Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science, Gilbert's response.
Thank You very much, Gilbert! This is brilliant! I hope this will finally put a stop to all this idle and adversarial talk.' Much ado about nothing', I must say. I earnestly hope that the great? Santosh is the wiser and learns, how not to indulge in dirty ugly debating on goanet, and then go on and on. I think much of Santosh's debating should be subject to 'peer reviewed' analysis :-) :-), and after they will surely somehow conclude that this person needs some serious help from his peers? If such people have so much time on their hands they should go and work as medical or neuro medical missionaries among the downtrodden in the tribal belts of Orrissa and elsewhere, and prove in a practical way, that science can be applied to improve their lot!. Will Santosh take up the challenge, or continue being an adversary from his 'ivory tower'?? I rest my case! Nascy Caldeira Melbourne, Down Under. --- On Wed, 29/4/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Your reply to my request deserves the courtesy of a response. Your reply displays your skill to read and understand what is written. As a scientist, I would have expected better from you. To begin, both Religion and Science are very broad subjects. Yet, any intelligent individual will see the stretch in your logic in reading my statement below. A person with half-a-brain will know that religion is religion; and science is science. For some science is their religion. Figuratively speaking! For some religion could be their science; though I have never met one who makes that claim; and who cannot make that distinction. There may be some exceptions, in right wing conservative preachers. Stating that biology is a lot of chemical reactions, is it a claim that biology becomes chemistry? Stating that radiation oncology involves a study of radiation, is it a claim that radiation oncology is physics? Or to make is more easy for you, if I state that neuroscience involves a study of (electric) brain waves, is it a claim that neuroscience become electrical engineering? Regards, GL Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.. Enjoy a safer web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Nascy Caldeira nascy...@yahoo.com.au Thank You very much, Gilbert! This is brilliant! I hope this will finally put a stop to all this idle and adversarial talk.' Much ado about nothing', I must say. I earnestly hope that the great? Santosh is the wiser and learns, how not to indulge in dirty ugly debating on goanet, and then go on and on. I think much of Santosh's debating should be subject to 'peer reviewed' analysis :-) :-), and after they will surely somehow conclude that this person needs some serious help from his peers? If such people have so much time on their hands they should go and work as medical or neuro medical missionaries among the downtrodden in the tribal belts of Orissa and elsewhere, and prove in a practical way, that science can be applied to improve their lot!. Will Santosh take up the challenge, or continue being an adversary from his 'ivory tower'?? I rest my case! ***Thank you, dear Nasci, for your sincere and silent support. It is really disgusting to discuss with someone who is not open and does not address the issues that are raised in the discussion, but goes on quoting what suits him/her without a critical appraisal. Dr.Santosh rejects whatever Dr.Mario Beauregard has contributed, merely because it does not suit his materialist worldview. Science cannot prove empirically the existence of God, but it is not all, the end of all... Whatever can be confirmed historically and scientifically has to be accepted, because Christianity is a historical religion, not mythical. I hope we end this discussion with some light. It is going on for the last five years. My purpose was to disprove the denial of Christian truths in the name of Science, as superstition, figment of mind, hallucination, delusion. May God bless us and help us all! Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com Fr. Ivo appears to be not the least bit familiar with peer-reviewed medical scientific literature, and as a professional priest and theologian, clearly and understandably, does not have the background and training required to evaluate genuine scientific evidence and cutting-edge scientific research. Mario responds: As the voice of reason, truth and peace on Goanet, I declare that this is the understatement of the year on Goanet:-)) The fact is that it is virtually impossible to translate the very unique version of English being used by Padre Ivo, which he alone seems to understand perfectly, with the possible exception of Dotor Gilbert, who was seen to exult with pride recently that he and Padre Ivo had great minds that think alike:-)) All I can tell using my low level of English is that history and science and religion and context and perspective are all blended together like the masala in a chorizo. This was illustrated in: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/177103.html It is quite apparent that Padre Ivo's definition of science is quite different from what it means to most everyone else.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science, Gilbert's response.
Nascy Caldeira wrote: I rest my case! Nascy has tried to rest his case many times on Goanet. But he has not been successful. His case is a very serious one. It cannot be easily rested. Perhaps, an Indian vegetarian diet might help. Gilbert's chicken soup will only make it a more restless case. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net My personal belief is based on faith and some circumstantial evidence. All religions are based almost entirely on faith. Jane Gillian wrote: What is the purpose of any debate on the existence of God? Mario responds: This question should be addressed to Padre Ivo. Once I had convinced him that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, I thought the matter would end right there. However, he has persisted in trying to turn the English language upside down and use some popycock experiments by a Dr. Beauregard to try and use science to prove that God exists. ***Mario, you are misquoting and misinterpreting me. I only repeated that Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. It does not mean that our belief in God is just a figment of mind, without the reality of God, whom we come to know through reason and Revelation. Neuroscientific experiments of Dr.Mario Beauregard show the singularity of the 'mystical experiences', but do not prove the existence of God. Science cannot prove it, but the experiment shows that the experience is mediated by a reality outside the brain. Otherwise, it would be 'hallucination'... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:05:58 +0530 From: Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in I cannot study Theology without studying Science at all. Mario observes: Padre Ivo, With all due respect, if you are continuing to insist that the existence of God can be proven by science, after once agreeing that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, then, as Goanet's lone voice of reason, truth and peace, I am forced to conclude that you may have studied Theology and Science, but understood little of both. But he can discuss this topic without knowing Theology at all. Mario responds: I think if this discussion was about Theology you wouldn't hear a peep out of Santosh. Unfortunately, this discussion is not about Theology but about questionable experiments that are being passed off as scientific and bogus assertions that there is no conflict between religion and science. ***This long discussion has been triggered by posts of pseudo-science, coming from the scientist Dr.Santosh, who would disprove whatever would refer to God or religion in the name of Science. This is the answer: There is no conflict between Science and Theology. If I had understood little of both, I would have not argued in favour of harmony between the truth systems. I have understood better than Dr.Santosh and you what is the relationship between Science and historical Revelation, that prompts me to stand by my contention. You are misquoting and misunderstanding me. This is neither Science nor Theology... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Sun, 4/26/09, J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com wrote: He gave me additional reason to believe in my beliefs until he places #3 wherein he then goes on to say that we (should) we not take our beliefs too seriously. Hummh! Taking beliefs too seriously, in my opinion, is succumbing to excessive self-righteousness and over-zealousness. To the extent that one can believe over-zealously in the goodness of all normal human beings and that someone made a gaffe, I suppose my statement is applicable to these harmless beliefs of mine as well, or for that matter, this one. ***People have died for their Faith. This is their witness that they cling to a Reality (or to Somebody, God or Jesus). This is not 'self-righteousness' nor 'over-zealousness'. They have to take issues of faith and human freedom 'seriously'. You cannot believe 'over-zealously' in the 'goodness of all normal human beings'. Someone made a gaffe cannot go unpunished, particularly when it damages human life, dignity, safety. The human world is full of human and scientific gaffes... victimising humankind. We experience human greatness, side by side with human frailty. That is precisely the problem of human freedom, the mystery of Sin and Grace. Your 'belief' will not be 'harmless', since it does not correspond to the reality. Scientific statistics prove you wrong... Seriously though, I'd like to study the evidence Santoshbab refers to in #4 The two most thorough reviews on all the intercessory prayer studies published so far are: 1. Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, and Davison A (2009) Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, April 15,(2):CD000368. 2. Masters KS, Spielmans GI, and Goodson JT. (2006) Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1):21-6. ***Any thought or feeling can influence our health. So also any suggestion or prayer can have impact on our health and life. Even 'distant intercessory prayer' does have results. It does not necessarily mean that the incurable diseases will be cured. But it can ameliorate the situation. We have enough evidence in the prayer meetings. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com Dear Fr. Ivo, I had asked Santoshbab for evidence that 'Prayer does not work'. He referred me to two papers which I have not yet reviewed. When I review them, I will put them through the following series of evaluatory questions... Now ... you say you have evidence (possibly from your prayer groups) that prayer works. Would you please direct me (or someone else) to the 'evidence', so that it can be scientifically analysed? I belong to the set of individuals who believes that prayer helps them. However, for me to say that it is likely to help others, I will have to provide scientific proof. If I may say it Fr. Ivo, your posts epitomise why there is such a dichotomy between the Church and the Scientific community. And yet, many among the Scientists are Catholic. Look at your position on Homeopathy: I must say that it is astonishing. ***Homeopathy is working wonders, though it has its own limits just like any other medical system. It is not a panacea for all evils of the world. You can read the book of Dr.S.Chander Madan, Homeopathy Cures when Allopathy Fails, New Delhi, 2005, or you can speak to him. He will answer you better... I do not wish to discuss any more, since you know nothing about it. ( ps: this subject appears to be going nowhere. You, Fr Ivo, are taking an impossible stand. It looks unlikely that you are interested in dialogue. And that is unfortunate for me, a practising Catholic, to see that a Catholic priest is so intransigent. I have grown up in the Jesuit system which has taught me to reason and question matters which affect others. Your posts indicate a diametrically opposite philosophy. ***What do you want me to do: accept that homeopathy is 'bogus', that God is a delusion, that mystical experiences of the Carmelite nuns are 'hallucinations', that Science can explain every mystery of human existence, that Christian Faith is not historical, that Jesus is not the Son of God? All this is firmly established even more than the scientific Bigbang theory... We cannot state that intercessory prayer does not work. This is against Science. See the link www.heritage.com/research/religion/HL816.cfm I did not say that we can force God to cure us, but we pray and get any benefits of inner healing and peace. God will work miracles when he wishes to. Miracles cannot be subjected to double-blind trial. I am working for a dialogue between Science and Theology/Religion. You are resisting to dialogue. I am not 'intransigent', you are. I am speaking to you of something that is already established, you are skeptical. You need to learn more about it. There is no dichotomy between the Church and the scientific community... Vatican is working together with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. I have learnt not only to doubt and question, but also to research, find out and answer... One day next month, I will write about my encounters with Raul Gonsalves (the Bishop ...not the fake one generated by Rajan Narayan) on the matter of Family Planning. ***It is a very complex discussion from the medical and ethical viewpoint. Regards. Fr.Ivo == Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: [1] Regarding the power of the intercessory prayer, Dr.Santosh recognizes that evidence indicates that intercessory prayer does not work. [2] Is this belief or scientific proof? [3] We have evidence that it works... [4] Medical experiments do reveal it, from our prayer groups there is more than enough evidence...
[Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Hi Fr. Ivo and Mistry, Religion is one of the frequent threads on Goanet. Some of the most active discussants have recently shared with us their knowledge-base about the subject. Since you are active on this subject, you may be forced to respond to any serious or flip remark about religion.. Good luck in making that distinction. Here is a quote I recently read, Those who know a lot about every subject on earth, run the risk of not knowing when to shut up. While intelligent remarks may need a response, the blah ... blah should be ignored so that it flushes down the toilet on its own ... and faster the better. That is a major disadvantage of a sentence by sentence point rebuttal. For some, never-ending e-mails and being on Goanet is a jolly-good way to spend the whole day, while engaging in nothing more than posturing while stroking their ego. Yet this is not therapeutic to most intelligent individuals, who have better things to do, to keep their minds and hands occupied. Being pragmatic is both a state of mind and a sound strategy. Most progressive blogs, now engage in a lead article; followed by varying commentaries from all who care to write. The author does not respond to these comments; though likely they read them for some useful feedback. Clearly an authority cannot be expected to respond to every Tom, Dick and Harry. So I do not think that on Goanet, one needs to respond to every Joao, Caetano, ani Bosteaum ... however much bait they present ... and however articulate and peaceful they may proclaim themselves. So rather than waste your time on minor replies, I suggest that you work your skills in whatever you do to get to the top - Level 5 on the Jim Collins scale. This is done by developing a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. Jim Collins is the author of Good to Great and is mainly about executive skills. In Jim Collins description, the level 5 people / leaders are seemingly quiet people producing extraordinary results. Regards, GL -- Fr. Ivo C. de Souza Religion is a part and parcel of human history. We believe in God. Jesus has given us also the knowledge of God, his Father - Mistri Ganguli Similarly, Humans being animals (or is this speculation and conjecture as well) know that there are entities beyond our being (our existence is not the end of the chain of existence). Some call this superior existence - God, others just believe that there is a super power beyond our animal existence. One does not have to believe in Jesus as son of God to believe in God; we all are creatures of God.
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net As a practicing Catholic and a believer in objective science, it continues to boggle the mind when otherwise serious individuals confuse science and faith, which is the basis of religion. From: Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in But what is faith for you? Beliefs without any historical-scientific basis? Yes. For example, what historic or scientific basis can you cite for the Virgin Birth, The Holy Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, His Ascension into Heaven, and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven? ***Virginal conception of Jesus has a historical basis (cf.Mt 1:18-23). The Holy Trinity is based on the revelation of Jesus: God is his Father, Jesus is the Son, and after his death and Resurrection, Jesus sent the Spirit. Resurrection has a historical basis in the Gospel accounts, therefore, we do accept his Resurrection ( on the basis of the empty tomb and his appearances to the disciples), his ascension to heaven (to the Father). Mary is the first creature to share in the Resurrection of Jesus, she was taken to heaven, to the Father. What scientific basis can you cite for the existence of Heaven, or Hell? **Again, it is the teaching of Jesus, the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus is a historical person, he is the Redeemer. You can always study more details... Once I have accepted certain core beliefs based on certain circumstantial evidence, the rest is based on faith, without any objective scientific proof in either history or science. ***Historical-scientific evidence is there for core beliefs, for the Resurrection of Jesus, the foundation of the Christian Faith, for miracles, for 'dogmas' (official expression of the Christian Faith . To begin with, I try to focus on the essentials of Christ's teaching, which can all be summarized in a couple of pages. These are the Ten Commandments, especially the last seven, The Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount. ***You accept the teaching of Jesus, you accept him, as proposed by the Gospels. You have 'faith' in the historical person of Jesus. The rest means little to me. Most of it is designed to provide full employment and a good living for Padres and Madres. Except that I have far more respect for those Padres and Madres who toil tirelessly and endlessly and thanklessly in missions where they physically help those unable to help themselves. Those are the ones I try to help, not those who wear fancy clothes and Gucci shoes:-)) ***We need everything and everyone for our historical faith... Each one works according to his/her vocation. The engineer does his work, the mason does his... Both are needed for the building. The missionaries do their work, the bishops do theirs. It is 'missionary' work only for every Christian. All are needed for the building up of the Kingdom of God! What do you mean by the rest means little to me? Today we need also fancy clothes and Gucci shoes... These are the signs of the times! Why do you believe in God? To tell you the truth, it is based on my gut-feeling that something supernatural had to get the evolution of the universe started, that I can't reconcile the engineering complexities of living things and of thoughts and feelings and memories with simple evolution, and, finally, the fact that many eminent scientists have been unable disprove the existence of God. **You are right. Our Reason tells us. I also think that Science alone cannot explain the complexities of the Universe, the very beginning of the Universe. God is a 'structural dimension' of the human being. God has made us to his own likeness and similarity (Gen 1:27). Reason is illuminated by Faith: it tells us that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe in the teaching of Jesus, therefore I do believe in the existence of God, the Father. Is Science the only source of knowledge? Yes, if you want to know something for sure or within a certain rational probability. Otherwise it's all speculation and conjecture. ***Not at all. What about other truths? Can Science exhaust the truth, the whole Reality? Are all Sciences following the same method? Empirical sciences and the human sciences, the theological sciences? Christian faith is historical faith, not mythical, therefore it has historical-scientific basis. Not scientific, in the sense that it can be empirically proved, like physical phenomena, but in its historical background (as much as scientific test can do for the spiritual-supernatural phenomena with their sensible wrappings), its consequences, individual and societal... Religion tells us about God. Reason speaks to us. This is proof positive that you have no idea of what most people refer to as objective science. ***This is the proof positive that you do not understand what revealed Religion is, of what is historical Revelation, of what is the witness of the Gospels. In short, you do not see the difference...between empirical sciences and
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com I congratulate Mario on a lucid exposition of his faith-based beliefs, as well as a clear understanding of an absolute separation between science and religion, and of the scope and limits of both. I would recommend this type of clarity of thought to everybody. --- On Wed, 4/22/09, Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Once I have accepted certain core beliefs based on certain circumstantial evidence, the rest is based on faith, without any objective scientific proof in either history or science. Yes, if you want to know something for sure or within a certain rational probability. Otherwise it's all speculation and conjecture. ***There is rational probability also in the Revealed Religion. Religion has its reasons to believe. Therefore, the reality behind it is within 'rational probability. I know at least three atheists who do a lot of good for poor people who do not believe in God or Jesus, as well as hundreds of non-Christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. ***I do not believe that human being can do good without God's Grace. It does not mean that there is no effort on the part of human beings, nor that the law is not in human hearts. But we human beings need education. If everything is in the 'evolutionary growth of morality', why do we need research in ethics, in development of ethics, eductional processes? The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount make conventional common sense. They need no scientific proof. ***The teaching of Jesus is given to humanity. My point is precisely that there is no scientific-empirical proof for every tenet of Religion, but there is historical evidence to the factual events... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net From: Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in I cannot study Theology without studying Science at all. Padre Ivo, With all due respect, if you are continuing to insist that the existence of God can be proven by science, after once agreeing that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, then, as Goanet's lone voice of reason, truth and peace, I am forced to conclude that you may have studied Theology and Science, but understood little of both. ***Sorry, Mario, you have misunderstood me totally. You are completely wrong. This is neither voice of reason, nor of truth, nor of peace... I never said that the existence of God can be proven by science (empirically). I have repeated this basic tenet from the outset. God is not a natural pheonomenon. God is beyond all natural phenomena. God is a transcendent and immanent being, the ground of all reality, the beginning and the end. It does not mean that there is no relationship between Science and Theology. There is no conflict between them: because one truth cannot contradict another. There is harmony of life. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Mistri Ganguli misg...@googlemail.com Similarly, Humans being animals (or is this speculation and conjecture as well) know that there are entities beyond our being (our existence is not the end of the chain of existence). Some call this superior existence - God, others just believe that there is a super power beyond our animal existence. One does not have to believe in Jesus as son of God to believe in God - we all are creatures of God. ***Religion is a part and parcel of human history. We believe in God. Jesus has given us also the knowledge of God, his Father... Regards. Fr.Ivo .
