[_ Old Earth _] Where does science end and religion begin?

[frogee00]

So I have wanted to be a scientist since I was a little girl...not the average American dream. So, I became a scientist and studied Neuroscience and Psychology. I am wondering if anyone else has the problem of deciding where the science ends and religion begins on issues such as being gay. I could go on forever with different possibilities and reasons of why this person might be gay, but where does one end and religion begin? Anyone have any suggestions on where the cutoff is?

 

[ThinkerMan]

I think science only matters when it has an opinion on the matter.

Science shouldn't have anything to say about the morality of being gay. That is an ethical or religious questions.

As you are a scientist, you should be able to look at the data and evidence for genetic or social causes for being gay, and make and educated decision based on that evidence. Would the cause of homosexuality affect how you would treat that person? Or how society would treat them?

Science only can describe the world around us, not how we should react to the world or the people in it. That's where ethics/religion come in.

I don't necessarily think there is a conflict on this.

 

[Drew]

I am not sure what the question is here. Can you clarify? I will agree with ThinkerMan and say that science is not in the business of rendering "moral" judgements, while religion obviously is. On the other hand, I do not subscribe to the generalization that science and religion have nothing to do with each other (I am not ascribing such a view to TM, by the way). To the extent that religious doctrine makes claims about the "way that the physical world is (or was)", it does overlap with the domain of science. So a religious claim that the world is 6000 years old is also in the domain of science.

 

[reznwerks]

So I have wanted to be a scientist since I was a little girl...not the average American dream. So, I became a scientist and studied Neuroscience and Psychology. I am wondering if anyone else has the problem of deciding where the science ends and religion begins on issues such as being gay. I could go on forever with different possibilities and reasons of why this person might be gay, but where does one end and religion begin? Anyone have any suggestions on where the cutoff is?

A fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. Beliefs are just that, beliefs which are usually culturally inspired.

 

[frogee00]

Let me clarify a little bit. I don't think that I stated clearly what I was necessarily asking...or maybe again...you did understand it. Okay, so basically, using that as an example again....I can understand being gay from a scientific approach such as neurotransmitter issues, nature versus nurture issues and invitro issues that may have caused the fetus to have prolonged exposure to certain chemicals that have "evidence" of a genetic background for being gay...kind of like being pre-disposed for this....so I can see how being gay might have been "caused" from biological issues...thus not being their fault (which is not what I am saying...just a view on the matter). Okay, then there's the "religion" side of it that says it is wrong, which I agree with. So my question is...is it wrong for me to have the opinion that maybe being gay has the biological factor and while the person may feel that it isn't their fault, they still have the choice to pursue being gay or not. Kind of confusing, but I tried to explain what my question is.

 

[cubedbee]

Let me clarify a little bit. I don't think that I stated clearly what I was necessarily asking...or maybe again...you did understand it. Okay, so basically, using that as an example again....I can understand being gay from a scientific approach such as neurotransmitter issues, nature versus nurture issues and invitro issues that may have caused the fetus to have prolonged exposure to certain chemicals that have "evidence" of a genetic background for being gay...kind of like being pre-disposed for this....so I can see how being gay might have been "caused" from biological issues...thus not being their fault (which is not what I am saying...just a view on the matter). Okay, then there's the "religion" side of it that says it is wrong, which I agree with. So my question is...is it wrong for me to have the opinion that maybe being gay has the biological factor and while the person may feel that it isn't their fault, they still have the choice to pursue being gay or not. Kind of confusing, but I tried to explain what my question is.

Alcoholism has a strong genetic component. Is it wrong to think that alcoholics have the choice of refraining from alcohol and drunkenness? As long as you are clear that it is the action, and not the desire or inclination to perform the action, which is sinful, then I think you're fine.

 

[reznwerks]

looking

Let me clarify a little bit. I don't think that I stated clearly what I was necessarily asking...or maybe again...you did understand it. Okay, so basically, using that as an example again....I can understand being gay from a scientific approach such as neurotransmitter issues, nature versus nurture issues and invitro issues that may have caused the fetus to have prolonged exposure to certain chemicals that have "evidence" of a genetic background for being gay...kind of like being pre-disposed for this....so I can see how being gay might have been "caused" from biological issues...thus not being their fault (which is not what I am saying...just a view on the matter). Okay, then there's the "religion" side of it that says it is wrong, which I agree with. So my question is...is it wrong for me to have the opinion that maybe being gay has the biological factor and while the person may feel that it isn't their fault, they still have the choice to pursue being gay or not. Kind of confusing, but I tried to explain what my question is.

