Keep The Reason wrote:For instance, "Late term abortion = killing a viable baby, hence immoral to human survival" is demonstrable, but "Late term abortion = your soul going to Hell" is not.
Are you actually saying that? Satire doesn't always come across - so apologies if I'm mis-reading you.
"Late term abortion = killing a viable baby"
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Where are you getting this from?
There is no clear consensus on the question of whether or not morality is objective or subjective. Given that underlying question, I'm not clear on how any moral judgement can be demonstrable. Are you saying immoral relative to some implied moral code? That could be demonstrable, but you need to state the moral code.
"to human survival"
And how can you even say that late term abortion adversely affects human survival? You are demonstrably ending one life, but I COULD argue you are benefiting the human race as a whole. It certainly isn't clearly posing a danger. It isn't like we are running out of people.
That said, getting back to the topic at hand: I agree with you on science being unfettered. There is no reason for the church to make calls on which hypothesis has enough evidentiary backing to be the accepted theory. And to directly answer Moonwood - yes, science should be self regulating. For one, it's very essence is testing ourselves for mistakes in thinking. Because of this, not only should it theoretically be better at self-regulating, but we can show that this has been the case historically. When there have been problems (Newtonian physics, which doesn't work in extremes; or fraud like the study showing the link between vaccines and autism) they are corrected. When the Catholic church has a problem, they just move the priest to a new parish. How we want to implement the findings of science is a social question. But I think we need to be clear that how we implement the findings of science is different than deciding if we are willing to acknowledge the findings of science. So, science has learned how to make atomic weapons. Appropriate social question: should we use atomic weapons? Inappropriate social question: Has science really learned how to make atomic weapons? Also, we can't divorce science from the social questions. Like with the abortion issue above, we can't say - sure, science has said some things, but now I'm going to talk about social implications and so I can completely ignore the facts. In deciding whether or not to use atomic weapons, we have to make sure we understand the science so that we are correctly appraising the potential outcomes of various courses of action. We can't say, hey- it's cool because the radiation will give the people super powers so we aren't really hurting innocent civilians and it is ok that I just made that up because 1- it is demonstrable since I'm not mentioning souls and 2 - because we are talking about social issues now, not science.