stop&think, thank you for your response to my post. No the argument is not about AIDS – that was obviously introduced as an example – but I can’t resist a reply to the comments you couldn’t resist.

Reducing the argument to its elements, you seem to be saying abstinence reduces AIDS and I am saying that condoms reduce AIDS. If abstinence is not working wouldn’t it be a good idea to try condoms? Human lives are at stake. We shouldn’t be depending entirely on doctrine if it is not saving lives.

You declare “While there are some parts of the Catholic faith that can only be accepted with a blind faith (like the doctrine of the Trinity, for example), most of it is completely understood by human reason and a good deal of people around the world understand it and adhere to it.”

Does this include the virgin birth, Jesus rising from the dead, the assumption of Mary, and transubstantiation? I feel genuine sorrow for all those people who understand and adhere to these irrational superstitions.

C’mon stop&think –STOP AND THINK! Who is demonstrating the ignorance and silliness you accuse me of? Let the readers decide.

Spendocrat,

Give us your definition of "science"

Francis, what point could you possibly want to make with a "precise definition of science"? spendocrat is trying to talk about what is true, and how we know it, and you seem to want to distract from that to talk about what is good. Not that that's not wortwhile. It's simply not spendocrat's point.

That's the problem with your use of the sloppy term "scientific fundamentalism". If it is meant to attack the claim that "All applications of science are good" then go ahead and attack your straw man. If it is meant to attack the claim that "Scientific statements are always correct" then go and attack your second straw man. If it is meant to attack the claim that "The scientific method is a bloody good way to figure out the phsycial and biological world" then you're on a loser.

Whatever, the onus is upon you to say exactly what you mean by "scientific fundamentalism". And yes, Galileo was a (brilliant) arrogant stirrer who caused most of his own problems, and wasn't nearly as correct as he thought. So what?

bushbasher,

The difference between science and religionism is that science will maintain a null hypotheses as a degraded heuristic to its positive posit and beliefs are tentative and not doctrinaire.

Contrarily, the Churches to the best of my knowledge do not draw on comparative theocrasia, anthropology and historgraphies to try to disprove their kernel posits, in the way science does. As a result, a fundamentalist Christian believes that Adam and Eve lived with the dinosaurs on a flat Earth created in 4,004 BCE, which is surrounded by a crystal sphere, just outside the orbit of the Moon, beyond which is heaven and that ancients were giants and Moses had horns!

And, the Sun revolves around the Earth. The Chinese astronomers tried to convince Jesuit missionaries otherwise, but the Christians held their ground.

The Christian was created by Paul, Nicaea, Erasmus and Augustine drawing on the Jewish faith and Roman Mystery cults, and had/has very little to with any any wondering Messiah of the first century period.

stop&think

"You can’t disregard the Church teaching, get AIDS and then go crying back to complain – what a silly attitude."

You can if an organisation is deliberately ensuring there is no access to proper education on this matter. Condoms do prevent AIDS and if the Chrurch is active in disuading funding for such measures or is guilty of not providing a more 'rounded' view of the world, then it should be criticised accordingly.

If clerics want to be involved in poltiics, they should seek political
office. There has been a hyped campaign in the West about Muslims wishing to impose Sharia law - what is the difference?

Fortunately most people demonstrate greater reasoning capacity than those who have become nothing more than 'pillars of salt' by looking to anachronistic dogma rather than updating their knowledge based on new information.

Do we really believe that the people who lived 2,000 years ago were substantially more intelligent than the people of today? Has 2000 years of progress really meant nothing?

ABSTINENCE is fine for those who wish it and condoms are perfect for those who wish to engage in healthy, consensual, sexual relationships with others. Can you really believe that the politicians would ban the use of condoms in Australia for example... and gain subsequent re-election?

The new pope has claimed Christianity is a religion based on reason - unfortuantley he doesn't seem to realsie that using the word reason and acttually doing it, reasoning, are not the same thing.

K£vin,

Over population is a significant problem. The human biomass takes several times its own to sustain it. Entending what you say, we can't keep growing our population and develop poorer countries to Western levels at the same time with existing technologies. It just wont work.