You are looking for absolutes. Religion is absolute in its conviction but not necessarily based on facts. Religion usually states the facts first then looks for the evidence to substantiate it and when none is found the conclusion is an all embracing "God said or God did. The person doing the stand up proclaims they "know" the mind of God and knows what God wants. Here is a link that might help and frankly I am surprised that you have not reviewed this info sooner . I believe I may have posted this before but I will do it again. Homosexuality can be found in the animal kingdom.Now why would God make animals homosexual? Are we to believe they too have a choice between right and wrong? Are we to believe these animals have sinned as well?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html

 

[lovely]

So my question is...is it wrong for me to have the opinion that maybe being gay has the biological factor and while the person may feel that it isn't their fault, they still have the choice to pursue being gay or not.

No, provided that person is a believer, all others are given over to their sinful nature. Born of the Spirit is to become a new creation. This can not be utilized or understood by those who do not have faith. We all struggle with the "flesh", and the emotion, biology, and atmosphere that it incorporates. It is not contradictory to faith to understand the science of these things...in fact, it is instructed by God to show yourself approved. But, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom...I see how intelligent and wise you are. If you do not have faith, then you are given over to it sin and your own concept of fairness and truth. If you are a believer, then you are liberated from it, and have the choice to not do it, but overcome it with God's grace. If you are a true believer, and struggle against, but never conqueror....well, His grace is sufficient. The root of the genetic predispostions in which you refer, is though a common thread of human kind. God is the standard measurment of truth, and biology does not contradict that, although some biologists do. Stick with observable science and continue to draw your own conclusions. Blessings.

 

[Quath]

As a scientist you have to approach a problem with your objectivity turned on. Even try to compensate for any known biases. I see astronomers use a coding system to take data. They have no idea if the data is supporting their hyphothesis until they do the statistical analysis. This keeps them from throwing out bad data.

But you are hitting the area on what science has to say about free will and consciousness. I think if you look long enough you will find that people are basically machines. We have as much free will as a Sim does on the computer game.

This goes back to the idea of a soul or divine consciouness. However, science shows that all we have is the brain. If you really want to see some tough stuff, go to Ebon Musings' Ghost in the Machine. It is a great article that shows the limitations of our intelligence and free will by looking at brain damage. For example, are you a good person? If so, you can poke a few places in the brain and you will be a bad person. This adds some tough issues like "If a Christian gets brain damage and stops believing in God, do they go to hell?"

Quath

 

[Not_Registered]

So my question is...is it wrong for me to have the opinion that maybe being gay has the biological factor and while the person may feel that it isn't their fault, they still have the choice to pursue being gay or not.

It is their choice. If we chalk up being homosexual to biological reasons alone (and excuse the choice of lifestyle that individual made), then we'd also have to excuse murders, rapist, child molesters (etc.).

I'm not equating being homosexual to murdering, raping, child molestation, and the like, but it is similar in that most individuals who choice those acts were influenced by biological traits or environmental factors (as they were raised). This is evidence by a profile of serial killers and rapist and the like. The profile for each list how they probably grew up, and how they probably acted as a child (etc.). BUT, the decision to murder or rape was theirs. If this weren't the case (and it was purely biological) we would be able to tell, with great precision, who was going to be a rapist or murder, or homosexual in the future.

We'd also be able to tell who was going to be an engineer or math teacher for that matter. Many have taken those test which are suppose to tell you what you will be in the future (based on your character traits), but the test aren't 100% because the choice is always up to the individual. If one is best fit to be a teacher, that doesn't mean he/she can't avoid it. The choice is theirs. In the same manner, someone who has the potential to be a homosexual isn't forced to be so. He/she makes the choice.

Take child molesters, for example. A child molester can't help that he finds children appealing, but does that give him the okay to molest them. Should we (society) say well he had no choice? It was in his genes. Or, a thief who always has the urge to steal, should we allow him to do so because he was built with those urges. That's ludicrous. We, as society, know people will have urges to do things they shouldn't do, that's why we have LAWS. If people would always do right we wouldn't need laws. Should we allow people to break the law because "they couldn't help it?" No. In the same manner, we shouldn't dismiss the sin of an individual because "they couldn't help it."

I related being a homosexual to being a murderer and rapist, but (to clarify) it's also related to being an engineer or math teacher (or at least the potential of being these things as indicated by biological reasons). Personally, I do not think homosexuality should be illegal, but from a religious standpoint, I don't dismiss the choice a homosexual makes to pursuing that lifestyle and just chalk it up to biological reasons. Which would, in turn, relieve the individual of any culpability in the decision.

Sidenote: Sorry for the length of the post.

 

[ThinkerMan]

So my question is...is it wrong for me to have the opinion that maybe being gay has the biological factor and while the person may feel that it isn't their fault, they still have the choice to pursue being gay or not.

