 |
 |
Dave I'm hard to offend. I know I sometimes give my opinion so I apologize. However, my aim has been to provide information rather than think I could change anybody else's opinion. I don't think I said "faith has no place in science", but are different ways of " knowing" our world. I don't think we were debating anything, but talking past each other. No harm done. Ray ----Original Message----- From: DAVID MCMURRAY Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:02 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA Rick and Ray; I agreed to that a long time ago, but my posts have been a direct response to issues brought up by both of you. If you don't want me to respond to "faith has no place in science", don't post it. I was invited to debate the "when does life begin" subject.... If I have offended anyone, I apologize, I thought we were having an honest, objective debate on issues important to all of us. I do, unless I get kicked off, intend to respond if these and similar statements are posted to the membership. Regards; Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick McGirr" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:39 AM Subject: Re: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA > Ray, I think you meant to address this to Dave. I agree with you. > > Dave, I think the conversation threatens to veer wide from the purpose of > this listserv. If we cannot help the cause, which is fighting PD, then we > should go somewhere else to 'talk' about other issues such as personally > held beliefs or misconceptions, or the benefits and limits of science or > religion. > > I stand ready to discuss a range of subjects, anything you like, anywhere > you like, public or private. But we've heard from a great many here who > would love to avoid the arguments that often erupt. Unfortunately, science > and religion do seem to intersect over PD and medical research, and that > causes sparks. Many people around the world use this list as a forum for > giving and getting support and advice on the ups and downs of living with > PD. I respect that, and I think it's a very important use for this > listserv. I think I'm pretty much done with commenting on religion and/or > science here. I'm inviting any others who might want to continue the > conversation to suggest a forum for us to meet, thereby saving this place > for those who need it. > > Let me suggest Gather.com, where I have been occasionally posting > different things since 2006. It's designed more for writers, rather than > the quick and easy format of facebook. There are many viewpoints > represented there, and thousands of members. It's not the fastest site, > but its content is rich and varied. > > Rick McGirr > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:30 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: NO FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE DILEMMA > > Rick > > Poverty, starvation, and horrible diseases like Parkinson's threaten human > dignity, not science. There is nothing noble about Alzheimer's, ALS or > Huntington's. I do not wish to return to the lives of our ancestors > living in cold caves, eating raw meat and dying at 18. > > And another thing, it is not faith versus science. They are two different > ways of "knowing" about our existence; one requires evidence and is > self-correcting, the other allows you to believe anything you want. It is > not a matter of picking one over the other, but of knowing the difference > between the two. > > Ray > > > -----Original Message----- > From: DAVID MCMURRAY > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:58 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM/FAITH VERSUS SCIENCE > > Ray, there are many voices in the scientic community on both sides of the > issue, but, unfortuneatly, the loudest seem to come from athiests that are > on a mision to prove there is no God.. An example of this is one you may > know, James Randi, who was kicked out of a Sunday School class and has > dedicated his life, as an atheist, "tried and true". He agrees with guys > like biologist Richard Dawkins, (this info is gleaned from Big Think > Editors) who has stated that scientists never need faith. But then goes > on > to say that his "faith is based on the scientific method. (a religion)? > > David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University has > expressed concern that technology will eventually threaten human dignity > and > integrity, making the "wisdom" and "moral seriousness" found in religion > even more important to future generations". He says without the moral > absolutes found in religion, technology's increasinrg intrusion into human > life via cloning and genetic engineering may present a "tremendously > dangerous, moral conflict of interest" to mankind. > > For me, it takes more faith to believe that the universe just haphazardly > came together in perfect orderly fashion, (the result of a Big Bang), than > to believe in a Creator. > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rayilyn Brown" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:36 PM > Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM > > >> Rick >> >> I like your observation that life is a continuum. We were all star dust >> once. >> >> IVF sure changed the abortion argument didn't it? I mean who knew about >> zygotes among the non-scientific population? >> >> People who oppose science and base their opinions on faith should not be >> making research decisions in a secular society IMO. >> >> What I am most concerned about is this hostility to science. Faith >> didn't give us knowledge of DNA or IVF. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rick McGirr >> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:45 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM >> >> After listening to MJ Fox's diplomatic approach, I clicked on the short >> with Ron Paul and heard his pandering. I have also heard Santorum's >> absolute statements, and Gingrich's hypocritical traditionalism, Romney's >> posturing, and President Obama's strong support for a woman's right to >> choose. I can characterize much of what I hear as political >> "peacock-ing", >> if you'll allow me. >> >> The discussion about when a person's life begins is an interesting one. I >> expect that the more convinced one is about when personhood begins, the >> more resolute one will be about the issue of when abortion is allowable. >> The view that the fetus' life need not be considered at all seems to have >> taken a back seat to the idea that, at some stage along the way, a viable >> human person emerges during the nine month process, and "person" means >> "citizen" and "citizen" means "rights". >> >> For me, the terms need further clarification. "Life" to me is a >> continuum. >> If I fully represent my views here, it will be something different than >> what others would state. The questions crop up like new plant growth >> after >> a forest fire. Trying to be a bit dainty here, there is a lot of "life" >> that ends up in places other than where God intended for our propagation. >> If a couple copulate unsuccessfully, are eggs and sperm cells "life", >> even >> when they don't combine? Is this an example of when "life" ends? How is >> this life/death to be classified? Is there evidence of a moment at which >> the breath of life is blown into a group of cells? Does this "breath" >> cause a group of cells to be an individual? When is it appropriate to >> bestow full citizen's rights to this group of cells? Is there a moment >> which passes, after which we can draw the distinction between persons and >> biological material? Further, do frozen, non-implanted embryos meet any >> such definitions? These 'groups of cells' are not in a survivable >> condition, once they are thawed. They still have to successfully be >> implanted by the doctor, and attach to the uterine wall of the candidate >> mother and develop the umbilical cord, etc, through the months during >> gestation. Is there a mother/child relationship between the un-implanted >> embryo while it survives in the womb? Is the woman actually a "mother", >> before, during, and/or after such attempts are made, either in the >> bedroom >> or the laboratory? In the case of unsuccessful attempts, should the >> doctor, or the copulating couple, be charged with negligence or worse? >> This is not a ridiculous question, within the framework of current >> discussions, that is, if "life begins at conception". >> >> Are these and a host of other questions not legally, socially, >> religiously, personally, politically pertinent? Is this not as thorny a >> range of subjects as you could encounter in any creekside raspberry >> patch? >> >> My view is that even though males participate in the process of >> procreation, women ought to be the majority of any body deciding on a >> woman's right to ask for and receive abortion. If I were a woman, I >> wouldn't want any gaggle of rich, white men to sit in judgment of my >> sexuality and the sanctity of my actions. I also view the discussion of a >> woman's right to abortion services as a distracting parallel discussion >> on >> the rights of the cells of embryos. My view is that there is no evidence >> of personhood at the stage of combined sperm and egg, before implantation >> in the uterus, including those embryos in the freezers of IVF clinics. >> The >> use of such embryos for medical research should be allowed and fully >> supported. >> >> So many questions, and so many answers... >> >> Rick McGirr >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:51 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: MJFOX ON SANTORUM >> >> Fox has interesting take on Santorum’s ESCR beliefs: >> >> http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/michael-j-fox-on-rick-santorums-anti-stem-cell-research-beliefs-i-dont-want-to-suppress-ideas-i-dont-agree-with/?hpt=pm_mid >> >> Ray >> Rayilyn Brown >> Past Director AZNPF >> Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] >> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] >> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] >> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn