was, "A little learning is a dangerous thing," not "a little knowledge." The thing about a little learning, you see, is that it of necessity comes with a whole lot of ignorance.

There are a lot of religious scientists, though this does not in and of itself make religion right. However, it proves that there is no validity to the Fundamentalists' view of "atheistic science." Isn't evidence what's important?

Ah, but religion requires no evidence. And that alone is why I do not rely on it to tell me how the world works. As I've said before, I don't know how my sewing machine works, so how can I expect to know how the universe works?

What's more, there's a lot of Catholics who do turn to science for answers. I know; I'm related to quite a few of them. I'm just glad the Church is choosing to reinforce that.

[grant hutchison]

I would like to point out that what Pope actually said was, "A little learning is a dangerous thing," not "a little knowledge." The thing about a little learning, you see, is that it of necessity comes with a whole lot of ignorance.

It's certainly very confusing for the writings of a man called Pope to be drawn into this discussion!
To further split hairs, the quotation is actually "A little learning is a dang'rous thing ..." presumably because he was writing poetry and so had to fiddle with the metre. Interestingly (to me, at least) this quotation is given in the Oxford English Dictionary as an illustrative example of the usage of the word "learning", specifically under Meaning 3.a: "Knowledge ..."
Doesn't a little knowledge also come with a whole lot of ignorance?

Grant Hutchison