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com Santosh Helekar wrote: [1] I believe in the goodness of all normal human beings, irrespective of creed. [2] I believe that that remark was just a thoughtless gaffe, the kind of which none of us are immune from. [3] But I think it is important that we not take our beliefs too seriously - that we not be excessively self-righteous or overzealous. [4] It might also be worthwhile to recognize that evidence indicates that intercessory prayer does not work. ***Dr.Santosh believes in the goodness of all normal humanbeings, irrespective of creed, but at the same time he thinks that it is important that we not take our beliefs too seriously... This is really serious statement... Regarding the power of the intercessory prayer, Dr.Santosh recognizes that evidence indicates that intercessory prayer does not work. Is this belief or scientific proof? We have evidence that it works... Medical experiments do reveal it, from our prayer groups there is more than enough evidence... Worldvision is important while evaluating the evidence. Regards. Fr.Ivo Dear all, It is interesting to note #s 1 2 supra where Santoshbab says he 'believes'. He gave me additional reason to believe in my beliefs until he places #3 wherein he then goes on to say that we (should) we not take our beliefs too seriously. Hummh! Seriously though, I'd like to study the evidence Santoshbab refers to in #4 sincerely jc
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Dear Fr. Ivo, I had asked Santoshbab for evidence that 'Prayer does not work'. He referred me to two papers which I have not yet reviewed. When I review them, I will put them through the following series of evaluatory questions a: How was the study sample collected? b: Was it random or consecutive? c: If it was random, how was the sample randomised? d: Was the study double-blind prospective or was it a retrospective analysis? e: What statistical tests were used in the analysis of the data? (remember ...some tests are weaker than others) f: What was the 'p' value? i.e. What was the probability that the result was obtained only by chance? Now ... you say you have evidence (possibly from your prayer groups) that prayer works. Would you please direct me (or someone else) to the 'evidence', so that it can be scientifically analysed? I belong to the set of individuals who believes that prayer helps them. However, for me to say that it is likely to help others, I will have to provide scientific proof. If I may say it Fr. Ivo, your posts epitomise why there is such a dichotomy between the Church and the Scientific community. And yet, many among the Scientists are Catholic. It is my personal belief that certain priests will drive away scientists (except the Yes-guys) away from the Church. Look at your position on Homeopathy: I must say that it is astonishing. Why would a learned person NOT wish to allow a scientific study of a discipline which might of benefit (or be a detriment) to other humans? I could advise you that a couple of law suits will probably do the trick. It certainly did that to Allopathy. sincerely jc ( ps: this subject appears to be going nowhere. You, Fr Ivo, are taking an impossible stand. It looks unlikely that you are interested in dialogue. And that is unfortunate for me, a practising Catholic, to see that a Catholic priest is so intransigent. I have grown up in the Jesuit system which has taught me to reason and question matters which affect others. Your posts indicate a diametrically opposite philosophy. One day next month, I will write about my encounters with Raul Gonsalves (the Bishop ...not the fake one generated by Rajan Narayan) on the matter of Family Planning. == Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: [1] Regarding the power of the intercessory prayer, Dr.Santosh recognizes that evidence indicates that intercessory prayer does not work. [2] Is this belief or scientific proof? [3] We have evidence that it works... [4] Medical experiments do reveal it, from our prayer groups there is more than enough evidence...
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:53:57 +0530 From: Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in Virginal conception of Jesus has a historical basis (cf.Mt 1:18-23). The Holy Trinity is based on the revelation of Jesus: God is his Father, Jesus is the Son, and after his death and Resurrection, Jesus sent the Spirit. Resurrection has a historical basis in the Gospel accounts, therefore, we do accept his Resurrection (on the basis of the empty tomb and his appearances to the disciples), his ascension to heaven (to the Father). Mary is the first creature to share in the Resurrection of Jesus, she was taken to heaven, to the Father. Re. the existence of Heaven and Hell: Again, it is the teaching of Jesus, the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus is a historical person, he is the Redeemer. You can always study more details... Historical-scientific evidence is there for core beliefs, for the Resurrection of Jesus, the foundation of the Christian Faith, for miracles, for 'dogmas' God is a 'structural dimension' of the human being. God has made us to his own likeness and similarity (Gen 1:27). Reason is illuminated by Faith: it tells us that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe in the teaching of Jesus, therefore I do believe in the existence of God, the Father. What about other truths? Can Science exhaust the truth, the whole Reality? Are all Sciences following the same method? Empirical sciences and the human sciences, the theological sciences? This is the proof positive that you do not understand what revealed Religion is, of what is historical Revelation, of what is the witness of the Gospels. In short, you do not see the difference...between empirical sciences and other sciences, including theology. Finally, you land up with homeopathy. But homeopathy has nothing to do with Religion. This is not 'faith', this is Science. But remember, Science requires also faith. Therefore, I am not mixing science with faith: our life itself is made up of faith and science. Science will not work without faith, nor faith without science... Mario responds: Thanks for confirming with this determined attack on the English language that your beliefs are purely based on your faith, and have nothing to do with science as most English speakers understand the language. Padre Ivo apparently has his own definition of what science means. Padre Ivo wrote: Today we need also fancy clothes and Gucci shoes... These are the signs of the times! Mario responds: Aye, aye, aye! Mother Theresa must be spinning in her grave:-)) I wonder who pays for those fancy clothes and Gucci shoes? I must remember this the next time they ask for money:-)) Padre Ivo wrote: that there is no a-theist, that denying the existence of God does not mean that the 'a-theist' lives without the Absolute, the Ground of Human Existence Mario responds: Once again, there is no recognizable English in this comment.
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
--- On Tue, 4/28/09, J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com wrote: I had asked Santoshbab for evidence that 'Prayer does not work'. He referred me to two papers which I have not yet reviewed. The papers to which I referred were reviews and meta-analyses of all intercessory prayer studies done until now. I will post a brief lay summary of my own analysis of all studies separately. Now ... you say you have evidence (possibly from your prayer groups) that prayer works. Would you please direct me (or someone else) to the 'evidence', so that it can be scientifically analysed? I belong to the set of individuals who believes that prayer helps them. However, for me to say that it is likely to help others, I will have to provide scientific proof. Let me point out that I have been talking only about distant intercessory prayer i.e. prayer conducted by other people that someone located at a distant place from them be healed or cured, without his/her knowledge. As far as personal prayer and faith are concerned, no proper scientific study has ever been conducted to evaluate their efficacy. But I am of the opinion that people who believe in them should continue to pray. Irrespective of whether personal prayer works or not, it is a harmless practice, as long as proper modern scientific treatment is also taken at the same time. Its value might be in the fact that at the very least it gives you personal satisfaction, and elevates your mood. As far as asking Fr. Ivo to produce scientific evidence is concerned, you might have better luck if you prayed for a miracle. Fr. Ivo appears to be not the least bit familiar with peer-reviewed medical scientific literature, and as a professional priest and theologian, clearly and understandably, does not have the background and training required to evaluate genuine scientific evidence and cutting-edge scientific research. Besides, as I have said before, and as Mario has now realized, Fr. Ivo has redefined science for himself in his mind. He has his own imaginary definition of science that has nothing to do with what is taught in a modern science classroom. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Sun, 4/26/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Can Santosh, support his statement (below) about my claim that their religion is scientific.? Please just post my quote and the context the statement was made. Here is the quote and a link to the context: So IMO both Religion and Science can be scientific endeavors. Gilbert Lawrence http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176646.html ***Science is Science with its empirical method, Religion follows its own method. Philosophy of Science studies it. Theology has its methods, exegetical historical, hermeneutical, it is a science. It is a scientific endeavor, it is being developed by history, archaeology, textual criticism, different types of research... (Empirical) Science goes together with Philosophy and Theology... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com Can Santosh, support his statement (below) about my claim that their religion is scientific.? Please just post my quote and the context the statement was made. Please do not give me your interpretation of my writings about my religion. I am really getting tired of reading posts where alleged intelligent authors put words in other peoples' writing - and the demagogue it ad infinity. The last time a famous Goanetter was asked to back his evidence (quoting others) on caste, he vanished from goanet. Thanks. GL From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert, that their religion is scientific. ***I never said that their (my) religion is scientific. But I have said that there is no conflict whatsoever between Science and Religion. They are two wings opening to the Truth and Reality. It could not be otherwise... History backs Religion in general, Christianity in particular. Dr.Santosh does not understand either scientific, or theological language... Regards. Fr.Ivo
[Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com Subject: [Goanet] Religion and Science I am really getting tired of reading posts where alleged intelligent authors put words in other peoples' writing - and the demagogue it ad infinity.?? Mario responds: As the only voice on Goanet of reason, truth and reason, I am forced to patiently point out, yet again, that this poster continues to routinely accuse others of demagoguery while engaging in demogoguery ad infinity himself, as illustrated with numerous examples in the following post: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176616.html Gilbert wrote: The last time a famous Goanetter was asked to back his evidence (quoting others) on caste, he vanished from goanet. Mario responds: This is another example of demagoguery. Asking for evidence that the abhorrent and destructive caste system exists - even among Goan Catholics who ignore their own religion's teaching that all people are created equal - and is continued only to discriminate against others on the basis of an accident of birth, is like asking for evidence that India invented this abominable system.
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Can Santosh, support his statement (below) about my claim that their religion is scientific.? Please just post my quote and the context the statement was made. Please do not give me your interpretation of my writings about my religion. I am really getting tired of reading posts where alleged intelligent authors put words in other peoples' writing - and the demagogue it ad infinity. The last time a famous Goanetter was asked to back his evidence (quoting others) on caste, he vanished from goanet. Thanks. GL Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:23:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert, that their religion is scientific.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Sun, 4/26/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Can Santosh, support his statement (below) about my claim that their religion is scientific.? Please just post my quote and the context the statement was made. Here is the quote and a link to the context: So IMO both Religion and Science can be scientific endeavors. Gilbert Lawrence http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176646.html Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Gilbert should not get tired if gets his facts wrong. Cornel does not post on Goanet because he had a disagreement with Goanet moderators over some of his posts. Not because he did not have evidence of the caste issue. George --- On Sun, 4/26/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: I am really getting tired of reading posts where alleged intelligent authors put words in other peoples' writing - and the demagogue it ad infinity. The last time a famous Goanetter was asked to back his evidence (quoting others) on caste, he vanished from goanet.
[Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Dear All, I am sure that Mario Goveia does not know what he is talking about. I say to all Goanet readers who do believe in God or super power that. He (Mario) has nothing better to do all day. God means different things to different people - so, just shut up Mario! Science vs Humans is based on Evolution - Right? If that is so then, There are entities evolved beyond human kind. Dogs, Horses, Crows, do not see humans as Gods, do they? (well, I'm not going to ask them). But they do know there are beings that are superior to them, therefore they try to get away from us to save their life (or submit to us and become our pets). Similarly, Humans being animals (or is this speculation and conjecture as well) know that there are entities beyond our being (our existence is not the end of the chain of existence). Some call this superior existence - God, others just believe that there is a super power beyond our animal existence. One does not have to believe in Jesus as son of God to believe in God - we all are creatures of God. Even entities that are looking after us, are creatures of God. What I mean is - We are looked after entities - some call it God (all to their own). Regards, Mistri. - I congratulate Mario on a lucid exposition of his faith-based beliefs, as well as a clear understanding of an absolute separation between science and religion, and of the scope and limits of both. I would recommend this type of clarity of thought to everybody.Cheers,Santosh --- On Wed, 4/22/09, Mario Goveia wrote Once I have accepted certain core beliefs based on certain circumstantial evidence, the rest is based on faith, without any objective scientific proof in either history or science. Yes, if you want to know something for sure or within a certain rational probability. Otherwise it's all speculation and conjecture. I know at least three atheists who do a lot of good for poor people who do not believe in God or Jesus, as well as hundreds of non-Christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount make conventional common sense. They need no scientific proof.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:05:58 +0530 From: Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in I cannot study Theology without studying Science at all. Mario observes: Padre Ivo, With all due respect, if you are continuing to insist that the existence of God can be proven by science, after once agreeing that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, then, as Goanet's lone voice of reason, truth and peace, I am forced to conclude that you may have studied Theology and Science, but understood little of both. Here is a classic example of how little you know about how REAL allopathic medications are tested in double blind studies and comparisons with placebos ON HUMAN BEINGS. http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176852.html Excerpt: Are not homeopathic drugs being tested on human beings? They are efficacious even for animals. Allopathic drugs are tested on guinea pigs. [end of excerpt] Guinea pigs may be used only in very initial stages of development, but they don't go directly from guinea pigs to being approved for widespread use. This is also why you have ignored my post which questioned your illogical claim that there is no conflict between religion and science: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176836.html Padre Ivo wrote: But he can discuss this topic without knowing Theology at all. Mario responds: I think if this discussion was about Theology you wouldn't hear a peep out of Santosh. Unfortunately, this discussion is not about Theology but about questionable experiments that are being passed off as scientific and bogus assertions that there is no conflict between religion and science.
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:43:46 -0400 From: jane gillian rodrigues janerodrig...@rediffmail.com PRAYER REQUEST FOR JOSE ROD Dear Friends, We are saddened by the fatal news that Joseph Rodrigues popularly known as Jose Rod, a multi-talented individual hailed as the Super Star of the Konkani Stage, has been diagnosed of 'BRAIN TUMOR' and will be operated at the Hinduja Hospital at Mumbai, India on Thursday 23/04/2009 at 7:00 a.m. A humble request to all, to keep JOSE ROD in your prayers, so that the Almighty God may bless the hands of the surgeons who will be operating on him. Let us pray to Jesus to be present at the operating table for a successful operation. Mario responds: JGR, Thanks for your prayer for a cure for all my problems. One of my problems that really needs curing is understanding immediately when someone writes poppycock. BTW, I don't think you understood a word of what I said, so let's try again, shall we? You wrote: Yes, when all else fails, we pray to God for a miracle cure, and God always hears our prayers and cures us. And I responded HE does? Are you suggesting that those who die every day do not pray for a miracle cure? I did not suggest we should not pray for a cure, but I am surprised that you are suggesting that we should only pray for a cure WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, which puts all the responsibility on God to perform a miracle, after he has given us free will to take action before all else fails. What I questioned was your assertion that ...and God always hears our prayers and cures us. Clearly, this is false. More often than not God decides NOT to perform a miracle - as in curing me from immediately noticing poppycock:-)) However, in answer to your request, I hope it is true in the case of Jose Rod. The fact that they are doing surgery is a good sign because not all brain tumors are fatal. Please let us know how he is doing.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com Hi Gilbert, Finally, here is my direct answer to the extraneous question you have asked. I hope you will have the courtesy to answer the questions i have asked in my previous posts. Please tell us the names of five theological books you have studied (not just read)? I have not studied any theological books, and have never claimed to have done so. Christian or non-Christian Theology is not required to be part of any medical school or science curriculum. ***Dr.Santosh is asking me to read books on Science when discussing about the relationship between Science and Theology. I cannot study Theology without studying Science at all. Even in Philosophy (Cosmology and Epistemology) scientific concepts are required. For Systematic Theology (Theological Anthropology) knowledge of evolutionary theories is required. But he can discuss this topic without knowing Theology at all. At least, he should respect the people who are doing this reasearch. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science (part 2)
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com On Mon, 4/20/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: I appreciate Santosh telling us he has not read any book on theology. Now we will have to check about other topics he writes on. Gilbert, I said I did not STUDY (not just read) any book on theology, which is what you asked me to do. Please see your quote below: Please tell us the names of five theological books you have studied (not just read)? ...Gilbert Lawrence I have certainly read a few books on theology, including parts of the Bible and Bhagvad Gita. The best one I have read so far is Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer. ***Dr.Santosh has not studied theology at all, but he feels that he can discuss on all points and discard them with his scientific mind. Is this not pseudo-science? He could find pseudo-religion in my postings. After life-long study of theology, post-graduate research, doctoral thesis and teaching for more than 27 years does not give me competence to write on theology, religion, philosophy of religion and on philosophy of science? I cannot study theology without previous study of science, nor cosmology, nor epistemology, nor theological anthropology without knowledge of science. Being a lover of science and a practitioner of medicine for 30 years does not give me any competence to speak about allopathy and homeopathy? I lean to some extent also on authorities like Dr.S.R.Wadia and Dr.S.C.Madan whose books are so enlightening. In fact, I phoned to Dr.S.C.Madan about the controversy on homeopathy. He told me that Dr.Santosh is in the dark...Let him read my book. Homeopaths do not have time to discuss now how homeopathy works. The fact is that it works beautifully, provided that one knows how to use it. No medical system is a panacea for all evils... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Tue, 4/21/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: ***Dr.Santosh is asking me to read books on Science when discussing about the relationship between Science and Theology. I am asking Fr. Ivo to do nothing of this sort. He is free to read whatever he wants. I am merely pointing out that whatever he he is writing on Goanet on the topic of science is not science at all. It is quintessential pseudoscience. It is also an attempt at a spurious integration or mixing of pseudoscience with his own religion and theology. If he is claiming that he has seriously studied science and/or done scientific research as part of his theology curriculum, or his prior education, then his claim is certainly not credible from reading his posts on Goanet. It is also not credible because none of the university level theology curricula that I know of requires taking actual science courses, let alone doing scientific research. Please see this course schedule for Harvard University for master's and doctoral degrees in theology: http://www.hds.harvard.edu/registrar/applications/courses/Spring_Course_Schedule_2009r.pdf Please note that no courses in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, applied sciences or even general science are listed. Reading a chapter on history of science, or philosophy of science in some textbook of history or philosophy does not amount to studying science. To really understand science, and have credibility that you have done serious study or research on it, one has to study and conduct actual scientific research in some genuine science subject at the postgraduate level in a university. Reading popular science books is not study and research. Reading popular books with flashy New Age titles involving God, etc., such as the one by Beauregard is actually worse. It will in fact raise your level of scientific illiteracy. It will make you forget any science you might have learned in high school. You will become a pseudoscience, paranormal and New Age junkie. You will start using nonsensical superstitious terms such as vital force, spiritual energy, allopathy, universal consciousness, Gaia, holistic, etc. You might also become so gullible as to fall prey to various forms of quackery, cults and multi-level marketing scams that are so rampant today. You won't most definitely be able to tell the difference between genuine science and pseudoscience on the internet. Cheers, Santosh --- On Tue, 4/21/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: I cannot study Theology without studying Science at all. Even in Philosophy (Cosmology and Epistemology) scientific concepts are required. For Systematic Theology (Theological Anthropology) knowledge of evolutionary theories is required. But he can discuss this topic without knowing Theology at all. At least, he should respect the people who are doing this reasearch.