It is their choice. If we chalk up being homosexual to biological reasons alone (and excuse the choice of lifestyle that individual made), then we'd also have to excuse murders, rapist, child molesters (etc.).

I'm not equating being homosexual to murdering, raping, child molestation, and the like, but it is similar in that most individuals who choice those acts were influenced by biological traits or environmental factors (as they were raised). This is evidence by a profile of serial killers and rapist and the like. The profile for each list how they probably grew up, and how they probably acted as a child (etc.). BUT, the decision to murder or rape was theirs. If this weren't the case (and it was purely biological) we would be able to tell, with great precision, who was going to be a rapist or murder, or homosexual in the future.

We'd also be able to tell who was going to be an engineer or math teacher for that matter. Many have taken those test which are suppose to tell you what you will be in the future (based on your character traits), but the test aren't 100% because the choice is always up to the individual. If one is best fit to be a teacher, that doesn't mean he/she can't avoid it. The choice is theirs. In the same manner, someone who has the potential to be a homosexual isn't forced to be so. He/she makes the choice.

Take child molesters, for example. A child molester can't help that he finds children appealing, but does that give him the okay to molest them. Should we (society) say well he had no choice? It was in his genes. Or, a thief who always has the urge to steal, should we allow him to do so because he was built with those urges. That's ludicrous. We, as society, know people will have urges to do things they shouldn't do, that's why we have LAWS. If people would always do right we wouldn't need laws. Should we allow people to break the law because "they couldn't help it?" No. In the same manner, we shouldn't dismiss the sin of an individual because "they couldn't help it."

I related being a homosexual to being a murderer and rapist, but (to clarify) it's also related to being an engineer or math teacher (or at least the potential of being these things as indicated by biological reasons). Personally, I do not think homosexuality should be illegal, but from a religious standpoint, I don't dismiss the choice a homosexual makes to pursuing that lifestyle and just chalk it up to biological reasons. Which would, in turn, relieve the individual of any culpability in the decision.

Sidenote: Sorry for the length of the post.

I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your post, however there is one important distinction that should be made.

Yes, probably most of our actions are influences by both genetic and environmental influences. And yes, I agree that that shouldn't absolve any bad act a person makes. However, "genetic" vs. "environmental" on the surfaces is simply an academic pursuit.

Where it becomes an issue is how society views the specific "bad acts" that derive from those predilictions. Sexual predators DO harm people. Alcoholics CAN harm people. Homosexuals DO NOT harm people.

Using these three predilictions as examples, society must address all three with respect to how actions deriving from that behavior affects others. The predator should removed from society. The alcoholic should be assisted and encouraged to improve behavior, and the homosexual should be left alone.

No one is harmed by someone participating in a consensual same-sex relationship. No rights are infringed, no property is damaged, no loss of life is created and no quality of life is deprived. No civil liberties are violated.

And as you said, your religious feelings may weigh in on the issue, and that is fine. However, as a society such religious views should be irrelevant as to how the state views such actions.

 

[Not_Registered]

Where it becomes an issue is how society views the specific "bad acts" that derive from those predilictions. Sexual predators DO harm people. Alcoholics CAN harm people. Homosexuals DO NOT harm people.
...
No one is harmed by someone participating in a consensual same-sex relationship. No rights are infringed, no property is damaged, no loss of life is created and no quality of life is deprived. No civil liberties are violated.

I completely agree with you as seen by the statement I previously made, which is shown below.

• Quote by Not_Registered
  "Personally, I do not think homosexuality should be illegal, but from a religious standpoint, I don't dismiss the choice a homosexual makes to pursuing that lifestyle and just chalk it up to biological reasons. Which would, in turn, relieve the individual of any culpability in the decision."

I do not suggest that homosexuality should be illegal or labeled a crime. What I do say is, that from a religious perspective, one should not deem the individual free from sin for that action because "he or she couldn't help it." I'm not suggesting that homosexuality should be a crime (for the same reasons you listed). And, I'm not suggesting theology should have an influence on how the state views actions. If that were the case we'd all be in jail because we've all lied or cheated or committed some sin.

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

hey look, im not gay, *edited* ...

well some teacher told me that we all got female and male genes...if we have more male we go male, and viceversa... but gays prolly have 50/50, so they end up being a girl trapped in a boys body...

thats prolly bull, but imagine if some people tell you (im assuming ur a man) that liking girls is sinful, and u will go to hell coz u do. Now that is how a gay guy feels. Its not your fault you like girls, you always like them, and u always will. You were born liking girls and you will die liking them. You cant help it.

However, i think gays should be left alone, until they try to convert u to gayness (example: gay parents adopt a child and brainwash him to think that being gay (and actually ur not gay, but your just too young to understand anything) is ok. Thats were gayness must end.

