>> Louis_Schmier wrote:
>>
>> > The truth is that on that definition of zygote hinges--and
>> > I told you these are dangerous waters that I don't really want to
>> > stir, the crux of the abortion question which by your own statement
>science
>> > cannot answer.
>> > And that is my point. Science does not have the answers to all the
>> > questions, and there are questions asked that are outside
>> > the realm of science.
>>
Yes, there are questions asked that are outside the realm of science and
science doesn't have answers to all the questions people might ask. Does
religion have answers? What kind and of what quality? Does religion
"answer" all questions? Are there some things outside the realm of
religion? Are moral questions answered best only by religion? See History
101 here. Has religion provided practical value in the difficult question
about abortion? Has it provided any new and useful information contributing
to the common good? I think science cannot address this question because it
is not one settled by empirical study (that is, the value and or moral
correctness of abortion), but science can and does provide useful
information. Religion has provided....? Louis, of course, did not wish to
"stir" these dangerous waters with his questions, and I concur. The
attitude I try to instill in my students is that of a learner, questioner.
The danger to someone so motivated is that they must question to learn, not
to win points, not to just feel comfortable, secure, or maintain
preconceptions. Such waters, when stirred, remain muddy when participants
ask questions motivated only by rhetoric. If they seek to learn, they must
admit when they do not know and when inadequate information is available,
explore alternative views, and recognize their decisions are not made with
certainty but with an effort to deal with the practical demands they face,
in line with the moral values they can reasonably justify. While
individual scientists can be arrogant and pompous when it comes to their
work or theories, it is the attitude of humble learner that I feel typifies
the best in religion and science. As David Myers noted, early scientists
had religious convictions that "made them humble before nature and skeptical
of any human authority" (See Hooykaas, 1972; Merton, 1938 cited in Myers,
1998, P. 13). Religious institutions today, seldom express such a view.
Cheers, Gary Peterson
Hooykaas, R. (1972). __Religion and the rise of modern science.__ Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Merton, R. K. (1938). (1938; reprinted 1970). _Science, technology and
society in seventeenth-century
England._ New York: Fertig.
Myers, D.G. (1998). _Psychology._(Fifth Edition) New York: Worth
Publishers.