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Mario observes: As a practicing Catholic and a believer in objective science, it continues to boggle the mind when otherwise serious individuals confuse science and faith, which is the basis of religion. Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:59:43 +0530 From: Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in But what is faith for you? Beliefs without any historical-scientific basis? Mario responds. Yes. For example, what historic or scientific basis can you cite for the Virgin Birth, The Holy Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, His Ascension into Heaven, and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven? What scientific basis can you cite for the existence of Heaven, or Hell? Once I have accepted certain core beliefs based on certain circumstantial evidence, the rest is based on faith, without any objective scientific proof in either history or science. To begin with, I try to focus on the essentials of Christ's teaching, which can all be summarized in a couple of pages. These are the Ten Commandments, especially the last seven, The Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount. The rest means little to me. Most of it is designed to provide full employment and a good living for Padres and Madres. Except that I have far more respect for those Padres and Madres who toil tirelessly and endlessly and thanklessly in missions where they physically help those unable to help themselves. Those are the ones I try to help, not those who wear fancy clothes and Gucci shoes:-)) Padre Ivo asks: Why do you believe in God? Mario responds: To tell you the truth, it is based on my gut-feeling that something supernatural had to get the evolution of the universe started, that I can't reconcile the engineering complexities of living things and of thoughts and feelings and memories with simple evolution, and, finally, the fact that many eminent scientists have been unable disprove the existence of God. Padre Ivo asks: Is Science the only source of knowledge? Mario responds: Yes, if you want to know something for sure or within a certain rational probability. Otherwise it's all speculation and conjecture. Padre Ivo wrote: Christian faith is historical faith, not mythical, therefore it has historical-scientific basis. Not scientific, in the sense that it can be empirically proved, like physical phenomena, but in its historical background (as much as scientific test can do for the spiritual-supernatural phenomena with their sensible wrappings), its consequences, individual and societal... Religion tells us about God. Reason speaks to us. Mario responds: This is proof positive that you have no idea of what most people refer to as objective science. Padre Ivo wrote: How can also be easy doing good without faith in God? Jesus himself spoke to us about his intimacy with the Father (God) and told us to do good. If Mother Teresa has done what she did, it is because she lived in communion with God. Mario responds: I know at least three atheists who do a lot of good for poor people who do not believe in God or Jesus, as well as hundreds of non-Christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. Padre Ivo wrote: Who has given Ten Commandments? Who has spoken of Golden Rule with its new foundation, and the Sermon on the Mount? If Jesus of Nazareth has spoken to us, what did he say about God? Mario responds: The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount make conventional common sense. They need no scientific proof. Padre Ivo wrote: Homeopathy has its benefits. This is clear. I am not telling you to follow only homeopathy, leaving allopathy. Both can work in these cases. Mario responds: Padre Ivo, with faith like this, I hope you never get cancer:-))
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
I congratulate Mario on a lucid exposition of his faith-based beliefs, as well as a clear understanding of an absolute separation between science and religion, and of the scope and limits of both. I would recommend this type of clarity of thought to everybody. Cheers, Santosh --- On Wed, 4/22/09, Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Once I have accepted certain core beliefs based on certain circumstantial evidence, the rest is based on faith, without any objective scientific proof in either history or science. .. Yes, if you want to know something for sure or within a certain rational probability. Otherwise it's all speculation and conjecture. I know at least three atheists who do a lot of good for poor people who do not believe in God or Jesus, as well as hundreds of non-Christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. . The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount make conventional common sense. They need no scientific proof.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science (part 2)
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: I appreciate Santosh telling us he has not read any book on theology. Now we will have to check about other topics he writes on. Gilbert, I said I did not STUDY (not just read) any book on theology, which is what you asked me to do. Please see your quote below: Please tell us the names of five theological books you have studied (not just read)? ...Gilbert Lawrence I have certainly read a few books on theology, including parts of the Bible and Bhagvad Gita. The best one I have read so far is Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer. Now, you did not answer my questions, or try to calmly respond to the points I made. Instead, you resorted to innuendo and ad hominem. Please see below. What made you engage in this behavior? Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Is this what passes off as intelligent conversation among scientists? Or is this a bitter brew of mis-guided outrage? Well ... I guess some scientist have a problem dealing with the facts. I would understand getting some flak from clinicians, for not being detailed in my explanations. However it appears that our pure science expert cannot handle the facts. Relax ... patients really come to see the doctors, because they love us!
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:06:59 -0400 From: RGrootendorst rgrootendo...@btclick.com Why is there such a shortage of empathy towards our fellow man? I feel shame for the torture, kidnap and rendition of suspect detainees, whereas others feel such inhuman means justify the end. Is Obama comfortable sitting on the fence, boycotting the UN sponsored racism conference, knowing that Israel US have blemished records? He has much on his hands, but I cannot condone the bogus war on terror, or the excessive force it has unleashed. Mario responds: While you ask, Why is there such a shortage of empathy towards our fellow man?, you seem to have a serious shortage of empathy for the victims of terrorism, for the brutality that 25 million Iraqis experienced under Saddam and another 25 million Afghans experienced under the Taliban, especially Afghan women. You also seem to have no empathy for the Jews who survived one Holocaust in Europe only to be attacked by five Arab armies in 1947-48 with the goal of pushing the Jews into the sea. and are now being threatened with being wiped off the map. I wonder whether you have any empathy for the tens of thousands of innocent Indians killed since 1947 in Kashmir and across India by radical Muslims who were not willing to wait for the results of the UN planned plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir. How much force is excessive when trying to stop someone who is determined to kill someone else? Rita wrote: I know and greatly admire several other eminent English lawyers who take hopeless cases and sometimes win justice, eg. for an Iraqui widow and her two young sons, left fatherless when UK soldiers beat her hotel receptionist husband to death in prison. Mario responds: I wonder if these eminent English lawyers can help the Iraqi man I know with scars on his back who was forced to watch his wife and daughter raped in front of him - ostensibly because a neighbor reported that they had made fun of Saddam - and has several relatives that have not been heard from since 1995? I wonder what the eminent English lawyers can do to help the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the mindless sectarian violence the Sunni and Shia radicals unleashed against each other in 2003-04, aided and abetted by Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria? Instead of taking advantage of Saddam's removal to re-build their nation and achieve the peace and prosperity that the Americans made possible and most Iraqis have repeatedly voted for since 2003. Where were these eminent English lawyers after Saddam gassed 5,000 of his own people in Halabja? Are they helping the families of the hundreds of thousands of skeletons found in the mass graves filled by Saddam's goons across Iraq? I wonder what the eminent English lawyers can do to help Roxanna Saberi, the Iranian American journalist now rotting in an Iranian jail? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-saberi19-2009apr19,0,6843493.story
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
My dear Mario, Thank you for replying to my e-mail. As per e-mail below of KGTS Managing Committee Members and many of us Goankars, you have received a reply to your e-mail. God bless you and cure you of all your many problems and KEEP THE FAITH. === -- PRAYER REQUEST FOR JOSE ROD Dear Friends, We are saddened by the fatal news that Joseph Rodrigues popularly known as Jose Rod, a multi-talented individual hailed as the Super Star of the Konkani Stage, has been diagnosed of 'BRAIN TUMOR' and will be operated at the Hinduja Hospital at Mumbai, India on Thursday 23/04/2009 at 7:00 a.m. A humble request to all, to keep JOSE ROD in your prayers, so that the Almighty God may bless the hands of the surgeons who will be operating on him. Let us pray to Jesus to be present at the operating table for a successful operation. Kindly forward this to all your friends on your mailing list. May the Good Lord bless you in abundance for your prayers. KGTS Managing Committee Members (KUWAIT) kgts...@hotmail.com From: Mario Goveia Subject: [Goanet] Religion and Science From: jane gillian rodrigues Yes, when all else fails, we pray to God for a miracle cure, and God always hears our prayers and cures us. Mario asks: HE does? Are you suggesting that those who die every day do not pray for a miracle cure?
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Mario Goveia mgov...@sbcglobal.net --- On Sun, 4/19/09, MD mmdme...@gmail.com wrote: Science is no match for religioud (sic) belief. Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:23:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert, that their religion is scientific. Mario observes: As a practicing Catholic and a believer in objective science, it continues to boggle the mind when otherwise serious individuals confuse science and faith, which is the basis of religion. ***Mario, I am not confusing Science with Faith. But what is faith for you? Beliefs without any historical-scientific basis? We can always eleborate these points. I have already given some of them. Several weeks ago I got Fr. Ivo to agree that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven by science; which should have ended this thread right there. Yet, a month later, the verbal mud-wrestling continues, much to my amazement and amusement, especially Fr. Ivo's very personal version of English as I highlighted in http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-March/175446.html The belief in the existence of God or a supernatural being is based on faith and some circumstantial evidence that does not constitute scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ***Why do you believe in God? Review this question. I only repeated that Science does not prove nor disprove the existence of God. Does it mean that there are no grounds for the existence of God. Is Science the only source of knowledge? Christian faith is historical faith, not mythical, therefore it has historical-scientific basis. Not scientific, in the sense that it can be empirically proved, like physical phenomena, but in its historical background (as much as scientific test can do for the spiritual-supernatural phenomena with their sensible wrappings), its consequences, individual and societal... We know that even the saintly Mother Theresa was wracked by doubts about the existence of God and worked to do good in spite of it. ***I am afraid that even Mother Teresa would not agree with Mario. We speak of spiritual aridity. Saints like Teresa of Avila and Teresa of Lisieux had 'spiritual aridity', they could not find consolation and 'sensible' happiness. Mother Teresa could not have doubts about the existence of God. She was praying before the Eucharistic Jesus (Blessed Sacrament) every day. She was embracing the ostracised people because she could see the image of God in them. She told her Spiritual Father about it. My stand should be clear: I only said from the very outset that Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, because Science does not deal with the existence of God. It is theology that deals with the existence of God. Therefore, to say that that should have ended this thread right there is wrong. Because if Science does not tell us of the existence of God--nor can Science do this job--it does not mean that we deny the existence of God. Religion tells us about God. Reason speaks to us. What good is being convinced that God exists and not living what that should mean on a day-to-day basis? On the other hand, wouldn't God approve of someone who cannot believe HE exists but lives their lives as if HE did - in the true Christian spirit - anyway? ***How can also be easy doing good without faith in God? Jesus himself spoke to us about his intimacy with the Father (God) and told us to do good.If Mother Teresa has done what she did, it is because she lived in communion with God. I have always argued that once we accept and live by at least the last seven of the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount, the rest is all window dressing and a full employment scheme for thousands of religious persons. ***Who has given Ten Commandments? Who has spoken of Golden Rule with its new foundation, and the Sermon on the Mount? If Jesus of Nazareth has spoken to us, what did he say about God? In the meantime, as a cancer survivor who had to put up with the most Godawful stuff dripped into me, not to mention the cutting and stitching and burning with mysterious rays I had to endure - all of which worked splendidly in my case, I would rather follow the serious debate on why untested placebos have become so popular in the practice of medicine. ***Homeopathy has its benefits. This is clear. I am not telling you to follow only homeopathy, leaving allopathy. Both can work in these cases. Allopathy can work together with the adjunct therapies. By the way, they are white small wonderful pills, not pink pills. Dr.S.C.Madan and Dr.S.R.Wadia would be able to tell you better about your disease. Regards. Fr.Ivo
[Goanet] Religion and science
Albert writes:- God has given us plants .Some of them have medicinal values. We have a habbit of running to an allopath without realising how harmful these medicines are. For cold:- the allopath will give you antibiotics. but I would suggest ginger smashed on a stone in glass of water to which few tulsi leaves are added boiled and taken the whole day. cures cold completely. Acidity:- doctor will give you gel which has zinc in it which affects kidneys. I would suggest take a piece of ginger smash it on a stone and put in a glass of water add jeera and drink the water the whole day. Pressure= doctor gives you adelphane to be taken one everyday even if you have no pressure. It affects your body. I would suggest take a small garlic smash it and mix it with rice and eat once a day for few days something pokes you and the whole area becomes septic. you go to the doctor who cuts the portion and releases the pus and then take antibiotics etc. Take cantekor ( alvoevira ) fry it on a tawa for sometime and cool it and tie it on the infected area. Incase aluvera is not available then take an onion and fry it on the gas stove and cool it and tie it to the infected area. Planting tulsi plants around your house drives away mosquittoes and keeps the air fresh. _ Twice the fun—Share photos while you chat with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.microsoft.com/india/windows/windowslive/messenger.aspx
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
--- On Sun, 4/19/09, MD mmdme...@gmail.com wrote: Science is no match for religioud (sic) belief. Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:23:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert, that their religion is scientific. Mario observes: As a practicing Catholic and a believer in objective science, it continues to boggle the mind when otherwise serious individuals confuse science and faith, which is the basis of religion. Several weeks ago I got Fr. Ivo to agree that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven by science; which should have ended this thread right there. Yet, a month later, the verbal mud-wrestling continues, much to my amazement and amusement, especially Fr. Ivo's very personal version of English as I highlighted in http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-March/175446.html The belief in the existence of God or a supernatural being is based on faith and some circumstantial evidence that does not constitute scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We know that even the saintly Mother Theresa was wracked by doubts about the existence of God and worked to do good in spite of it. Isn't the doing good part what really counts? What good is being convinced that God exists and not living what that should mean on a day-to-day basis? On the other hand, wouldn't God approve of someone who cannot believe HE exists but lives their lives as if HE did - in the true Christian spirit - anyway? I have always argued that once we accept and live by at least the last seven of the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount, the rest is all window dressing and a full employment scheme for thousands of religious persons. Santosh wrote: I am also trying to provide accurate scientific information about public health and safety in this lay public forum because I consider it my responsibility and duty to do so. Mario observes: Santosh is Goanet's voice of reason and scientific truth, but not of peace as long as others keep provoking his sensibilities by confusing science and religion, which I, as the lone voice of reason, truth and peace am constantly trying to arbitrate:-)) I have also offered to let everyone on Goanet know as soon as I find out whether God does exist, assuming I get the evidence before the rest of you:-)) Even if I forget, you will all find out for yourselves in the not too distant future:-)) If I am wrong then, shoot, I would have wasted a lot of time and money and being good when I could have had a lot more fun being bad:-)) If I am right, then Santosh and the other atheists are in a heap of trouble:-)) In the meantime, as a cancer survivor who had to put up with the most Godawful stuff dripped into me, not to mention the cutting and stitching and burning with mysterious rays I had to endure - all of which worked splendidly in my case, I would rather follow the serious debate on why untested placebos have become so popular in the practice of medicine.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Hi Gilbert, I noticed that you avoided answering my questions, asking me an unrelated question, instead, to obfuscate matters. Moreover, you are asking me to buy your own personal revisionist definition of scientific inquiry, which has no connection with the real scientific world, and implying that the fact that National Cancer Institute is funding some so-called complementary and alternative therapies means that the latter are somehow legitimate and effective. The NCI is testing them because as it clearly states it is important that the same rigorous scientific evaluation used to assess conventional approaches be used to evaluate CAM therapies. If these remedies are not subjected to rigorous testing by the scientific method, the poor cancer patients who take them would end up being victims of quackery. You are also making wild claims about osteopathy and cognitive therapy. Here, please read about the unscientific nonsense in osteopathy on this Quackwatch website: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html Cognitive therapy for the most part can only address psychological problems such as anxiety and depression. Please see this list of problems addressed by it, provided by the American Institute of Cognitive Therapy: http://www.cognitivetherapynyc.com/problems.asp Finally, here is my direct answer to the extraneous question you have asked. I hope you will have the courtesy to answer the questions i have asked in my previous posts. Please tell us the names of five theological books you have studied (not just read)? I have not studied any theological books, and have never claimed to have done so. Christian or non-Christian Theology is not required to be part of any medical school or science curriculum. Please answer my original questions now without going off on another tangent. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com -- On Fri, 4/17/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Since you-both have asked for my clarification, I am stepping into this cross-current. Dear Gilbert, I had asked you to tell me why you think that even the religion that Fr. Ivo was preaching in these kinds of threads was pseudo-religion - a term that you used when you initiated this thread. Unfortunately, you have not done that in this post or any other... ***Dr.Gilbert will not find any pseudo-religion in my postings, much less you... The question is that what you call pseudo-science in my postings is not what you call. It is only your ignorance. There are the sciences of philosophy, theology, logic, human behavior etc. all of which fields (in varying degrees) are encompassed within the training of priesthood, irrespective of religion. Are you claiming that Christian priests and ministers, Muslim mullahs and imams, and Hindu bhots and swamis study science and scientific method as part of their theological curriculum? If so, could you please let me know the name of at least one science textbook that they are required to read. ***I am answering you only regarding the Catholic priests. I do not know about the leaders of other religious communities. Priests-to-be study science in the Colleges. They follow the standard college text books. I studied in my time in the Seminary according to books of my time. I read also American books of science. As in the Escola Medica at Panjim, we had book of biology in French in the Seminary. I still have science books with me, of course, modern ones. I give (free) tuition on Science and Mathematics for students in my free time. Therefore, I cannot 'believe' in my scientific illiteracy, which Dr.Santosh has not succeded in proving... Can you please explain how religion can be a scientific endeavor with at least one specific example? ***Religion is not Science and Science is not Religion. But there is no conflict between Science and Religion. There is only integration. Religious historical facts have a historico-scientific basis, precisely because they are not mythical, but historical events. I hope you come to understand this point clearly. Therefore, what I write in this respect is not pseudo-science, but science. The problem is not the past but what is being done in the present - the fact that outdated ancient medical practices such as Ayurveda and Homeopathy are being practiced unchanged and untested at the present time. They are giving patients the same unregulated pre-scientific pills and potions that Dhanvantari and Hahnemann gave their patients centuries ago. ***See what medical companies like Reckeweg and Madaus are producing in Germany. Dr.Santosh does not know what he is talking about... How can you not recognize this simple fact after claiming in the same post that in your own field, breast cancer treatment has changed in less than three decades based on new findings, with the advent and insistence of the rigorous application of the scientific method in today's evidence-based scientific medicine? ***There is no cure for such diseases in any system. Homeopathy can be adjuvant therapy. Whether homeopathy can cure them in intial stages is to be tested by homeopathic physicians. Regards. Fr.Ivo
