For multiple centuries, there has existed a conflict between religion and science. This conflict has led to multiple debates concerning the influence of religion and science in politics. Specially, these debates have influenced laws pertaining to the use of technological intervention in the process of procreation. Looking at the King James Bible, some see these cosmological and metaphysical questions as being straightforward. The bible is a collection of texts that are at the heart of the Jewish and Christian religion. These texts are designed to explain various topics such as life, death, and social issue. The first chapter, Genesis, sets the stage for the opinion of some religious beliefs. This chapter known as the “creation story” begins directly by stating “In beginning, God [‘elohim] created the heavens and the earth” (Ball, 2000). This one sentences summarizes the entire story. At the center of this story, we are presented a major point: the claim that God, a divine being, is the creator of all things, and without him, life would not be possible. At the same time, this statement story denies any “alternative of generative beginnings” (Ball, 2000).
Cosmological beliefs, such as the ones above, have been incorporated in the various foundation of multiple countries and family’s structures. Any threat to these cosmological beliefs is viewed a threat to the foundations of the social structure. Starting in the 18th century, The Enlightenment Era led to a rejection of traditional, social, political, and religious ideas. This new way of thinking continued and expanded into the twentieth and twenty-first century. With this new way of thinking brought extreme opposition from more conservative thinkers that have very strong cosmological views. Looking at, Nan t. Ball’s article, The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates, and Shanon, Thomas A. and Lisa Sowle Cahill’s article, Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction, one can understand the moral questions raised by technical intervention on human reproduction. These articles help to show how the complex relationship between science, religion, and politics are heavily dependent on the cultural description.
In Dr. Ball article, she “argue that the action of the Constitutional Council is but one example among many of the ways in which form and language of the legal debates surrounding art in France echo enlightenment ideas. Close analysis of the of the 1994 French bioethics debates suggests that Enlightenment polemics about the interrelationship between family, nature, and society provided much groundwork for those debates” (Ball, 2000). These bioethical laws allowed only individuals no able to produce children, heterosexual couples of age to procreate, and married to use artificial insemination and in IVF procedures. Both the church and the government in France condemned the use of this technology because it allowed homosexual couples, virgins, and postmenopausal women to have children. Many groups saw ART as a threat to the traditional heterosexual family structure.
Similar to Dr.Ball’s article, Shanon, Thomas A., and Lisa Sowle Cahill’s article addresses many of the same issues pertaining to technological intervention in the human reproductive process. She addresses three main issues. First, she explains human beings from the first moment in their existence (Cahill et al, 1988). There are various opinions about qualifies “as a person”. Is it when the ovum is fertilized? Is it when the baby is born? These questions play an important role in the debate of ART. The Catholic Church believes “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life begins” (Cahill et al, 1988). Due to their interpretation of the start of life, one can see their views on certain ART. Next, she explains the moral questions raised by technical intervention on human procreation and some orientation on the relationships between moral law and civil laws. These sections show the various contradictory opinions concerning the use of specific technology in human procreation. Due to various opinions, one cans understand why there is not one simple explanation on how to regulate the use of specific technology that help with procreation.
While I believe you were able to identify the main issues within the articles involving the inability to form laws around assisted reproductive technology, I had a hard time following your analysis. You pointed out a lot about conflict between science and religion, but I was hoping to read a deeper analysis of the papers. What I want to know is why such an outdated text is being interpreted literally in a modern age ethics, and how it is still wiggling its way into civil laws.
I understand that most, if not all, laws are built around the fundamentals of moral law. However, I cannot understand how religious law is considered synonymous for moral law. What I’m trying to get at is that there have been atheists with morals and there have been Catholics without morals; I don’t believe that religious laws can be the same as moral laws. However, it seems that there is no separation of church and state in a majority of the world, and it’s as if the church influences the civil laws that are made rather than “moral” laws.
I would have also liked to see you include more about the importance of Genesis. I think it is interesting that Genesis was included in this week’s readings, and I feel that it provides a lot of contradictory material. In Genesis, God commands that mankind take over the dominion of everything and to also multiply. I believe that ART allows both of those things to happen. ART gives a person dominion over their bodies and their ability to do exactly what God wants them to do, which is reproduce. So why is the church so resistant to it? Donum Vitae seems to be explaining that there is a drive to take things into your own destiny but also avoid temptation to go beyond limits –is assisted reproduction going beyond limits? Who decides if it goes beyond limits, the church or the state?
Even during an “enlightening” period in France, there were still strict rules on who could be considered for ART. Enlightening is a movement toward modernity, and there cannot be movement toward modernity if people are still prioritizing religious beliefs over scientific facts. Why is the definition of “when a human is a human” more reliant on the interpretation of the bible and religious BELIEFS rather than reason and scientific FACTS? Why does the bible hold more legitimacy in a multi-religious nation than science?
I feel I was able to grasp the content in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis rather easily. Personally, I enjoyed how “Donum Vitae” and the book of Genesis overlapped one another. This helped connect the two readings and give a greater understanding of the material at hand. I also believe you could have taken a more analytical approach to your response for this week’s readings. You gave nice quotes that summarize some of the readings, however there are no concrete claims made. Finally, my biggest question with religion is how we can apply its teachings to a modern era. These religions were established thousands of years ago, without the use modern technology and dilemmas we experience today. Therefore, how can we hold those standards as our own when the circumstances we face now are usually different?
After this week’s readings, it becomes clearer how fundamental beliefs of the Church have influenced public opinion in terms of reproduction. I agree with you in that based off the Church’s definition of life beginning right after conception, it is clear why there is controversy surrounding artificial reproductive technologies. For example, during IVF not all embryos are implanted. The Church views this is as illicit as abortion itself, since it is an “act against the life of these human beings (Shannon and Cahill, 154).
I found some of the messages conveyed by the readings questionable. For example, stating that just because reproductive technologies are possible does not make them “morally admissible” (Shannon and Cahill, 146). I respect the Catholic Church’s strong emphasis on the importance of family and the unity of marriage. I found it difficult to understand however why these strong beliefs would not translate to wanting as many people to be able to bring children into the world. Though not everyone fits the Bible’s idea of who should be allowed to have a child, children are blessings. I found the bioethical debates in the reading by Nan T. Ball unsettling because the board wanted to limit who could be a parent, despite France having a population decline.
Your post reflects the prevalence of the conflict between religion and science. I thought you had a great transition from how the cosmological beliefs in the Bible connect to how these have influenced social structure, discussed in the French bioethical debates reading. Based off the readings in terms how societal discussions have been influenced by being religious or areligious, I do not see how these two perspectives could meet in the middle.
In reading these texts, I believe it is important to point out the prominence and power the Church wielded. Historically, the Church had a lot of political clout, with many in higher socioeconomic positions directly involved or heavily influenced by the Church. As a result, a lot of laws and the political structures of many European nations have been influenced directly by the Church.
I found it quite profound that opinions surrounding ART aimed at reinforcing social norms–whereas only heterosexual couples were able to engage in ART. This brings to question if the debate surrounding ART is truly a religious one or if it is more of a debate surrounding the reinforcing of the status quo. And because historically the Church played a large political role, the status quo just happens to be one that is surrounded with religious dogma.
I do agree with you that religion and science have had a history of conflict; however, I wonder if this conflict is merely one of power. Where it is not necessarily fundamental differences in belief, but rather conflict regarding which side gets to determine the law.