* please choose your word more wisely*

 

[peace4all]

I dont see many gay parents, brainwashing their children.

Anyone who is gay, knows the hate and discrimination they face due to it. ANd because of that, they are accepting of other people. Therefore i dont think gay parents would do anything but brainwash their chidlren into havign respect for others.

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

I dont see many gay parents, brainwashing their children.

Anyone who is gay, knows the hate and discrimination they face due to it. ANd because of that, they are accepting of other people. Therefore i dont think gay parents would do anything but brainwash their chidlren into havign respect for others.

look if their kid see's to guys as a couple (their parents) every day, wouldnt he think its normal to like other boys? maybe he will.

 

[Imagican]

I think a more important question would be to ask if there is really a state of being that we label 'gay'. In other words, gays, for the sake of hiding the perversion that they participate in, have perhaps created a myth of sorts surrounding their HOMOSEXUALITY and simply call it 'being gay'. When in reality all they have done is change the nature of the natural use of their bodies and chosen to go a different direction than that which is natural.

Obviously guys and gals, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL. 'Gays' would have us accept them as naturally occurring individuals but anyone that thinks about it for two seconds quickly realizes that the natural use of our sexuality is designed for procreation. This is IMPOSSIBLE between two individuals of the same sex.

If I choose to worship Baal, I naturally would like those around me to do the same, or at least accept my behavior. It's no different with homosexuals. They would rather be accepted than shunned. The logical course for them would be to create a situation in which people forget that their deviation from the natural order is 'not of their choosing' or 'something that they are born with'. It's just a lame attempt to change the fact that they have chosen to live a lifestyle that is anti-nature, and anti-God.

Just because this move has been in action for a number of years now and there are many with children and loved ones that have bought into this deception doesn't change the fact that being 'gay' is nothing more or less than a perversion of ones sexuality.

Is it really any different than someone trying to tell us that they were 'born to molest children', or that they wanted to have sex with animals since they can remember?

And as far as the answer to genetics, that's a tough one. There are words of the OT that say that the sins of the father can be carried over through many generations. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in this concept. Perhaps not.

All we truly know is what God has stated concerning this subject. Regardless of science or psychology, if one accepts the Word of God and Him as their Master, then all we have are His words and those of His prophets. This being the case, homosexuality is not 'gay' but the result of someone turning their backs on the desire of the creator and choosing to follow their own twisted desires of the flesh.

And for all the homo-defending individuals that will probably attack my statements immediately: We were told that those that defend those that commit such acts will be judged just as harshly as the participators. I am judging NO individual or their actions. I am offering statements concerning an "idea". God is the only judge that matters and all I can do is trust that this is true. I don't believe my job is to go out and eliminate homosexuality nor to discourage personal behavior except to offer testimony of my Savior.

One more thing on this subject: You remember a place called Sodom? Ever read the story and understand it? Know where the word 'sodomy' comes from today? I mention this only to point out that homosexuality is nothing new. It has been around for thousands and thousands of years. i point this out to show how God has responded to societies of the past that learned to accept this behavior in their culture. Not 'just' Sodom either. Look back at our history as we know it and see that homosexuality is a trait of almost ALL ancient civilizations that were capable of creating a bit of hedonism in their ranks. Where are they now?

And for you folks that choose to be 'anti-gay' bashers, I offer this: it's a little section of the Bible called, (appropriately for this conversation I think, for most are familiar with the history of this, once powerful and hedonistic society), Romans. Romans 2:20-32. If this isn't enough to explain the question posted in this thread, then I purpose that the question wasn't asked for the desire for an answer, but with the purpose of trying to find some way to personally excuse such behavior.

 

[bibleberean]

Good post.... 8-)

Gay is the politcally correct way of saying Sodomite.

 

[Imagican]

Thank you.


frogee00,

To the actual title of your thread, let me add this:

Science is the beginning of the understanding of the world in which we live and the life that dwells upon it. Religion is mans created understanding of God. The 'truth' is something in between that is neither guided by nor contained by either.

So, religion is an institutional means of men trying to guide men or themselves. The truth is God through Christ and NOTHING MORE. And what is God? LOVE. And what is LOVE? Sacrifice for others because you care. And that's the truth.

Both science and religion are institutions created by men that believe that they have found the truth, when in reality each has only tasted the truth without even seeing ANY but the merest shadow of it. They are so limited to themselves and their ideas that they are unable to accept that there is something so much larger than themselves that they can't even understand it. So, they make up their religions as they go along and all the time fall further and further away from the truth all for the sake of their silly own self-fulfillment.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Helpful blog here:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 057#218057