[Goanet] Religion and science
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:23:28 + From: Albert Desouza alizadeso...@hotmail.com God has given us plants. Some of them have medicinal values. We have a habbit of running to an allopath without realising how harmful these medicines are. Memo to Santosh and Gilbert: See how much time you wasted with all that education and training, not to mention all the time spent mud-wrestling on Goanet?:-)) All you need, in addition to prayer, is some ginger and garlic, cantekor, onion and tulsi leaves. Even ayurveda and little pink sugar pills are not necessary. This should make Rita and JGR very, very happy:-)) As the word spreads it will put all those nasty pharmaceutical companies out of business. Instead of plotting to kill everyone after taking all their money, perhaps thay can start planting ginger, garlic, cantekor, onion and tulsi and organizing prayer meetings, which are apparently helping India a lot according to JGR. Oh, let's not forget, we need more chicken farms as well. Those nasty cows and pigs are killing the planet with the methane gas they produce which is causing global warming and eroding Goa's beaches. Soon, Saligao may be the old Calangute. BTW, I hope George is adding all these ingredients to the chicken soup he is testing.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Fri, 4/17/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: As a physician, I shall do whatever I can in my system (allopathic or homoepathic) and specialization. The patient will come to me if s/he knows my value in my system and specialization. The above statement is puzzling, and I am afraid, very disturbing. ***In fact, I wrote it epigrammatically from the viewpoint of a physician and a patient. I am quite acquainted with conventional medicine and homeopathy, therefore I am speaking from the viewpoint of both. As a matter of fact, I did the Course and practised with diploma and license from the Medical Board for the last 30 years. Homeopathy has nothing to do with religious beliefs, as Dr.Santosh is stubborn in affirming. I read about the objections but we know with certainty that it works well. Every clinical case will be a test. The homeopath should know well his principles and materia medica. As Western medicine cannot cure all ailments, no system can be a panacea. ...it only confirms my contention that homeopathy is a belief system with a religious appeal to religious people like Fr. Ivo. No amount of scientific evidence against it would cause them to reject its treatments and unscientific principles. ***Homeopathy has nothing to do with religion and religious appeal. Scientific evidence does not show how homeopathic drugs can work through placebo effect. Vital force has its foundation in biophysics and in quantum mechanics. How small quantities can influence the bigger ones (the phenomenon of hormesis). Allopathy (or Western medicine) is needed. When we are hospitalized, we are subjected to the allopathic physicians. With its life-saving drugs, antibiotics and surgery, it is the only answer to a range of critical illnesses and dreaded diseases. But despite extensive advancement and research in the field, Allopathy is unable to provide cure for a number of ailments. In this respect, Homeopathy has shown effective and proven results. Very often the disease created by allopathic drugs is worse than the disease for which the drug had been adminstered. Homeopathy takes into account the whole person as well as the physical symptoms of illness. Homeopathic remedies are chosen to suit the individual and not just the complaint--hence their remarkable healing qualities. They are also safe, natural and widely available. Homeopathy has been particularly opposed by orthodox medicine (or allopathy), mostly for economic, emotional, visceral reasons. Research and support are increasing nowadays. Clinical trials are performed in the medical Universities. Homeopathy works wonderfully, as Dr.S.C.Madan has done by comparing homeopathy with allopathy. See his book Homeopathy Cures where Allopathy Fails, 2005. How does it work? Homeopathic remedies are diluted, and in modern biophysics, the more diluted the solution, the more potent it is (See Paul Callinan, Family Homoepathy, pp.305-324). The effects of micro-doses have been known for a long time, and there are a number of examples that support the idea that very diluted concentrations of a substance will have a measurable and sometimes profound effect. Scientists call this phenomenon: HORMESIS. Scientists from Michigan State University have shown how hormesis work in nature. Regards. Fr.Ivo
[Goanet] Religion and Science (part 2)
Is this what passes off as intelligent conversation among scientists? Or is this a bitter brew of mis-guided outrage? Well ... I guess some scientist have a problem dealing with the facts. I would understand getting some flak from clinicians, for not being detailed in my explanations. However it appears that our pure science expert cannot handle the facts. Relax ... patients really come to see the doctors, because they love us! I appreciate Santosh telling us he has not read any book on theology. Now we will have to check about other topics he writes on. :=)) Regards, GL -- Santosh Helekar I cannot believe what Gilbert has written in the post appended below.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
I point out some more puzzling and pseudoscientific statements in Fr. Ivo's latest post. --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: I am quite acquainted with conventional medicine and homeopathy, therefore I am speaking from the viewpoint of both. As a matter of fact, I did the Course and practised with diploma and license from the Medical Board for the last 30 years. I wonder what Course can give one a diploma and license to competently practice both conventional medicine and homeopathy. Homeopathy has nothing to do with religious beliefs, as Dr.Santosh is stubborn in affirming. I read about the objections but we know with certainty that it works well. To have such certainty homeopathy must be a religion. Science cannot provide such certainty. Vital force has its foundation in biophysics and in quantum mechanics. Again the mysterious vital force! This is a classic pseudoscientific claim. No genuine scientific textbook on biophysics or quantum mechanics would say anything about any kind of vital force. Here are two online textbooks that prove my point: Quantum Mechanics - http://www.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk/~plenio/lecture.pdf Biological and Environmental Physics - http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~dmiller/lectures/BEP.pdf Vital force is an outdated superstitious term that modern science as discarded as bogus. Here is a description of this vital force quackery on the Quackwatch website: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html Homeopathic remedies are diluted, and in modern biophysics, the more diluted the solution, the more potent it is (See Paul Callinan, Family Homoepathy, pp.305-324). The effects of micro-doses have been known for a long time, and there are a number of examples that support the idea that very diluted concentrations of a substance will have a measurable and sometimes profound effect. Scientists call this phenomenon: HORMESIS. The above statement is an attempt at deception. The phenomenon of hormesis has nothing to do with the unscientific dilution principle of homeopathy. Hormesis requires that the active drug be present in the solution or preparation. In the case of homeopathic remedies, most of them do not have even a single molecule of the active drug. It is all inert milk sugar in the pill or distilled water or dilute alcohol. A high school science student can demonstrate with a simple experiment that what homeopathy claims is completely false. Furthermore, hormesis just means that a lower dose of a toxic substance does not have a harmful effect, or may have a different non-harmful or beneficial effect. It does not mean that it cures a disease whose symptoms resemble those produced by toxic doses of that substance, as homeopathy falsely claims. The basic principles of homeopathy have been scientifically proven to be false by theory and experiment. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Sun, 4/19/09, MD mmdme...@gmail.com wrote: Science is no match for religioud belief. Dear Maurice, You are right only about the fact that science is no match for religious belief, and that Fr. Ivo writes in good faith. I suspect, so do you and Gilbert. But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert, that their religion is scientific. I am also trying to provide accurate scientific information about public health and safety in this lay public forum because I consider it my responsibility and duty to do so. ***Good faith can be good science. Which are false claims? That their (my/our) religion is scientific? I never said it. Science is Science and Religion is Religion. There is no conflict between Science and Religion. But the basis of Christianity is historical, therefore it can be confirmed through historical, scientific, archaeological, cultural tools. Dr.Santosh may have the responsibility of struggling against superstitions, but not against Religion... This is not safe and sound, on the contrary Dr.Santosh is misleading his readers and students... We have to fight together against what is unhealthy, not against whatever we write about God, as being bogus and fake... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Since you-both have asked for my clarification, I am stepping into this cross-current. Dear Gilbert, I had asked you to tell me why you think that even the religion that Fr. Ivo was preaching in these kinds of threads was pseudo-religion - a term that you used when you initiated this thread. Unfortunately, you have not done that in this post or any other. Instead, you have produced two posts whose contents as well as purpose are incomprehensible to me, and perhaps to others. So in order to try to understand what you are saying, let me ask you some simple questions and seek further clarifications from you. I would appreciate it if you could respond to them. There are the sciences of philosophy, theology, logic, human behavior etc. all of which fields (in varying degrees) are encompassed within the training of priesthood, irrespective of religion. Are you claiming that Christian priests and ministers, Muslim mullahs and imams, and Hindu bhots and swamis study science and scientific method as part of their theological curriculum? If so, could you please let me know the name of at least one science textbook that they are required to read. So IMO both Religion and Science can be scientific endeavors. Can you please explain how religion can be a scientific endeavor with at least one specific example? To be critical of the past (with a retro-spectroscope) is easy, may even border on demagoguery; but it is not very intellectual except for those with a low IQ. What in the world are you talking about here? The above statement does not make any sense at all in the context of what has been discussed in this thread. The problem is not the past but what is being done in the present - the fact that outdated ancient medical practices such as Ayurveda and Homeopathy are being practiced unchanged and untested at the present time. They are giving patients the same unregulated pre-scientific pills and potions that Dhanvantari and Hahnemann gave their patients centuries ago. How can you not recognize this simple fact after claiming in the same post that in your own field, breast cancer treatment has changed in less than three decades based on new findings, with the advent and insistence of the rigorous application of the scientific method in today's evidence-based scientific medicine? Cheers, Santosh
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Dear goankars, As per e-mails below on the topic Religion and Science: - Please remember that in India, 60% of families, earn a total wage of approximately Rs. 2,000/- per month. Hence, the majority of Indians, when they fall sick, cannot afford expensive, allopathic drugs and therefore, have to take homeopathic, ayurvedic, herbal, etc. medicine which is less expensive. Yes, when all else fails, we pray to God for a miracle cure, and God always hears our prayers and cures us. Today any branch of medicine is encouraged to cure, mind, body, soul. We Indians are truly lucky and blessed, because we have friends and relatives of different religious beliefs who will pray for our good health, when we fall sick. A Catholic priest once said to me God looks after India, otherwise, how can you explain how most of our neighbouring countries are having major problems, while India, with different states, different religions, different languages etc. are still One India? = From: J. Colaco jc Subject: Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science 2009/4/16 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza From: Santosh Helekar To find out why the wild claims regarding homeopathy made by Fr. Ivo in the posts appended below are patently bogus, please read this article provided by a prominent British organization of scientists, promoting sense and science among lay people:
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science (part 2)
I cannot believe what Gilbert has written in the post appended below. He has not only misled Goanetters on the subject of placebos, and how and why they are used in drawing inferences about the effectiveness of treatments, but he has made questionable statements on the treatment of pneumonia - a potentially fatal disease, if not properly treated. The following quotes in particular are very troublesome. In case of pneumonia, reserve the antibiotics only to those who do not respond to 'chicken soup'. ..Gilbert Lawrence I want to ask Gilbert if, as a physician, he would recommend that a person who has been diagnosed with pneumococcal pneumonia be treated with chicken soup alone. The standard of care today mandates that an elderly pneumonia patient be treated with modern antibiotics within 8 hours to substantially reduce the chances of 30 day mortality. So, Homeopathy works... not in all patients. But we do not know how i.e. no current explanation of the mechanism of action. ..Gilbert Lawrence He wrote this because he found out that there is no difference between homeopathic remedies and placebos. This tells me that he has not understood why placebos are used in clinical trials, and how to interpret such a result. The correct interpretation of this finding is that homeopathic remedies are not effective at all. A placebo is an experimental control to rule out nonspecific factors such as spontaneous recovery because of the self-limiting nature of many illnesses, subjective feelings of improvement, subconscious conditioning, temporary but long lasting remission, rare spontaneous cure, misclassification of illness, etc. The placebo effect is observed mostly in illnesses that have a strong psychological component. In fact, a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine has cast doubt on whether there is a significant placebo effect at all, if one focuses on illnesses with good objective measures. Here is the link to that full paper: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/21/1594 Here is its conclusion: We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos. Therefore, when a clinical trial leads to the finding that a drug works no better than a placebo, the trial is thought to be a failure, resulting in the rejection of that drug as a valid treatment. Evidently, Gilbert does not know this. If homeopathy works (say) in 50 percent of cases; why not give it to those patients. True science would / should work on identifying the OTHER fifty percent of patients that are unlikely to respond to (say) the 'chicken soup'. .Gilbert Lawrence Here again Gilbert unfortunately does not understand the simple fact that it is impossible to know before hand which patient would show a placebo effect, and which would require specific treatment. Please note the 8 hour window for pneumonia above. If you do not treat all elderly patients with pneumonia within 8 hours with antibiotics the chances of death over the next 30 days go way up. The sad part is even at the highest levels, (university/research labs) no efforts are made to answer difficult questions and seek honest answers. Despite the lofty statements, sciences often may have an economic angle. If we had been honest, we would have spent the last thirty years developing newer / better drugs for breast cancer; .Gilbert Lawrence Would anyone believe that a guy who makes the above absurd blanket statement is trying to advocate the use of untested homeopathic remedies, which have not progressed much beyond the 19th century? I would ask Gilbert to tell me what the efficacy of homeopathic therapy against breast cancer is. What percentage of such patients are cured by it, and what honest efforts have been made by homeopaths to test the efficacy of their old treatments and find new treatments over the last thirty years? The rest of what Gilbert has written regarding Goan tailors, etc. and comparison with ayurveda fails the laugh test. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 4/18/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: From the link that Santosh provided, the second paragraph states, The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo, and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way. So, Homeopathy works ... not in all patients. But we do not know how i.e. no current explanation of the mechanism of action. The placebo effect is still an effect triggered by as yet unknown factor. The placebo effect lies beyond the body's existing ability to heal. The placebo effect may be mind over matter, or if one want to sound scientific, the immune
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Dear Santosh, Thank you for your polite response and not knit-picking my post. Let me answer your questions: SH: Are you claiming that Christian priests and ministers, Muslim mullahs and imams, and Hindu bhots and swamis study science and scientific method as part of their theological curriculum? If so, could you please let me know the name of at least one science textbook that they are required to read. GL: Theology is a required curriculum subject that Catholic priests study. Fr. Ivo can give you a list of simplified and high-level theological books and other books on logic and deductions. Please tell us the names of five theological books you have studied (not just read)? I look forward to your reply. SH: Can you please explain how religion can be a scientific endeavor with at least one specific example? GL: Here may be the problem - Semantics! Please read my definition of scientific inquiry. Please ask questions ABOUT religion instead of trying to provide answers TO religion. I think religion has plenty to do with individual and social behavior. Yes, there are anecdotal exceptions to the rule. Demagogues love to quote these anecdotal cases. SH: The problem is not the past but what is being done in the present - the fact that outdated ancient medical practices such as Ayurveda and Homeopathy are being practiced unchanged and untested at the present time. GL: The NCI (National Cancer Institute) in the USA has multimillion dollar research studies on Alternative Medicine. After making sure there is no infection, my patients of prostate cancer with urinary symptoms are recommend, plenty of fluid intake and Cranberry juice (from the grocery shelf) along with radiation for their cancer.. About seventy percent have good relief of their urinary symptoms. The remainder get medications after a three day trial of Cranberry Juice. There are therapeutic benefits to massage, acupuncture, manipulation, exercise, etc. When osteopathic medicine first started (by an allopathic doctor), allopathic / scientific medicine rejected it. But there is definitely a role for manipulation in patient care. Similalry 'cognitive therapy' may have a role in preventing and treating Alzheimer's and other neurological disorders. Perhaps you can write on the scientifically proven (with EEG and MRI studies) effects of meditation - mind-altering technique and the effects of the same on the body. In this regard, likely you have read the works of neuroscientist Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin. Here is a non-scientific web link for those interested: http://meditation-health.suite101.com/article.cfm/meditation_changes_the_brain http://www.healthy.net/scr/Interview.asp?Id=306 It is said that among all illnesses presenting to a Primary Care Physician, about 70 percent are self-limiting (self-healing). We would all agree that in these situations, allopathy, homeopathy, Ayurveda or 'chicken soup' should do equally well. I will grant you that medications may make the recovery process faster. Of the remainder, about ten percent of illnesses are too far advanced and irreversible for any treatment to significantly help. Perhaps here we can improve the quality of life. These are chronic illness and terminal illness. Skilled medical intervention really helps in about twenty percent of illnesses - but here it can make the difference between life and death. The important point is: All of us should understand and accept the limitations of what we do. I have said on this forum before: A good surgeon knows how to operate. A great surgeon knows when not to operate. Regards, GL
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: 19 Apr 2009 08:16:18 - From: jane gillian rodrigues janerodrig...@rediffmail.com Yes, when all else fails, we pray to God for a miracle cure, and God always hears our prayers and cures us. Mario asks: HE does? Are you suggesting that those who die every day do not pray for a miracle cure? Jane Gillian wrote: We Indians are truly lucky and blessed, because we have friends and relatives of different religious beliefs who will pray for our good health, when we fall sick. Mario asks: Why are these people wasting their meager savings on useless placebos when they and their relatives can pray for free? Jane Gillian wrote: A Catholic priest once said to me God looks after India, otherwise, how can you explain how most of our neighbouring countries are having major problems, while India, with different states, different religions, different languages etc. are still One India? Mario responds: The last time I checked, God's job is to look after everyone. I wonder if the same Catholic priest is suggesting that God is punishing Pakistan, Afghanistan and previously Iraq, just to name a few examples. I would like the Catholic priest to explain all the human tragedies in India - or, at least, just the recent ones from from Godhra to Orissa to Karnataka to Mumbai, with the next one just around the corner. Is the Catholic priest suggesting that those who died were being punished by God? Were the abused nuns in Kerala being punished by God?
[Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Dear Santosh, Science is no match for religioud belief. We go to temples, churches and pray to a particular deity or saint, with a mind set. Human mind is very complex and if one truly believes the favour will be granted or certain ailment will be healed, it is possible it might. As an example, I firmly believe if you pray to Saint Antony, to help find a lost item, there are 99.9% chances he will help you find it. It has happened to me. Similarly devotees make a vow and if the favour is granted, they will fulfill what they promised in return. See the several Hindu devotees donate huge amounts in gratitude at the Temples. Similarly, a honest. god fearing Homeopathic practitioner, mostly does it as a social service, expecting noting in return unless he is commercial minded. I have known, for example, my grand mother treated Jaundice but did not expect any thing in return, but the cured patient some timesused to come and thank her. That's all. In the bargain, I had to go hunting for all the herbs, shrubs, and roots she wanted. So do not be skeptical but if you want to do scientific study, observe such practitioner. Do not pressurise Fr. Ivo. He has written in good faith. It is time, we learn from our elders what they have learned from their elders, because some times (ZAD/PALO) herbs and shrubs do cure certain diseases, but it takes time. At the same time, let me tell you, allopathic medicines are habit forming and seem not to work after prolonged use and in that case, the physician will prescribe higher dosage. Sinderely Maurice D'Mello Toronto
Re: [Goanet] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
--- On Sun, 4/19/09, MD mmdme...@gmail.com wrote: Science is no match for religioud belief. Dear Maurice, You are right only about the fact that science is no match for religious belief, and that Fr. Ivo writes in good faith. I suspect, so do you and Gilbert. But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert, that their religion is scientific. I am also trying to provide accurate scientific information about public health and safety in this lay public forum because I consider it my responsibility and duty to do so. Therefore, I am afraid I have to disagree with everything else you have written. Please read my earlier posts in this thread to find out why. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 4/19/09, MD mmdme...@gmail.com wrote: Do not pressurise Fr. Ivo. He has written in good faith.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Deo Gratias for JGR and her emotionally intelligent response on Religion Science. Over the past couple of decades we know so much more than before, but people become evermore polarised, overly-aggressive and paranoid, or am I talking about the warring governments/nations of the world? Is there enough love or understanding in the world? JGR mentions We Indians are truly lucky and blessed, because we have friends and relatives of different religious beliefs who will pray for our good health, when we fall sick. I campaigned for affordable living and if 60% of Indian families cannot afford over-priced, over-hyped allopathic medicines, thank God they can get homeopathic, ayurvedic, herbal, etc. Reference Goa, was I a fool to fall in love with the land? Are the ex-pats who feel they have been cheated in Goa got it right? I met a Goan woman in February whose family earned income over 10K rupees per month, and yet that was not enough to satisfy her. Then I met a nurse bringing up 2 kids without any help from her estranged husband. She earned 3K rupees, about half of the other woman's salary, for a hard slog, with many more hours and weekend work. It is only by that comparison, I began to understand how Goans have to manage on low incomes, compared to US, Canadians, OZ European residents. In fact, UK does not have any magic potion, we live in fear of what the rabid party political system will do next. We ought to be a rich country, but I believe we are bankrupt, morally, ethically and financially. Our wealth has been siphoned into the wrong pockets. Is that the same situation in Goa, and India? Why is there such a shortage of empathy towards our fellow man? I feel shame for the torture, kidnap and rendition of suspect detainees, whereas others feel such inhuman means justify the end. Is Obama comfortable sitting on the fence, boycotting the UN sponsored racism conference, knowing that Israel US have blemished records? He has much on his hands, but I cannot condone the bogus war on terror, or the excessive force it has unleashed. Clive Stafford-Smith, an English lawyer, has given his life to defend US prisoners on death Row detainees as well. I know and greatly admire several other eminent English lawyers who take hopeless cases and sometimes win justice, eg. for an Iraqui widow and her two young sons, left fatherless when UK soldiers beat her hotel receptionist husband to death in prison. It seems our governments and fundamentalists of any kind will not give peace a chance. Rita Grootendorst
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Dear Santosh and Fr. Ivo, For starters, I have to honestly let you both know that, I have not been following your discourses. The few posts of yours that I browsed, I skipped after reading the first few lines. While you-both are intelligent, I think your conversations pass each-other like two ships in the night; with neither of you getting illuminated. Since you-both have asked for my clarification, I am stepping into this cross-current. I realize that I may please neither side. For the sake of Goanet readers, I will try to tie together what I perceive are some fundamental issues. You guys are 'so lucky'.:=)) I just completed writing a mini-paper for our scientific journal entitled, Are all prostate cancers created equal? The article analyzed and brought together - the certain, the assumed and the unknown (data and assumptions). My writings responded to a mathematician / radiobiologist who developed a complicated formula, defining ALL prostate cancers, as a mathematical number (ratio). There was nothing wrong with the guy's high level calculus. But it was based on patient-data; where the raw-data had limitations and the end-points were nebulous at best. The last two statements could also describe the stands of both Santosh and Fr. Ivo; as it relates to Science and Religion or more accurately, their views of the same - see below.. Scientific Inquiry is a structured methodical study and understanding of ANY field - Asking difficult questions and Seeking honest answers. This refers to pure science, as well as applied science; and other fields including political science, social science and other named and unmanned sciences including business. There are the sciences of philosophy, theology, logic, human behavior etc. all of which fields (in varying degrees) are encompassed within the training of priesthood, irrespective of religion. Similarly part of a good scientific training, is learning of ethics, and when dealing with animal experimentation, there is training on respect for life. So IMO both Religion and Science can be scientific endeavors. It is the human frailties of those (including authorities) pursuing these endeavors that may make their version of either fields pseudo or bogus. Sometimes these human limitations are inadvertent; as the understanding has just not evolved far enough at that particular moment in time and place. At times, the understanding of any particular field is self-serving; and at times it is knowingly falsified. The ultimate test of any individuals endeavor and contribution, is only determined by TIME. As they say, the proof is in the pudding - the relevance and application of the science for the benefit of humans; or else the particular endeavor is an abstract irrelevant field. Frequently with TIME, the thinking within the field (including scientific and religious thought) may be turned on its head to the betterment of the particular field. Such changes or new thinking are termed renaissance or enlightenment. As an example, prior to 1970s ALL early breast cancers was treated by removing the entire breast and about 20 lymph nodes from the armpit. Anything less was considered inadequate. If stated in an examination, inadequate treatment was cause for a knock on the head and failure. Today, the same cancer is routinely treated by breast preservation. And removal of 1 or 2 (sentinel) lymph nodes is considered adequate. Smart management of breast cancer today, is to select various treatments for patient-subsets; after understanding the nuances of each patient and her cancer. Providing solutions or explanations for problems faced at any given moment in history, with the resources available at that time is sublime. When looking at the past, a better inquiry would be: What were the questions / issues at that time (not now)? What were the reasons / logic for those conclusions? What would have / could have been the alternatives and a better solution? To be critical of the past (with a retro-spectroscope) is easy, may even border on demagoguery; but it is not very intellectual except for those with a low IQ. It is like driving forward by looking at the rear-view mirror. Past contributions is something for a thoughtful person (good scientist) of today, to build-on, finesse and advance. Good scientists know that negative data (experience) is as important and valuable as positive data. As they say, only a fool repeats the same mistake twice. Over the weekend, I will write another post outlining what I think is the valid / important point Fr. Ivo is making about Ayurvedic v/s the supposedly scientific medicine. His point is not related to religion; but reflects the thought-process (frankly scientific mind) of an intelligent guy. Stay tuned.:=)) Peace! Regards, GL Fr. Ivo C. de Souza wrote: Dr.Santosh does not know till today the limits of Science. What has
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: As a physician, I shall do whatever I can in my system (allopathic or homoepathic) and specialization. The patient will come to me if s/he knows my value in my system and specialization. The above statement is puzzling, and I am afraid, very disturbing. Is Fr. Ivo formally educated, trained and licensed to practice modern medicine in India? For that matter, doesn't one require some kind of certificate and license to practice homeopathy in India? I hope I am wrong about my suspicions and apprehensions in this regard. With regard to the rest of the material he has dispensed in his other two recent posts in this thread, it only confirms my contention that homeopathy is a belief system with a religious appeal to religious people like Fr. Ivo. No amount of scientific evidence against it would cause them to reject its treatments and unscientific principles. The following statement of Fr. Ivo is quite illuminating in this regard: It is a mysterious vital force that works through homeopathic drugs, not through allopathic drugs Fr. Ivo Mysterious vital force, indeed! Perhaps, homeopathic drugs were chosen to receive this miraculous force at the time of creation. I wonder what scientific experiment one can do to confirm or falsify this received wisdom. Here is more information on the Quackwatch website on why homeopathy cannot be regarded as scientific or deserving of a special religious immunity from scientific tests: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science (part 2)
Religion and Science: Homeopathy / Allopathy / Science To some the following may be simplistic; while to others it may be 'too medical'. Either way my apologies. Sure some will knit-pick every word and sentence, thus overlooking the gist of the message. We Goans are sometimes good at knit-picking while overlooking the big picture. This can be said about me too ... aum suprulo goenkar murree! From the link that Santosh provided, the second paragraph states, The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo, and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way. So, Homeopathy works ... not in all patients. But we do not know how i.e. no current explanation of the mechanism of action. The placebo effect is still an effect triggered by as yet unknown factor. The placebo effect lies beyond the body's existing ability to heal. The placebo effect may be mind over matter, or if one want to sound scientific, the immune system, or call it what one may. The (VALID) point Fr. Ivo makes: If homeopathy works (say) in 50 percent of cases; why not give it to those patients. True science would / should work on identifying the OTHER fifty percent of patients that are unlikely to respond to (say) the 'chicken soup'. This would be better than treating (all) 100% of patients with drugs. As an example: In case of pneumonia, reserve the antibiotics only to those who do not respond to 'chicken soup'. Great science and true scientists would (work to) develop tests to separate up-front the likely chicken-soup responders from the chicken-soup non-responders. The makers of antibiotics would not like this test and such true scientific logic. For a variety of reasons, the reality is there is no scientific research along such rational pathways. The above logic can apply to many illnesses. Examples exist in cancer care. We often treat 100 percent of patients to benefit (improve results in) in sometimes only 10 percent of patients. In this scenario, the 90 percent stand to gain NO BENEFIT; and run the risk of side-effects and costs of the unnecessary (for them) therapy. Smart science would devote its research to identify that 10 percent subset that fails, so that the new / additional drug can be targeted only to that group, who would stand to benefit. When a guy called Giovanni Bonnadona introduced chemotherapy for breast cancer thirty years ago, the scientific results of a randomized clinical trial was called a Breakthrough. Now his absolute improvement in survival was less than 7 percent. While medical oncologists still do the same as Bonnadona for the same 100 percent of patients, (because its is called the standard of care'), the fact is the same data could / should be interpreted as percent of patients who had no benefit. The sad part is even at the highest levels, (university / research labs) no efforts are made to answer difficult questions and seek honest answers. Despite the lofty statements, sciences often may have an economic angle. If we had been honest, we would have spent the last thirty years developing newer / better drugs for breast cancer; instead of patting ourselves on the back and giving awards to Bonnadona ... by pharmaceutical companies of course. Yes there are new drugs, but no breakthroughs even though some 'scientists would like us to believe so. Let us hope we have better luck with gene testing of the cancer for better targeted therapy. So science like religion is striving to be better. Neither of us are there yet. Perhaps, three decades from now, today's allopathic medicine may be lumped with Ayurveda as treating all categories of the same disease with the same drug, without making any special effort to target therapy to the particular disease-subset, in the particular patient-subset. This is only a marginal improvement over homeopathy approach. Even the low-paid tailors in Goa custom-fit the clothes (they sow) to their customers. Of course a Goan tailor does not deal with saving a patient's life - not that I know. I would like to conclude that scientists would serve best, by holding their colleagues to higher standards; rather than chastising those in other fields. The same applies to Fr. Ivo and myself and other professionals. Let us within our own field, remove the speck from our own eye, however painful that may be. Regards, GL Fr. Ivo C. de Souza Wild claims regarding homeopathy are not made by me, but by all those who are practising and expriencing its benefits. If scientifically, homeopathy is just placebo effect, it is worth practising it. It would be better than Allopathy (or Western medicine) and would not need any other medical system... Anyone could practise it and cure all diseases... No need of homeopathic companies, colleges, physicians, boards, hospitals... -- Santosh Helekar To find out why the wild claims regarding homeopathy made by
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com It is clear that homeopathy and other alternative medical practices are faith-based belief systems. There are uncanny similarities and analogies between these medical belief systems, and new and old religious belief systems. They are: 1. Both have a large faith-based following. 2. Both make extensive use of murky and spooky terms such as holistic, vital force, spiritual energy, etc. 3. Their beneficial effects appear to stem from psychological factors such as emotional satisfaction and spiritual appeal. 4. Some of their strongest promoters tend to be religious men and women. 5. They rely on anecdotes and testimonials. 6. They are in perpetual denial and defiance of blatant contradictions with established scientific facts and principles. 7. Their knowledge is entirely based on categorical assertions (often already proven to be false) from a historical authority or authoritative text. 8. Their approach to theory and practice is entirely subjective, temperamental and idiosyncratic, which often involves attacking modern science and scientific medicine, and their practitioners. 9. They do not reject, revise or update any of their principles or theories based on evidence, or based on discoveries in science and modern medicine. 10. They are essentially static and stagnant; there is no intellectual progress or new knowledge of any kind. ***Thanks, Dr.Santosh Helekar, for your bombarding of data. I find that your 'beliefs' are stronger than mine. Your writings remind me of those of the British evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, Richard Dawkins (who eventually wanted 'mystical experiences' to be mechanically triggered in his brain, but did not succeed)... Homeopathy has nothing to do with religion and faith. Patients are treated, healed through medication, holistic treatment means that also their mental and psychological symptoms are taken into account. This is the modern way of treating patients (not only diseases). If one recognizes the above, it is easy to see why alternative medical ritualistic systems have been, and should be tolerated by a pluralistic secular society. There are, and there should be, alternative medical practitioners and colleges, just as there are, and there should be, religious priests and theological and atheological schools. Many people most definitely need their services for psychological, emotional and spiritual reasons. ***It is clear that there is nothing such as alternative medical ritualistic systems. Homeopathy is valid in a pluralistic secular society, just as all other valid systems should be accepted. You are wrong when you speak about theology. Nobody will be able to discuss with you on these points... Theology is not harmless for those who intend to do harm to the society, particularly to the downtrodden... Theology has its role in the transformation of the society. Psychological well-being is also part and parcel of the integral human well-being. You should discard, once for all, your materialistic and a-theistic worldview, which is not scientific... However, one should never uncritically tolerate the wild claims of miraculous cures that they make. They are as capable of harm as any untested modern medical treatment, if their safety and efficacy is not tested using the scientific method. ***How are miracles capable of harm, when people get cured and well attested scientifically by the panel of physicians who have accompanied the patients? Miracles (in their theological sense) are singular and rare, not to be subjected to the double-blind control. There can be miracles, even when there is no 'faith' in God. Healings can abound, they can be due to prayer, faith, placebo effect, suggestion, support, remission, endorphin, belief in the physician, or any other human and humane factor, as well as socio-cultural-religious... In the case of homeopathy the harm is in cases where the practitioner tries to replace modern medical treatment with his own concoction. ***The physician should be sincere and knowledgeable enough to see which treatment should be followed in particular cases. Not all modern medical treatment is efficacious for every disease. In several cases, homeopathy will do the job... Sometimes, no medicine will work. Sometimes, prayer will work. Sometimes, not even prayer will do the job (cure the disease). God's Will has to be accepted in life and death... The homeopath does not use concoction, which our traditional allopathic physicians used with much success (even today there are some who use...of course, it should be used with caution, in case there are better remedies...). When remedies contain toxic substances (in fact, almost all allopathic medicines have side-effects and are toxic to some extent), medical fraternity should be on guard... If homeopathic medicines are not well prepared, companies should be warned. There are good German remedies
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
To find out why the wild claims regarding homeopathy made by Fr. Ivo in the posts appended below are patently bogus, please read this article provided by a prominent British organization of scientists, promoting sense and science among lay people: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf Here are some relevant quotes from it: The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way. Homeopathic preparations have been diluted to such an extent that many do not contain a single molecule of the active ingredient... Homeopaths believe that water can 'remember' the active ingredient. If water had this ability, it would also remember the other substances that have been diluted into it over time, such as human and animal waste, dead plants, bacteria and minerals; it would remember the test tube in which the homeopathic preparation was made. Over 150 clinical trials have failed to show that homeopathy works. Some small-scale studies have yielded positive results, but this is due to poor methodologies or random effects. When all the evidence from many trials is pooled together, homeopathy is no better than a placebo. A recent Lancet paper compared 110 homeopathy trials with 110 conventional medicine trials. The authors found that the higher quality trials offered strong evidence that conventional medicines work and no evidence that homeopathic preparations work. In other words, the better the research, the less effective homeopathy appears. Over a dozen similar analyses have arrived at the same conclusion: that homeopathy does not perform any better than placebos. Cheers, Santosh P.S. BTW, No scientist or modern physician uses the outdated, meaningless term allopathy. It was a word coined by Samuel Hahnemann to distinguish his own idiosyncratic practices from the idiosyncratic practices of other physicians. Neither him nor any of them was engaged in genuine evidence-based scientific medicine, which is only about 40 years old. --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: Homeopathy has been tested by medical science. The problem is not merely 'faith' in the physician, which is necessary, but is not enough. It is a system that works. I refer to those who really know the principles, art and science of Homeopathy. It is not 'powder' (sugar of milk) given by a fake homeopath together with steroids..., but a drug homeopathically prepared. ... Allopaths who have practised both Allopathy and Homoepathy have written about the superiority of Homeopathy over Allopathy in many diseases (you can read C.A.Madan, Homeopathy cures when Allopathy fails. In fact, some allopaths have switched over from allopathy to homeopathy (and studied in the medical homeopathic colleges), because they themselves have been cured of chronic diseases by homeopathy (Dr.S.R.Wadia). There are allopaths who take homeopathic drugs for themselves in some diseases. There are allopathic practitioners who recommend the homeopathic treatment for their patients, for example, in the case of asthma, psoriasis, pemphigus vulgaris, Parkinson's disease (the cure may not be total), IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome). Each medical system has its own merits and demerits. Medical responsibility should be there. The evidence is revealed in the practice of genuine Homeopathy... Dr.Samuel Hanehmann, who was an allopath, has proved drugs homeopathically and systematized it with his Organon of Rational Medicine.. --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: Children do not have 'belief', yet they are cured by homeopathic medicines. Homoeopathic physicians get all the modern training in the colleges. I would like to hear from homeopathic practitioners. In fact, I spoke to some of them yesterday. May more light be shed on this issue.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
2009/4/16 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in [1] I would say that those who benefit, let them take the maximum from any medical system. Even in the hospitals people take their own choices and sometimes may be healed... After all, one should do what is possible, within rational limits, and leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty God. COMMENT: Dear Fr Ivo, I believe we are talking from two different angles. You (possibly) from the angle of the patient, I from the angle of the physician. As far as the patient is concerned, I agree entirely with you. He (generic for he/she), as long as he is an adult and competent to take that decision, has every right to take whatever decision he wishes to take - even refuse treatment. He is not allowed to take such a decision on behalf of a sick child. As was famously said: Grown men are free to make martyrs of themselves. They do no have the right to make martyrs of children. You may know (and I wonder how you feel about it) that Jehovah's witnesses routinely refuse blood even if the refusal is likely to cost them their life. They choose to 'leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty God.' At this moment, a pregnant Jehovah's witness is entitled to refuse blood transfusion even if her refusal places her foetus at risk of death. -- [2] Being with a homeopath and following him for some time would convince you of the efficacy of homoeopathy, sometimes even in cases in which allopathy fails. After all, I said that every medical system has its limits. COMMENT: I am sorry but your suggestion is asking me to Take a chance on a live subject. I do not have that freedom - neither ethically nor legally. I can ONLY use medications and methods of treatment which have been scientifically tested and the tests reproduced. I have to do so taking 'all the facets of the case as well as the effects and side-effects of the medications' into consideration. Patients are free to do as they please but not physicians. -- [3] I would still rely on homeopathy as an efficient medical system. Children do not have 'belief', yet they are cured by homeopathic medicines. Homoeopathic physicians get all the modern training in the colleges. COMMENT: Here again we are talking about two different perspectives. As an adult patient/client, you are absolutely entitled to rely on homeopathy, allopathy, naturopathy or nothing at all. The question for the state (Govt) is as follows: If an individual patient relies on an unproven (scientically) claim by ANYBODY (allopath, homeopath etc) that a particular condition can be cured by (say) Aspirin or powder B . and this reliance causes his (the patient's) condition to worsen - does the State NOT have a responsibility to protect its citizens? The answer is YES. The way forward is to have ALL methods and medications scientifically tested (as opposed to anecdotally acclaimed). The problem is NOT for the cleint/patient who is using his own free will. The problem definitely is for the one (be allopath, homeopath or priest/swami) who makes the unproven claim. I believe I have said enough (and more on the matter) good wishes as always jc
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com To find out why the wild claims regarding homeopathy made by Fr. Ivo in the posts appended below are patently bogus, please read this article provided by a prominent British organization of scientists, promoting sense and science among lay people: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf ***Wild claims regarding homeopathy are not made by me, but by all those who are practising and expriencing its benefits. If scientifically, homeopathy is just placebo effect, it is worth practising it. It would be better than Allopathy (or Western medicine) and would not need any other medical system... Anyone could practise it and cure all diseases... No need of homeopathic companies, colleges, physicians, boards, hospitals... The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way. ***It is an excellent invention of Dr.Samuel Hanehmann, who is a genius in medicine. Only homeopathic physicians should be allowed to work for ailments that are oppressing humanity... Homeopathic preparations have been diluted to such an extent that many do not contain a single molecule of the active ingredient... ***It is a mysterious vital force that works through homeopathic drugs, not through allopathic drugs... If medicines have no value, why is it necessary to bring drugs from all over the world? After all, what is the work of a drug? Over 150 clinical trials have failed to show that homeopathy works. Some small-scale studies have yielded positive results, but this is due to poor methodologies or random effects. When all the evidence from many trials is pooled together, homeopathy is no better than a placebo. ***Yet, there are thousands of cases of cures by homeopathic medicines every day in every nook and corner of the world. If it is through placebo effect, use water with colour and heal people... A recent Lancet paper compared 110 homeopathy trials with 110 conventional medicine trials. The authors found that the higher quality trials offered strong evidence that conventional medicines work and no evidence that homeopathic preparations work. In other words, the better the research, the less effective homeopathy appears. Over a dozen similar analyses have arrived at the same conclusion: that homeopathy does not perform any better than placebos. ***But in everyday life Western medicine works for some cases, and Homeopathy works for other cases, sometimes difficult ones...People come to know it, only when they switch on to homeopathy... There are homeopathic hospitals in India (Fr.Muller's Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore). There are Colleges... What work are they doing with 'placebos' brought from Germany? Why do they need medicines from Germany, when water for placebo can be found in India? It was a word coined by Samuel Hahnemann... ***The words have a meaning: allopathy and homeopathy. But what makes a difference is what effects cures in different diseases. I am speaking mostly from the practical viewpoint. You can discuss it with homeopaths who know better the scientific structure of the homeopathic system. I am writing about what I know for years from my reading and study. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:04:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com Fr. Ivo, Thanks for endorsing my statement. What is it they say about great minds think alike? Mario observes: Gilbert is absolutely correct. He and Fr. Ivo think exactly alike, as we can see from their posts - and both are fantastic thinkers in their own minds:-)) Gilbert wrote: I concur that Goans should not / cannot be misled by the few pontificators.? Mario observes: I don't think Gilbert has been successful in misleading anyone, but it is not for want of trying. Here are a few examples of his own demagoguery and pontifications, just in the last few days, mostly in posts he initiated for no apparent reason other than to be contentious and display his anti-American stripes: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176354.html Excerpt: The writings resemble the whining of a five-year old who needs a do-over because he has not worked through his anal-trauma, yet.:=)) http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176382.html Excerpt: America has been adept at using foreign countries and issues to distract itself and the world. http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176401.html Excerpt: Those engaged in demagoguery, should not feel bad. They do provide a service to other goanetters, not as educators but in providing us some 'laffs'. After-all, those 'laffs' are always better than watching 'teevee':=)) Memo to Goanet: This was written by Gilbert in the middle of committing demagoguery. http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176405.html Excerpt: Few far right wing Republicans, who follow Rush Limbaugh, may be sulking at the success occurring under President Obama's watch. http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176437.html Excerpt: The distraction of America, can also apply to other countries, and to us as individuals. http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176494.html Excerpt: Dubya will want Iraq to succeed to vindicate himself. Rush Limbaugh and his ditto heads will want Iraq to fail, just so that they can blame Obama, for the premature withdrawal from Iraq. Are you sure you want to call yourself an admitted 'dittohead'?:=)) http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176538.html Excerpt: A pointer I have learnt, and which you likely know, but I would like to share with other Goanetters: Do not permit others to define oneself, ones views or ones message. Mario observes: These are only a few examples from just this month! I think the evidence shows that Gilbert does not need anyone else to define him - he does that quite well with his own writings.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com 2009/4/16 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in After all, one should do what is possible, within rational limits, and leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty God. Dear Fr Ivo, I believe we are talking from two different angles. You (possibly) from the angle of the patient, I from the angle of the physician. ***Thank you again, Dr.J.Colaço, for your patient explanation. No, I am talking from the viewpoint of both the physician and the patient. As a physician, I shall do whatever I can in my system (allopathic or homoepathic) and specialization. The patient will come to me if s/he knows my value in my system and specialization. If the patient knows already, that cure can come from homeopathy, s/he will come to a homeopath. We take children to homeopathy, since we know that homeopathy does good to most children's ailments. If it is too serious, the child will be hospitalized. All of us, physician and patient, should do whatever is in our hands. We choose the best physician, hospital, medicines, systems. The rest we leave in the hands of God. You may know (and I wonder how you feel about it) that Jehovah's witnesses routinely refuse blood even if the refusal is likely to cost them their life. They choose to 'leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty God.' At this moment, a pregnant Jehovah's witness is entitled to refuse blood transfusion even if her refusal places her foetus at risk of death. ***If you had been homeopathic physician, you would have done what the homeopaths do. You would be satisfied to cure patients with your drugs. When I said leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty God, I meant that the physician does everything in his/her power to save the patient, the patient cooperates. Please, do not rank me with the Jehovah's witnesses. It is against the biblical teaching (cf.Sirach 38:1-24). There may be other technical reasons for refusing blood transfusion today... Even when we pray for the miracle, we have to do everything in our power to save. When medicine cannot save, prayer may save through a miracle... Medicine is not a panacea for all evils... Nor is the miracle happening whenever we want... Being with a homeopath and following him for some time would convince you of the efficacy of homoeopathy, sometimes even in cases in which allopathy fails. After all, I said that every medical system has its limits. I am sorry but your suggestion is asking me to Take a chance on a live subject. I do not have that freedom - neither ethically nor legally. ***I do not think you are right. You are speaking in these terms, because you do not know homeopathy. Therefore, follow the patient being treated homeopathically (if it is possible and is your wish) and learn for yourself. You cannot prescribe legally nor ethically nor scientifically, because you do not know homeopathic materia medica. I can ONLY use medications and methods of treatment which have been scientifically tested and the tests reproduced. I have to do so taking 'all the facets of the case as well as the effects and side-effects of the medications' into consideration. ***Again, if you had been a homeopath, you would have used the homeopathic remedies. Now that you do not know this medical system, you rely only on yours (nor can you legally or ethically do otherwise). Homeopaths know their own drugs. They can cure through medication some diseases that would require surgery in the hands of an allopath. I would still rely on homeopathy as an efficient medical system. Children do not have 'belief', yet they are cured by homeopathic medicines. Homoeopathic physicians get all the modern training in the colleges. Here again we are talking about two different perspectives. As an adult patient/client, you are absolutely entitled to rely on homeopathy, allopathy, naturopathy or nothing at all. ***It is a fact that children are being taken to the homeopaths. There are diseases which can be better treated by homeopathy than by allopathy (or Western medicine). I am not referring to the choice of the patients or physicians, but about the efficacy of homeopathy. The way forward is to have ALL methods and medications scientifically tested (as opposed to anecdotally acclaimed). ***You are still in the belief that homeopathy does not work. Homeopathy is being tested in every clinical case. 'Anecdotal evidence' will be given by the patient who does not know the medical science, but can tell what changes (subjective and objective) have come about through medication. It is up to the physician to send the patient for the relevant tests for the healthy condition. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Wed, 4/15/09, J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com wrote: However, would you not agree that, the evidence must be rested and evaluated by scientific methods and not on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. The problem is Fr. Ivo's idea of the scientific method is not the same as that practiced by scientists. For him anything that is printed in black and white in some book is scientific, as long as he likes what it says. Anything that a historian or a historical person claims to be an observation is by definition scientific from his standpoint, provided it does not contradict his beliefs. If Samuel Hahnemann or some other homeopath claims that his method is scientific then scientific it is for Fr. Ivo. If a scientist tells him that it is not, and demonstrates and explains why it is not, then he dismisses it because he is unaccustomed to rejecting any of his beliefs, or to following even a simple scientific argument against it. This thing that comes natural to a student of science is not his cup of tea. For example, he won't be able to rationally and substantively appreciate or rebut the following position paper on Homeopathy by the National Council Against Health Fraud: http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html#recommendations He has no clue that the scientific method requires that observations be reproduced by others, be confirmed by different independent and objective means, be discarded if falsified, and make sense in the context of the rest of science. In short, Fr. Ivo has created his own special imaginary definition of science and the scientific method, which is not limited to natural phenomena and this matter and energy universe, but extends to mystical realms and supernatural vistas. Moreover, it is dictated by his own likes and dislikes. It is not science that any regular scientist or student of science can recognize. Cheers, Santosh
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:05:01 -0400 From: MD mmdme...@gmail.com Who I wonder authorised 'jurisdiction to this individual to call names on Spain? Very funny. Mario responds: I'm glad you find your lack of knowledge funny. As the only voice of reason, truth and peace on Goanet, my jurisdiction is infinite when responding to those on Goanet who trade in illogic, falsehoods and troublemaking - like the couple of feckless Spaniards are trying to do right now, and MD who apparently supports them. MD wrote: Spain is not the only country that has withdrawn from the so called illigal coalition. Even Britain was contemplating or may have already withdrawn it's troops from Basra. Any comments on the Brits' decision? Mario responds: If this individual had any clue what was going on in Iraq he would know that the the liberation of his friend, Saddam, was sanctioned by the UN, and so, was not illegal, and the Brits did not cut and run with their tails between their legs after they were attacked on 7/7. They withdrew from Basra when the Iraqis agreed that they could handle their own security there. MD wrote: I really feel Obama thinks before he talks ... Mario responds: Oh, yeah? Perhaps you should know something about what you write: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html http://spectator.org/archives/2008/08/21/teleprompting-obama http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/10/obamas-reliance-on-teleprompters/
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Wed, 4/15/09, J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com wrote: However, would you not agree that, the evidence must be rested and evaluated by scientific methods and not on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. The problem is Fr. Ivo's idea of the scientific method is not the same as that practiced by scientists. For him anything that is printed in black and white in some book is scientific, as long as he likes what it says. Anything that a historian or a historical person claims to be an observation is by definition scientific from his standpoint, provided it does not contradict his beliefs. If Samuel Hahnemann or some other homeopath claims that his method is scientific then scientific it is for Fr. Ivo This thing that comes natural to a student of science is not his cup of tea. ***Homeopathy is being practised throughout the world. Is it 'belief' or science applied for healing diseases? I am not alone to accept homeopathy as a genuine medical system. Anecdotal evidence has been scientifically verified. Only Dr.Santosh knows the scientific methods and the truth? All of us have used scientific methods in the lab and studied Science. We have studied Science as well as Philosophy and Theology. When I accept miracles, as factual events, signs of God's love, am I against Science? What is scientific? Is it only materialistic worldview? I accept theories of evolution as well as the theological concept of creation by God. I do accept the Trinity, Incarnation of God, Divinity of Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus, his miracles, Eucharistic miracles, Lourdes miracles. Am I 'out-dated' or 'anti-Science'? For example, he won't be able to rationally and substantively appreciate or rebut the following position paper on Homeopathy by the National Council Against Health Fraud: http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html#recommendations ***I am not able to accept what the author has written, if it discards homeopathy as a medical system. Is it against homeopathy or against abuses by fake practitioners? As a matter of fact, I have read, heard and seen a lot about homeopathy since 1978. By the way, homeopathy is not part and parcel of my Christian creed. My simple question is: If homeopathy is quackery, it should be stopped in Goa, in India and in every country of Europe and America. How is it that homeopathic physicians are curing diseases? My rebuttal is to show him the people who are cured by homeopathic drugs. Let Dr.Santosh proclaim these slogans over the housetops. Nobody will listen to him. Actually, people are preferring homeopathic treatment all over the world. We actually need all the medical systems. Every medical system has its limits. I was laughing over the statements of Dr.Santosh when talking to a young homeopathic physician over here. Dr.C.A.Madan has written his book after 20 years of experience in allopathy and homeopathy in India and in America: Homeopathy cures where Allopathy fails. There are medical colleges of homeopathy everywhere, there are pharmacies with medicines from America and Germany. Reckeweg and Madaus are homeopathic German companies. Is this 'quackery'? The article is a sample of stupid 'scientific quackery'! If homeopathy is scientifically indefensible, why are there boards, colleges, pharmacies, licensed or nonlicensed physicians, labelling products? No homeopathic products and physicians should be allowed anywhere in the world. Logic is not the cup of tea of scientists, like Dr.Santosh. Moreover, it is dictated by his own likes and dislikes. It is not science that any regular scientist or student of science can recognize. ***On the contrary, I find that Dr.Santosh is selective in his statements, following his own ideological biases. To discuss the topic of our research: Science and God, we need more than the mere knowledge of scientific methods... When the historical facts are produced, we have to address the question of how they came. It is not enough to reject them as 'fake' and 'bogus' because one does not accept its possibility. If it is historical, it is possible... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com 2009/4/15 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: Homeopathy, it is not enough to quote articles by people who do not know it at all. Let people who have been practising and experiencing it speak of their evidence. Dear Fr Ivo, I agree with you that those 'who practice and experience Homeopathy should speak about it'. However, would you not agree that, the evidence must be rested and evaluated by scientific methods and not on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. *** Dear Dr.J.Colaço, I endorse totally your statement that any medical system has to be evaluated by scientific methods. If it is accepted as a medical system, it is because it is yielding good results. WHO has approved it. If it is a caricature of medicine, it should be abolished. I do respect your professional medical knowledge and your clinical experience. Drug A produces A' effects and A'' side-effects. In Allopathy there have been tragedies of which you should know (for example, thalidomide). Homeopathy has been tested by medical science. The problem is not merely 'faith' in the physician, which is necessary, but is not enough. It is a system that works. I refer to those who really know the principles, art and science of Homeopathy. It is not 'powder' (sugar of milk) given by a fake homeopath together with steroids..., but a drug homeopathically prepared. If Homeopathy is fake, all Governments should have stopped it. But it is a genuine medical system, which works according to its principles. Allopaths who have practised both Allopathy and Homoepathy have written about the superiority of Homeopathy over Allopathy in many diseases (you can read C.A.Madan, Homeopathy cures when Allopathy fails. In fact, some allopaths have switched over from allopathy to homeopathy (and studied in the medical homeopathic colleges), because they themselves have been cured of chronic diseases by homeopathy (Dr.S.R.Wadia). There are allopaths who take homeopathic drugs for themselves in some diseases. There are allopathic practitioners who recommend the homeopathic treatment for their patients, for example, in the case of asthma, psoriasis, pemphigus vulgaris, Parkinson's disease (the cure may not be total), IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome). Each medical system has its own merits and demerits. Medical responsibility should be there. Or, is it being suggested that 'the evidence' should NOT be tested by scientific methods - but accepted on face value? ***The evidence is revealed in the practice of genuine Homeopathy... Dr.Samuel Hanehmann, who was an allopath, has proved drugs homeopathically and systematized it with his Organon of Rational Medicine.. I have no problem with patients and doctors having 'faith' in each other and in the treatment. However, there are issues of patient rights which involve those who put themselves out to be healers of diseases and conditions. These healers ought to be responsible for negligence and for un-verified claims. ***Many patients will come to you because they have 'faith' in you, though there may be several physicians better than you. All should be responsible. Quite often, what saves the allopathic physician is not his knowledge, but his diploma... Doctor is held responsible, has a claim against him settled by his Insurance company. The patient is compensated - The doctor loses his license. ***Medicine has always been complicated, because our body is complicated and individuals even more complex. People have died due to such errors of physicians. Usually they do not lose their license. Homeopaths will be considered as 'fake' and punished, but not the allopaths... But they are also human beings. There should be responsibility, not gross blunders... After all, Science has its limits... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
2009/4/16 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in [1] I endorse totally your statement that any medical system has to be evaluated by scientific methods. If it is accepted as a medical system, it is because it is yielding good results. WHO has approved it. Dear Fr Ivo .Thank you for your thoughts. My comments interspersed COMMENT: I am not sure that I would suggest that just because WHO approves it, I should particularly be impressed. The WHO has to work with 'what is available'. It approves the use of 'foot doctors'..anyway the WHO is a long story. Many parts of it are very good - many not. -- [2] In Allopathy there have been tragedies of which you should know (for example, thalidomide). Comment: While thalidomide (like chloramphenicol) has its uses (even future), I submit that it was not adequately tested for the purpose it was used. You may not know but Big-Phaarma faces similar questions from individuals like Santosh and jc. There are pleanty free trips and goodies available - ESP in Goa, if doctors go along with the Pharma chaps. You may wish to know that I do not accept samples nor their 'hospitality' if I attend a lecture sponsored by them. -- [3] Homeopathy has been tested by medical science. ..If Homeopathy is fake, all Governments should have stopped it. Comment: The same ones who are unable to 'stop' the counterfeit medicines? I am glad you have better faith in Govt than I have. -- [4] But it is a genuine medical system, which works according to its principles. Allopaths who have practised both Allopathy and Homoepathy have written about the superiority of Homeopathy over Allopathy in many diseases (you can read C.A.Madan, Homeopathy cures when Allopathy fails. Comment: I know that Homeopathy is a system of medicine. What I am yet to see is any convincing (scientifically reproduceable) evidence that it works. I ahve read many books by allopaths who also practised homeopathy and ayurveda. I have yet to see any scientifically designed studies in any of them..only anecdotes You may wish to know that such articles/writings by allopaths about allopathic medicine would never get published in 2009. The criteria for proof are very strict, and most submissions for publication get thrashed. [5] Many patients will come to you because they have 'faith' in you, though there may be several physicians better than you. All should be responsible. Quite often, what saves the allopathic physician is not his knowledge, but his diploma... Comment: I agree. Every single physician I know, is better qualified and more knowledgeable than I am. If a few patients trickle my way - it is because I make myself available to them - at anytime. (and my internet is on 24/7 - they communicate with me - where-ever I am) -- [6] Medicine has always been complicated, because our body is complicated and individuals even more complex. People have died due to such errors of physicians. Usually they do not lose their license. Comment: Having had the opportunity to study two disciplines - Medicine and Law, and later Medical law ... I look at the issue slightly differently than some years ago. From my understanding - Errors happen. As long as there is no evidence of gross negligence - the doctor is liable only for damages. If the error is gross or repeated - the license is lost (often for good). My position however is very clear (at least in my mind): IF a person (and that includes Faith Healers) positions himself out there as being Able to Cure this and that - and this results in an index patient being delayed from receiving KNOWN and TESTED treatment which could have prevented a tragedy - the doctor pays. If the patient dies in the process, the doctor gets an opportunity to be charged for Involuntary Manslaughter and spend time in jail. This is constant - whether the 'healer' is a Allopath, Homeopath, Hakim, Swami or Priest. That is why, I suggest, that anybody who puts himself (herself) as a 'Healer' should protect himself by using methods and medications which have been scientifically tested and proven to be effective. If one does that - and a side effect occurs - even death; the chances of liability, even criminal liability are negligible. A word to the wise is often enough. Over to you jc
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
It is clear that homeopathy and other alternative medical practices are faith-based belief systems. There are uncanny similarities and analogies between these medical belief systems, and new and old religious belief systems. They are: 1. Both have a large faith-based following. 2. Both make extensive use of murky and spooky terms such as holistic, vital force, spiritual energy, etc. 3. Their beneficial effects appear to stem from psychological factors such as emotional satisfaction and spiritual appeal. 4. Some of their strongest promoters tend to be religious men and women. 5. They rely on anecdotes and testimonials. 6. They are in perpetual denial and defiance of blatant contradictions with established scientific facts and principles. 7. Their knowledge is entirely based on categorical assertions (often already proven to be false) from a historical authority or authoritative text. 8. Their approach to theory and practice is entirely subjective, temperamental and idiosyncratic, which often involves attacking modern science and scientific medicine, and their practitioners. 9. They do not reject, revise or update any of their principles or theories based on evidence, or based on discoveries in science and modern medicine. 10. They are essentially static and stagnant; there is no intellectual progress or new knowledge of any kind. If one recognizes the above, it is easy to see why alternative medical ritualistic systems have been, and should be tolerated by a pluralistic secular society. There are, and there should be, alternative medical practitioners and colleges, just as there are, and there should be, religious priests and theological and atheological schools. Many people most definitely need their services for psychological, emotional and spiritual reasons. But none of these belief systems is even remotely scientific. The only way to tolerate their mutually incompatible insular doctrines for anybody who seriously cares about the universally applicable scientific knowledge and method, is to either compartmentalize his/her own mind, or to strictly adhere to the principle of pluralism, as long as the beliefs in question are harmless. However, one should never uncritically tolerate the wild claims of miraculous cures that they make. They are as capable of harm as any untested modern medical treatment, if their safety and efficacy is not tested using the scientific method. In the case of homeopathy the harm is in cases where the practitioner tries to replace modern medical treatment with his own concoction. The homeopathic remedies themselves do not contain any active drug in high enough concentrations. But that is not true with ayurvedic and Chinese medical treatments. The latter are known to contain toxic compounds such as heavy metal salts. As far as the following post is concerned, it is the same old nonsense. No progress there either. Please see the incoherent statement below. Cheers, Santosh --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: The article is a sample of stupid 'scientific quackery'!
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com 2009/4/16 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in [1] I endorse totally your statement that any medical system has to be evaluated by scientific methods. If it is accepted as a medical system, it is because it is yielding good results. WHO has approved it. Dear Fr Ivo .Thank you for your thoughts. My comments interspersed COMMENT: I am not sure that I would suggest that just because WHO approves it, I should particularly be impressed. The WHO has to work with 'what is available'. It approves the use of 'foot doctors'..anyway the WHO is a long story. Many parts of it are very good - many not. ***Thank you, Dr.J.Colaço, for your sincere and enlightening exposition. I would say that those who benefit, let them take the maximum from any medical system. Even in the hospitals people take their own choices and sometimes may be healed... After all, one should do what is possible, within rational limits, and leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty God. The same ones who are unable to 'stop' the counterfeit medicines? I am glad you have better faith in Govt than I have. ***How do we know it? Either take products from the best medical companies, or go for advice to the physicians who know it. From time to time, newspapers bring us the information about adulterated products. I know that Homeopathy is a system of medicine. What I am yet to see is any convincing (scientifically reproduceable) evidence that it works. ***Being with a homeopath and following him for some time would convince you of the efficacy of homoeopathy, sometimes even in cases in which allopathy fails. After all, I said that every medical system has its limits. I do not question your value (professional, clinical, personal, psychological), though I do not know you... From my understanding - Errors happen. As long as there is no evidence of gross negligence - the doctor is liable only for damages. If the error is gross or repeated - the license is lost (often for good). ***I know well the responsibility of physicians. It is a difficult life, though students go for it. A word to the wise is often enough. ***All care should be taken. Your word of advice is valuable. Thank you. I would still rely on homeopathy as an efficient medical system. Children do not have 'belief', yet they are cured by homeopathic medicines. Homoeopathic physicians get all the modern training in the colleges. I would like to hear from homeopathic practitioners. In fact, I spoke to some of them yesterday. May more light be shed on this issue. Thanks, Dr.J.Colaço! Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Sun, 4/12/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: I do not know what is pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. It is very easy to recognize pseudoscience. Briefly, it refers to any unscientific claim that is falsely advertised as being scientific by its proponents or promoters. An unscientific claim is a claim about a material fact or notion that is not falsifiable by observation or experiment, and/or one that is not consistent with established scientific facts or principles. For example, a claim that objects and entities visualized in a mystical experience have a physical existence apart from the brain is an unscientific claim because it cannot be falsified by observation or experiment. Here are some characteristics of pseudoscientific claims: ... 2. Claims that incorporate religious beliefs, or announce that science has confirmed one's own pre-conceived religious or ideological beliefs. ***Reading within the ontext in which I wrote, I stated that I do not know if there is pseudo-science and pseudo-religion in my postings on God and Science. The answer is that there is no pseudo-science nor pseudo-religion in my postings. What you are finding is due to your ignorance about the matter. Therefore, it is not so very easy to recognize pseudo-science. 1.What is historical can be established by observation. It is scientific. Denying these facts without any reason is unscientific. The facts that I have given in my postings are historically established, they are not mythical. 2.Science confirms what is factual and historical , not merely one's own pre-conceived religious or ideological beliefs. I have no my own pre-conceived religious beliefs 3.Science approves of the medical system of Homeopathy and Ayurveda. They are different systems. Allopathic is not the only one. Cheating should be avoided in any system. 4. Faith healing has its place, as placebo effect/healing has its own. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com There was no thread called Religion and Science until Gilbert started it with the above post. I assume by pseudo-religion and pseudo-science he is referring to the threads initiated by Fr. Ivo. I would agree with Gilbert that Fr. Ivo was propagating pseudo-science in those threads. But I thought he was preaching genuine religion in them. It would be nice to hear from Gilbert why he thinks that even the religion Fr. Ivo was preaching in those threads was pseudo-religion. ***Dr.Santosh does not know till today the limits of Science. What he is stating or denying in the name of Science is pseudo-science, that is the beginning of the whole discussion. I have already spoken about it. Since he does not know the tasks of Science, he calls pseudo-science the conclusions based by scientists on scientific experiments. Dr.Santosh is not able to speak about pseudo-religion, since he considers religion as figment of mind. What has Dr.Gilbert Lawrence to say? Why is it pseudo-religion? Regards. Fr.Ivo
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:37:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com As the voice of reason, truth and peace, you may be needed in Madrid. Please see below. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/the-bush-six-to-be-indicted/ Mario responds: Sadly, as the only real voice on Goanet for reason, truth and peace, I am forced to put some context and perspective on the overheated claims on a far left wing blog, one of many that Gilbert relies on for his information. This absurd attempt by a couple of far left wing activists in Spain to try and embarrass the US with a revisionist attack on Bush administration officials is Bush Derangement Syndrome taken to an international level. Unfortunately for them, a weak and feckless Spain, which ran away from Iraq with their tails between their legs after only one train bombing in Madrid, has no jurisdiction over Americans, and the economic and political repercussions on Spain should they proceed with this ridiculous charade will be far more severe than they will be able to handle.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: I have no my own pre-conceived religious beliefs Interesting statement! I wonder how much credulity one would have to be endowed with in order to believe that a religious man like Fr. Ivo does not have his own pre-conceived religious beliefs. Perhaps, much more than that required to believe that his religious education gives him the ability to recognize what is genuinely scientific while my scientific education does not give me the ability to do so. The claims made by him that a historical statement is automatically scientific, and that science approves of Homeopathy and Ayurveda are demonstrably bogus. Please see my earlier posts on these issues in the Goanet archives. Here is a nice article published by the American Council on Science and Health on pseudoscience in the alternative medical belief systems like Homeopathy and Ayurveda. http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.908/healthissue_detail.asp Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: I have no my own pre-conceived religious beliefs Interesting statement! I wonder how much credulity one would have to be endowed with in order to believe that a religious man like Fr. Ivo does not have his own pre-conceived religious beliefs. Perhaps, much more than that required to believe that his religious education gives him the ability to recognize what is genuinely scientific while my scientific education does not give me the ability to do so. The claims made by him that a historical statement is automatically scientific, and that science approves of Homeopathy and Ayurveda are demonstrably bogus. Please see my earlier posts on these issues in the Goanet archives. Here is a nice article published by the American Council on Science and Health on pseudoscience in the alternative medical belief systems like Homeopathy and Ayurveda. http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.908/healthissue_detail.asp ***Christian Faith is not my own, pre-conceived, religious beliefs. If I have religious education, it is critical, scientific, historical, literary, hermeneutical--in one word, whatever scientific instruments we have, like history, archaeology, textual criticism, exegetical trends. The problem is what you mean by genuinely scientific. Does it mean that it is only materialistic worldview or holistic worldview? You say that to state that a historical statement is automatically scientific is demonstrably bogus. If it is historical by observation and all other criteria, possible for such a research, how can it be bogus? Regarding Homeopathy, it is not enough to quote articles by people who do not know it at all. Let people who have been practising and experiencing it speak of their evidence. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
2009/4/15 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: Homeopathy, it is not enough to quote articles by people who do not know it at all. Let people who have been practising and experiencing it speak of their evidence. Dear Fr Ivo, I agree with you that those 'who practice and experience Homeopathy should speak about it'. However, would you not agree that, the evidence must be rested and evaluated by scientific methods and not on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. Or, is it being suggested that 'the evidence' should NOT be tested by scientific methods - but accepted on face value? I have no problem with patients and doctors having 'faith' in each other and in the treatment. However, there are issues of patient rights which involve those who put themselves out to be healers of diseases and conditions. These healers ought to be responsible for negligence and for un-verified claims. Here is a scenario, I'd like you to consider: [A]: Patient goes to a registered doctor with a pneumonia. Doctor says - take some Chicken Soup and some Ampicillin. You will be fine. Patient worsens and ends up losing 1/3 of his lung. It was an infection from an organism resistant to Ampicillin. Doctor is held responsible, has a claim against him settled by his Insurance company. The patient is compensated - The doctor loses his license. [B] [A]: Patient goes to a Homeopath or Ayurvedic doctor with a pneumonia. Doctor says - take some Vegeterian Soup and some 'powder'. You will be fine. Patient worsens and ends up losing 1/3 of his lung. It was an infection which did not respond to the 'powder' How exactly is the patient compensated for this?
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Fr. Ivo, Thanks for endorsing my statement. What is it they say about great minds think alike? I concur that Goans should not / cannot be misled by the few pontificators. But at some point, they should at best, be ignored. After all, why waste time responding to the 'sodanchem kani' (pardon my konkani)? A pointer I have learnt, and which you likely know, but I would like to share with other Goanetters: Do not permit others to define oneself, ones views or ones message. The pontificators can have their full in writing ... and writing ... and writing, hoping to win the hearts and minds of Goanetters. But most goanetters are smarter than they think. Some Goanetters seem to overlook that unnecessary use of strong / derogatory words is really a sign of weakness. Yet they are not likely to change. Like they say in Konkani about the dog and his curved tail, can never be straightened-out. Regards, GL --- Fr. Ivo C. de Souza Here you have spoken the truth. I do endorse your statement. . Yet, Goanetters should not be misled by a few who are pontificating on the Forum. - Gilbert Lawrence Every topic has its time, place and space. By and large, those in the know, are also familiar with, in what forum and where these parameters lie. The technique of demagoguery (commonly used on Goanet) usually is: Create a straw man with a few false statements / assumptions. Then tear it down, while sounding intellectual and articulate.
[Goanet] Religion and Science
One Mr. Mario responds: as the only real voice on Goanet for reason, truth and peace, I am forced to put some context and perspective on the overheated claims on a far left wing blog He further claims Madrid has no jurisdiction over Americans' Sadly in the same breath, this Mario the peace keeper gives his piece of mind to the weak and feckless Spain Who I wonder authorised 'jurisdiction to this individual to call names on Spain? Very funny. It is like 'Dubya' claiming, those who are 'not with me, are against me!! Spain is not the only country that has withdrawn from the so called illigal coalition. Even Britain was contemplating or may have already withdrawn it's troops from Basra. Any comments on the Brits' decision? I really feel Obama thinks before he talks (teleprompter is not used for the first time, other persidents including 'Dubya' too have used it). Dubya's wife claimed in Larry King live that he does not tell her anything!!! A pack of lies.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com Every topic has its time, place and space. By and large, those in the know, are also familiar with, in what forum and where these parameters lie. Cross those boundaries and likely one is in 'outer-space'. Here, at best one is having a dialog with oneself - soliloquy. At worst, (when one is having a discussion with another), they may be engaging in demagoguery, where one is responding to imaginary issues, concepts, comments, etc. ... Sounds familiar? The technique of demagoguery (commonly used on Goanet) usually is: Create a straw man with a few false statements / assumptions. Then tear it down, while sounding intellectual and articulate. The demagogues consider this as a win-win situation, and a no brainer.. Now the discussion become a vicious circle. None of this is personal or directed at any one in particular. Those engaged in demagoguery, should not feel bad. They do provide a service to other goanetters, not as educators but in providing us some 'laffs'. After-all, those 'laffs' are always better than watching 'teevee':=)) Keep up the good work Regards, GL --- Fr. Ivo C. de Souza wrote: Science has its limits, Religion has its space in the human existence. ***Sorry, Dr.Gilbert Lawrence, if I have misunderstood your earlier posting. Here you have spoken the truth. I do endorse your statement. It becomes difficult to discuss here on any topic, much more on religion, science, politics, history, ethics. Any topic can be discussed. There should be sincere people, avoiding the technique of demagoguery(commonly used on Goanet), as you rightly said. Yet, Goanetters should not be misled by a few who are pontificating on the Forum... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: I do not know what is pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. It is very easy to recognize pseudoscience. Briefly, it refers to any unscientific claim that is falsely advertised as being scientific by its proponents or promoters. An unscientific claim is a claim about a material fact or notion that is not falsifiable by observation or experiment, and/or one that is not consistent with established scientific facts or principles. For example, a claim that objects and entities visualized in a mystical experience have a physical existence apart from the brain is an unscientific claim because it cannot be falsified by observation or experiment. Here are some characteristics of pseudoscientific claims: 1. Claims in the lay press, popular non-fiction books and public forums, that make excessive use of scientific sounding words which don't mean anything to lay people and scientists alike, and whose function therefore is only to dazzle the gullible. 2. Claims that incorporate religious beliefs, or announce that science has confirmed one's own pre-conceived religious or ideological beliefs. 3. Claims that rely on anecdotes. 5. Claims originating in the lay press, popular non-fiction books or public forums that some well established scientific fact or principle has been disproven. 6. Claims originating in the lay press, popular non-fiction books or public forums that some unsolved scientific problem has been solved or an incredible cure for some currently incurable disease has been found. 7. Claims that are supported by cherry picked one-sided or selective evidence. 8. Claims that involve conspiracy theories. 9. Claims that rely on political or ideological justifications such as East-West dichotomy, cultural relativism, ancient wisdom, revealed truths, capitalist subjugation, communist/socialist agenda, etc. 10. Claims that rely on innuendo, guilt by association, appeal to authority, special pleading, appeal to emotions and other logical and prejudicial fallacies. 11. Claims involving metaphorical, analogical and/or magical thinking. 12. Claims of discovery of a new kind of science, or involving a re-definition of science. Cheers, Santosh
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com The technique of demagoguery (commonly used on Goanet) usually is: Create a straw man with a few false statements / assumptions. Then tear it down, while sounding intellectual and articulate.?? Mario observes: Since Gilbert frequently seems oblivious to what he writes, it becomes incumbent on me as the only voice of reason, truth and peace on Goanet to hold up a cyber-mirror so he can see himself. Here is one very recent example of his building a straw man out of whole cloth and then trying to tear it down: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176382.html
[Goanet] Religion and Science
As the voice of reason, truth and peace, you may be needed in Madrid. Please see below. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/the-bush-six-to-be-indicted/ Regards, GL - Mario observes: Since Gilbert frequently seems oblivious to what he writes, it becomes incumbent on me as the only voice of reason, truth and peace on Goanet to hold up a cyber-mirror so he can see himself. Here is one very recent example of his building a straw man out of whole cloth and then trying to tear it down: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-April/176382.html --- Gilbert Lawrence The technique of demagoguery (commonly used on Goanet) usually is: Create a straw man with a few false statements / assumptions. Then tear it down, while sounding intellectual and articulate.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Remembering Aquino Braganca (b. 6 April 1924), who fought for freedom of the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. An online tribute http://aquinobraganca.wordpress.com/ (includes many historical references, some photographs and documents) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com -- On Sat, 4/11/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: I cannot believe that threads like God and You or Relgion and Science are still alive on Goanet. The guys (there appear to be only a rare gal involved in such threads) talking about religion and science, or God and humans are really talking about pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. There was no thread called Religion and Science until Gilbert started it with the above post. I assume by pseudo-religion and pseudo-science he is referring to the threads initiated by Fr. Ivo. I would agree with Gilbert that Fr. Ivo was propagating pseudo-science in those threads. But I thought he was preaching genuine religion in them. It would be nice to hear from Gilbert why he thinks that even the religion Fr. Ivo was preaching in those threads was pseudo-religion. ***Any thread can be alive on Goanet if it helps to inform and transform the Goanetters. Religion and Science is a subject in the Universities and there is scholarly research going on. Even in Goa it is much alive. I do not know what is pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. Science has its limits, Religion has its space in the human existence. Regards. Fr.Ivo
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Every topic has its time, place and space. By and large, those in the know, are also familiar with, in what forum and where these parameters lie. Cross those boundaries and likely one is in 'outer-space'. Here, at best one is having a dialog with oneself - soliloquy. At worst, (when one is having a discussion with another), they may be engaging in demagoguery, where one is responding to imaginary issues, concepts, comments, etc. ... Sounds familiar? The technique of demagoguery (commonly used on Goanet) usually is: Create a straw man with a few false statements / assumptions. Then tear it down, while sounding intellectual and articulate. The demagogues consider this as a win-win situation, and a no brainer.. Now the discussion become a vicious circle. None of this is personal or directed at any one in particular. Those engaged in demagoguery, should not feel bad. They do provide a service to other goanetters, not as educators but in providing us some 'laffs'. After-all, those 'laffs' are always better than watching 'teevee':=)) Keep up the good work Regards, GL --- Fr. Ivo C. de Souza wrote: Science has its limits, Religion has its space in the human existence.
[Goanet] Religion and Science
Remembering Aquino Braganca (b. 6 April 1924), who fought for freedom of the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. An online tribute http://aquinobraganca.wordpress.com/ (includes many historical references, some photographs and documents) I cannot believe that threads like God and You or Relgion and Science are still alive on Goanet. The guys (there appear to be only a rare gal involved in such threads) talking about religion and science, or God and humans are really talking about pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. The writings resemble the whining of a five-year old who needs a do-over because he has not worked through his anal-trauma, yet.:=)) Regards, GL --- Albert Desouza wrote: I still wish to tell you that Mary is not God the way the RC are making her to be and she has never promissed to take you to heaven. --- Selma wrote: If you must know the cult of the female goddess predates worship of any male God, primarily because it took man sometime to figure out that it was actually him that was responsible for impregnation. Prior to that religion was female-dominated as she was perceived to be the font of life.
Re: [Goanet] Religion and Science
Remembering Aquino Braganca (b. 6 April 1924), who fought for freedom of the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. An online tribute http://aquinobraganca.wordpress.com/ (includes many historical references, some photographs and documents) -- On Sat, 4/11/09, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: I cannot believe that threads like God and You or Relgion and Science are still alive on Goanet. The guys (there appear to be only a rare gal involved in such threads) talking about religion and science, or God and humans are really talking about pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. There was no thread called Religion and Science until Gilbert started it with the above post. I assume by pseudo-religion and pseudo-science he is referring to the threads initiated by Fr. Ivo. I would agree with Gilbert that Fr. Ivo was propagating pseudo-science in those threads. But I thought he was preaching genuine religion in them. It would be nice to hear from Gilbert why he thinks that even the religion Fr. Ivo was preaching in those threads was pseudo-religion. Cheers, Santosh
[Goanet] Religion and science
God created the earth, and everything that it contained. Gradually as man saw various objects like the sun, stars, rain etc he began to think about the same and found these objects as some thing above the power of man and so he called it god. so we had the sun god. Even today many people worship the sun or at least do suriya nomoskar. There are many events that have taken place. unnatural death or many deaths in the family etc that we have interrelated and made our own assumptions. Several religions erupted due to ego of various rulers .or may be because there were certain misunderstanding which were not rectified. Some people due to some remose feelings of things that were taking place were forced to start a new religion. All religion bring out one thing-love of God and love for fellow men. Jesus Christ was the only one who did not start any religion but he came to refine people. There is practically no connection between science and religion at all. Science deals with matter energy and the usefulness of the two whereas religion deals with the language of the heart, emotions feelings, . We join a religion not to harm others like science can do if used in a harmful way but religion is there to unite mankind. In today's world religion has become a weapon of barriers and hatred. We have divided ourselves based on the religion. I hate when a person saysTo kristanv gelo cheddo or some one says hindu vagelo cheddo. Religion should be one language of adoring the creator. Religion should be a weapon to hold hands of one another without looking at the colour or creed. A temple or a church or a mosque should only be a prayer room and not place to distinguish who is superior and who is inferior. albert _ Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=219
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs science
Fr. Ivo's latest installment, appended below, once again clearly shows that not being a scientist, he consistently misunderstands what scientists like the noted evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala and myself write about science. I must tell you that the direct response of Francisco Ayala to Fr. Ivo's email made my day. His response nicely demonstrates that Fr. Ivo's earlier claim that Ayala was speaking about faith in scientific experiments is entirely bogus. Please note that Ayala does not respond directly to Fr. Ivo's following appeal to this false claim: Dear Professor Francisco Ayala, I would like to know whether we can say that 'belief/faith' has a role to play in scientific experiments. ..Fr. Ivo Ayala avoids agreeing with the explicit statement that belief/faith has a role to play in scientific experiments, even after being led to do so by Fr. Ivo. Understandably, as an ex-Catholic priest Ayala merely says that Religious faith and beliefs may motivate and inspire scientific research (as well as any other activities). Another noteworthy statement of Ayala is the following: And: surely we use Popper's falsification criteria to test evolutionary hypotheses. ..Franciso Ayala Those who have followed Fr. Ivo's recent posts might remember that he had expressed disbelief in the above fact. Fr. Ivo's exact quote from that post is: *Gratuitous denial of the statement. Yet I told you that a scientist works with assumptions and biases, with beliefs and phenomena. That is 'faith' in the common acceptance of the word (I do not refer to theological faith)... Can you use Karl Popper's falsification criterion for evolutionary theories? Fr. Ivo (Please see http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@lists.goanet.org/msg23597.html) Please note the rhetorical question at the end - a question that I had answered in the affirmative in my response, just like Ayala. I had also provided actual observations that, if made, would falsify the Darwinian evolutionary theory (Please see http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@lists.goanet.org/msg23678.html). So yet again, it is clear that, not being a scientist, Fr. Ivo does not understand such basic scientific notions about important concepts like evolution. A similar lack of understanding with regard to me, as a scientist, and with regard to my scientific skepticism, is also evident in the rest of what he has written in the post appended below. Please also note his second attempt to put the word superstition, which he had used in a post four years ago (in January 2004), in my mouth today, by taking it out of that old context. As I had told you a few days ago, he was not able to find any recent post of mine using that word or the word hallucination in the present context. Cheers, Santosh --- Fr. Ivo da C. Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also Dr.Santosh accused me of reading more than Prof.Francisco Ayala said in his interview. I reproduce here the e-mail of Professor Francisco Ayala in answer to my question: Dear Professor Francisco Ayala, I would like to know whether we can say that 'belief/faith' has a role to play in scientific experiments. Thanks! Regards. Fr.Ivo Dear Fr. Ivo: Religious faith and beliefs may motivate and inspire scientific research (as well as any other activities). Scientific research and knowledge concern natural phenomena explained by natural processes. Science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. And: surely we use Popper's falsification criteria to test evolutionary hypotheses. Best wishes, Francisco Ayala .. Answer: When I said in one of my postings: Many have a positivistic tendency to emphasize science and reduce religion to a superstition, Dr.Santosh retorted: This is by and large a good strategy, as long as you exhibit tolerance and congeniality towards people who disagree with you, and respect their right to believe. Did I create from nothing his idea of treating Religion as 'superstition'?
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs science
From: Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...Since Fr.Ivo is not a scientist, he is not able to recognize what is nonsense in science. He is not able to understand that there is no such thing as absolutizing science, because science does not claim to know the absolute truth. *Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is treating vacuum fluctuation as creation from nothing, which is an absurd. It is a change, not a creation... Scientific agnosticism means lack of knowledge. Therefore, a scientific agnostic can never be an absolutist. *Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh proclaims that nothing exists outside empirical verification. In other words, one cannot know about the existence of God, because his existence cannot be proved empirically. Therefore, he absolutizes Science as the only source of knowledge. ...since he is also not able to comprehend the meaning of scientific skepticism... *Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh doubts about anything that cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, he doubts about the reality of God, miracles, Resurrection of Christ, resurrection of body. With this myopic vision, he attacks all the postings dealing with 'supernatural realities'. Finally, not being a scientist Fr. Ivo fails to recognize when religious views amount to nonsense in science, e. g. the anti-evolutionary views of Nigel Britto. That is also why he mistakenly believes that I have attacked the Christian religion. *Nobody is bound to accept evolution, although all of us study it. This is not a 'religious view' or a 'nonsense in science', because Bible does not teach us creation as a scientific hypothesis. Creation is a theological concept, therefore not empirical, but transcendental. Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is forced to accept evolution, not creation. This is not 'double '. In a previous posting, Dr.Santosh accused me of attributing to him the idea that Religion is a superstition. Answer: When I said in one of my postings: Many have a positivistic tendency to emphasize science and reduce religion to a superstition, Dr.Santosh retorted: This is by and large a good strategy, as long as you exhibit tolerance and congeniality towards people who disagree with you, and respect their right to believe. Did I create from nothing his idea of treating Religion as 'superstition'? Also Dr.Santosh accused me of reading more than Prof.Francisco Ayala said in his interview. I reproduce here the e-mail of Professor Francisco Ayala in answer to my question: Dear Professor Francisco Ayala, I would like to know whether we can say that 'belief/faith' has a role to play in scientific experiments. Thanks! Regards. Fr.Ivo Dear Fr. Ivo: Religious faith and beliefs may motivate and inspire scientific research (as well as any other activities). Scientific research and knowledge concern natural phenomena explained by natural processes. Science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. And: surely we use Popper's falsification criteria to test evolutionary hypotheses. Best wishes, Francisco Ayala Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs Science
Dear Dr.Gilbert, Thanks for your appreciation and support. On a personal level, I see many situations where science will find it difficult to explain. Not infrequently, I will see a patient I have treated with advanced cancer, who with overwhelming statistics is supposed to live for about 4 months. Yet, the patient is alive three years later, without cancer. I could say their survival was because of the radiation that I administered. Or would I rather say (to myself), as this patient embraces me with gratitude that, this is a 'miracle patient'; and I am glad that I was an instrument in God's hand? Is this Religion VS Science? Or is it Religion AND Science? *We face such questions and situations. I would be strict in having a thorough investigation by competent people. I would not say that every healing is a miracle, but there can be an 'extraordinary healing' and a 'true miracle' with all the required conditions. It is up to the physician to say that this is not possible for the medical science. The theologian will say: This is God's intervention. I have heard physicians speak of 'miracles' even within their own specialization. Miracles should not be cheapened. I read about Miracles of Lourdes. Out of 7,000 there are only 67 accepted as true miracles. They are carefully investigated by the Medical Bureau and then submitted to the judgment of the Theological Committee. Regards. Fr.Ivo Here is the procedure followed in Lourdes: Medical Bureau has two different meanings. It is, first of all, a place in the Sanctuary with two offices where a Doctor practices. This Doctor receives the declarations and begins an examination of the facts according to the traditional criteria as it was defined in the 18th century by Cardinal Lambertini the future Pope Benedict XIV for the process of beatification (There are some modifications). If the case appears serious, the doctor arranges a Medical Bureau which is a consultation where all the medical Doctors, regardless of their religious persuasion, present in the Sanctuary on the day may attend. If the Doctor of Lourdes and the gathered medical bureau find in favour the file is sent to the International Medical Committee of Lourdes (C.M.I.L.). This is made up of some 20 members, respected in their own particular area. This committee has been in existence since 1947. In 1954, Bishop Théas wanted it to have a true international dimension. This committee is chaired jointly by the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes and one of its members nominated by the Bishop for a set period of time which can be renewed. The doctor of Lourdes is the secretary to this committee. This committee makes a judgement about a case. One or more of its members are then charged with examining it in detail and informing himself on all the medical literature published on related subjects... The person charged with the case may consult with colleagues on the outside. Normally the person concerned is not summoned to be present. The Committee meets once a year, in the autumn. They examine the current files. When everything is in place (this can take some time), the Committee decides by way of a vote whether to declare or refuse to confirm that this cure is inexplicable according to present scientific knowledge. A two-third majority is required for an affirmative vote. The medical result is sent to the Bishop of the Diocese where the cured person lives. The Bishop would, naturally, have been kept up to date with the proceedings. If it appears that the result is going to be positive, the Bishop is advised, in advance, to set up locally a small Medical Committee which can, at the given moment, consider the conclusions of the Committee. In the light of current events, the Bishop can decide or abstain from recognising the miraculous character of this cure. The current attitude of Doctors is very respectful of the Magisterium of the Church. As Christians, they know that a miracle is a spiritual sign. They don't want to be judges on this matter. Moreover, for a modern mentality, it is difficult to say that something is inexplicable. They can only say that it is unexplained. +Jacques Perrier Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes 17 March 2003
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs Science
Hi Santosh and Fr. Ivo, Goanet has some well-recognized experts, even if some Goans do not recognize them and others are indifferent to them. We should use these experts to help the rest of us expand our knowledge. We should be the inquiring minds that want to know. Hence non-experts instead of opining should be inquiring. While most physicians are trying to understand and help the body, Dr. Helekar needs to be complimented for working to do the same for the mind. From his writings, it appears much progress has been made in our understanding of the workings of the mind. Fr. Ivo needs to be complimented for his masterful knowledge of religion (with references) and an in-depth understanding of how science gets interpreted. Fr. Ivo too informs us that much progress has been made in our understanding of god and religion. The wanna-be experts on god and religion, just melted away trying to dialogue with Fr. Ivo. Individuals refer to how things (culture, society, religion) were done 14th -19th century. I would like to point out that, medical treatment for many diseases during this time-period consisted of bleeding the patient, followed by drinking a glass of urine to regain color. This is not humor. Many experts today believe that the therapeutic bleeding that President George Washington underwent for his illness, was the main cause of his death. Hence the Goanetter who quotes / relies on ancient facts and events, suggest that the author has failed to keep up with current information / thinking on the issue being discussed. The 'Expert' criticizing areas of their own filed, should / would offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Most non-experts expressing a critical opinion are merely being over the top, hoping to sound intellectual. I have a special name for that.:=)) Anybody who quotes antiquated facts, outside the discussion of history, fall into the category of 'engaging in demagoguery'. Reading these posts is not worth the time and certainly does not call for a response. Their post exposes the shallowness of the writer. Constructs / models are conceptual visualizations of arm-chair experts. They are helpful to explain the facts which have occurred. They have little standing to predict the future with any certainty, unless it is a continuum of the past. One person's assumptions on which the construct is built is as valid (on invalid), as another person's fanciful assumptions. Albert Einstein's own theories, based on hard science and peer-reviewed mathematical formulas, dismissed the occurrence of a Big Bang or the presence of Dark Energy - today's accepted facts. i.e. his calculations led to the reverse conclusions like supporting the Steady State theory of the origin of the universe. Religion in addition to being a science of philosophy and other fields, has long since, moved to an area of living the belief in a practical world. My criticism of atheists on this forum is: More often than naught, they make incorrect / wrong / antiquated statements on religion against which they make very intelligent arguments. Responding to their post is to buy-into their false underlying premise. On a personal level, I see many situations where science will find it difficult to explain. Not infrequently, I will see a patient I have treated with advanced cancer, who with overwhelming statistics is supposed to live for about 4 months. Yet, the patient is alive three years later, without cancer. I could say their survival was because of the radiation that I administered. Or would I rather say (to myself), as this patient embraces me with gratitude that, this is a 'miracle patient'; and I am glad that I was an instrument in God's hand? Is this Religion VS Science? Or is it Religion AND Science? You kow what this supurlo Goenkar thinks.:=)) Kind Regards, GL Santosh Helekar I think Gilbert is right. The scientific views of a religious man who does not know much about science are worth very little. The same is true for the religious views of a scientist who does not know much about religion. But in a secular forum religion and science have equal value. Both are equally subject to criticism. Secularism, first and foremost entails fairness and justice, and equal treatment of religion and non-religion. --- Fr. Ivo da C. Souza My aim in writing in this Forum was to tell not to meddle in the field of Bible and Theology and attack Christian Faith in the name of Science. This is a secular Forum, open to all, where nobody should attack Religion in the name of Science, without an adequate knowledge...
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs science
Dear Dr.Jose Colaço, I do respect your opinion. I do not agree that Religion is a private matter. I agree with you that we should also discuss some of the ills, but submit that also there are so different views on those topics, and they are to be related with Religion and Science. You wrote: I am one of those Goans who believes that Religion is a private matter. Its repeated public presentation serves little purpose save to bore me and perhaps others. However, what is worthy of discussion in public networks such as this one - are the ILLS which are perpetrated on others in the name of religion and atheism. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs Science
Hi Gilbert, I think you are right about some of the things you say in the post appended below. But since you are not a cosmologist, astrophysicist or a theoretical physicist you are most likely not very accurate in what you say about the predictions of Einstein's theory and the value of mathematical models in arriving at valid predictions in science. For example, Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's and quantum theories are theoretical models/constructs whose predictions have been verified by objective evidence with great precision, and are highly valid today. In Newton's case for more than 300 years. On statistics, lest people be unintentionally misled by what you said, I would like to make the following clarifications. Statistical data by their very nature fall on some kind of distribution, such as a Gaussian or bell-shaped distribution. Just because on an average or on a median (or whatever percentile that you use as a criterion) a patient is found to live for 4 months does not mean every patient you see will live for about 4 months. If a large longitudinal study has been conducted for this type of cancer, a statistician would like to know if a good survival curve has been obtained. She would also like to know what percentage of these patients survive for 3 years without cancer. The nature of statistics is such that there are likely to be a few rare outliers at the extreme ends of any statistical distribution. On the basis of this understanding, scientific medicine arrives at the most parsimonious and probable natural explanation for any observation. It never jumps to supernatural miraculous conclusions. To give a simpler example, just because the average body weight of an American man between 20 and 74 years of age is 191 pounds, does not mean that every American man will weigh close to that much. You will find several that weigh more than 400 pounds. If a statistician who understands this sees a man weighing 800 pounds, he will never claim that it is a miracle. He will never invoke any kind of supernatural explanation or a supernatural being. He will ask experts in endocrinology, physical medicine or nutritional sciences to figure out why on rare occasions people weigh that much, by performing investigations in the field and in the laboratory. These are scientific areas, namely statistics, endocrinology, physical medicine and nutritional sciences, wherein religion or a religious man can tell us nothing of any practical value. If a religious man intervenes, and insists that this is a miracle (that this is a proof for his religious beliefs), and that those who do not agree with him are attacking his religion, then this would be an instance of a conflict between the religious beliefs of this man and the science practiced by the scientists who disagree with him. Cheers, Santosh -- Gilbert Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a personal level, I see many situations where science will find it difficult to explain. Not infrequently, I will see a patient I have treated with advanced cancer, who with overwhelming statistics is supposed to live for about 4 months. Yet, the patient is alive three years later, without cancer. I could say their survival was because of the radiation that I administered. Or would I rather say (to myself), as this patient embraces me with gratitude that, this is a 'miracle patient'; and I am glad that I was an instrument in God's hand? Is this Religion VS Science? Or is it Religion AND Science? You kow what this supurlo Goenkar thinks.:=))
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs science
Not being a scientist, Fr. Ivo is mistaken in his views about me as a scientist and about science. Since he is not a scientist he is not able to recognize what is nonsense in science. He is not able to understand that there is no such thing as absolutizing science, because science does not claim to know the absolute truth. He also does not appear to know the meaning of scientific agnosticism. Scientific agnosticism means lack of knowledge. Therefore, a scientific agnostic can never be an absolutist. He fails to grasp the concept of alternative hypotheses in science - the fact that science treats several mutually exclusive explanations as potentially true, and that evidence would show that only one of them is true, or none at all. Under no condition can they all be true. For the above reasons, and since he is also not able to comprehend the meaning of scientific skepticism Fr. Ivo is making the bogus claim that I have attacked Christian religion in my recent posts. Finally, not being a scientist Fr. Ivo fails to recognize when religious views amount to nonsense in science, e. g. the anti-evolutionary views of Nigel Britto. That is also why he mistakenly believes that I have attacked the Christian religion. Cheers, Santosh --- Fr. Ivo da C. Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should know that I am not discussing with you scientific views, but trying to 'relativize' your 'absolutizing' scientific hypotheses and theories with the help of scientists only. The authors of those theories themselves admit that their theories are unable to account for all the complexities of the Universe. But you claim to be an 'agnostic' and 'indifferent' regarding Religion, yet you are attacking Christian Religion (and all 'beliefs') in the name of Science. That is the difference... .. *Agreed. But precisely that is your problem. You cannot understand what is nonsense in Religion because Science limits your knowledge of the Universe and of Man...
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs science
Dear Dr.Gilbert Lawrence, My aim in writing in this Forum was to tell not to meddle in the field of Bible and Theology and attack Christian Faith in the name of Science. You wrote: Thus the practicing doctors need the theoreticians; and the theoreticians need the clinicians. So too is the relation between religion and science. These two very independent disciplines need each other to keep both groups honest and striving to be better. *My contention is that there is no conflict between Science and Religion. As stated, the philosophical and theoretical constructs are merely concepts in an individual's mind. At the time in history, they may best explain the observed facts. As these observations change with time and improved technology, these constructs in retrospect may look ridiculous. Yet for a time they served a purpose to understand/explain events till other data was available or our understanding evolved. Our future is built on our past. And today will be the past of tomorrow. *Intuitive principles of Philosophy and revealed tenets of Religion do remain. Scientific hypotheses can be revised and replaced or improved. I would give only two cents for the opinion of a clergy regarding science; and the same amount to the scientists for their opinion on God and religion. And perhaps the non-experts in these two fields would have to pay me to read their views.:=)) *You are giving too little for my knowledge of Science. I was also trying to 'relativize' the absolutizing claims of a 'scientist' in the name of Science and 'agnosticism'... You should not give the same amount, which is too much, to scientists who are delving into Religion without any 'literacy'. On the contrary, you should penalize them...they have to pay for our views too... (in a lighter vein). This is a secular Forum, open to all, where nobody should attack Religion in the name of Science, without an adequate knowledge... Thank you for your remarks! Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Religion vs science
I think Gilbert is right. The scientific views of a religious man who does not know much about science are worth very little. The same is true for the religious views of a scientist who does not know much about religion. But in a secular forum religion and science have equal value. Both are equally subject to criticism. There should not be any double standard or special treatment or exemptions when it comes to religion. Nonsense cannot be allowed to be purveyed unchallenged in the name of religion, just as nonsense cannot be allowed to be propagated unquestioned in the name of science. Secularism, first and foremost entails fairness and justice, and equal treatment of religion and non-religion. Cheers, Santosh --- Fr. Ivo da C. Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Dr.Gilbert Lawrence, My aim in writing in this Forum was to tell not to meddle in the field of Bible and Theology and attack Christian Faith in the name of Science. ... This is a secular Forum, open to all, where nobody should attack Religion in the name of Science, without an adequate knowledge... Thank you for your remarks! Fr.Ivo