I thought your summary integrated the three texts we read very fluidly, and I agree with your statement that science and religion has been an ongoing debate for centuries. However, I do think your post could have benefited more from injecting your own perspectives and analyses on the themes present throughout the readings. It is evident that there exists an ongoing arms race between church and state to attain the higher status of moral credibility in order to interpret and implement the fast evolving scientific technologies , to which the groups ultimately attempt to maintain order in society by mandating the procreative options for individuals and their families. I think the theme most prevalent and distinguishing in both the religion’s and state’s argument surround each group’s own definition of “nature”. Whereas the Catholic church credits “nature” as, “the gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man”, Rousseau of the French state, “conceived of nature as more of an active, evolving force and thus rejected the concept of a universal and permanent set of natural laws that are immediately intuitively accessible to man” (Shannon and Cahill, 141; Ball, 576). Between these two distinctive definitions of nature as applied to constructing laws regarding reproductive technologies, I largely disagree with the church’s attempt to credit God with the highest authority over law of individual citizens, as I think it has become very common for anyone to cherry pick different bible verses to justify one’s own worldview and not account for the fact that the implications of new technologies are not always superimposable with the early moral conflicts present in the bible. In addition, I think the debates of the 1994 French legislature could have benefited more by keeping in mind Rousseau’s definition of nature, as they attempted to keep order at the societal level by mandating the options presented to the individual and embracing a stance that promoted a universal and permanent structure of society and it’s families. Overall, I think these readings emphasize the importance of submerging debate in multiple perspectives and encourage ongoing discussion on complex moral issues surrounding the implementation of new scientific technologies.
I agree with you that the first and second chapter of the Genesis has been one of the major cosmological beliefs, laying the foundations for many cultures as well as civil laws. However, as the other two readings refer to the Genesis, they take very different approaches. In Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction offers a more conservative view from the perspective of a Catholic church, stating that “marriage as a conjugal act and the only setting of procreation as parents are servants in the work of the Creator,” thus Genesis is regarded as the basis for conscience and social order, and defining morality in some sense. In contrast, in The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates, the author focuses on the Enlightenment era, providing a more liberal perspective on the predefined cosmology defined by the Genesis. They discuss how legislators of the 1994 Bioethics Law misuse the concept of “Nature” proposed by Rousseau as they completely develop the laws “from their observation of their own society” instead of a “active, forming, and dynamic force.” Therefore, the author suggests a more open attitude towards literature and many other factors that could shape cosmology.
Hey, Garrett
Thank you for writing the blog this week! I also feel that three readings for this week present a conflict between religion and science. In the book of Genesis, everything is created by God including men and women. However, as modern science continues to develop, we know that babies are actually developed from eggs and sperms. As you mentioned, the reproduction technology is so advanced now that make it possible for homosexual couples, virgins, and postmenopausal women to have children. This advancement definitely would cause many controversial issues if no proper regulations are installed.
Among these three articles, my favorite piece is Shanon, Thomas A., and Lisa Sowle Cahill’s article that also focuses on technological intervention in the human reproductive process. It presents various opinions from different groups that are contradicting to one another. It actually helped me to understand the complexity of this issue and why people hold certain beliefs about abortion and IVF.
Overall, I enjoyed your blog post. I agree with your statement on the nature of the relationship between religion and science but I wish you had taken a more defined stance on the issue and used the readings as sources to support your argument. You did an excellent job providing key contextual details that nicely supplemented the information given in the articles themselves. The historical significance of the Church and holy texts (such as our source Genesis) is impertinent to understanding the power religion holds socially and politically. Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry Into the Vatican “Instruction on Resect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Human Reproduction” (1988) is proof of the relevancy religion continues to hold on society, even as science has become more main-stream and generally accepted. In Ball’s article The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates, a limited “enlightened” stance on bioethics was made. I emphasize limited as many perspectives were not represented. One might question why one cosmological belief out of many is still being used in scientific and political discussions that pertain to masses who practice various religions or no religion at all. You did a nice job concisely summarizing the readings but I feel that greater attention could have been paid to analyzing the pieces. This is a very complex topic and I feel that an in-depth analysis of it is a more difficult task than one might think.
The Book of Genesis, although written centuries ago, remains relevant to this day. Since Christianity is one of the most popular religions of the world, it is no surprise that views of the Christian church spreads throughout politics and societal views on artificial reproductive technology. I agree with the statement in the blogpost: “These articles help to show how the complex relationship between science, religion, and politics are heavily dependent on the cultural description.” Nan T. Ball’s journal article addresses how technology intervention disrupts the norm of heterosexual couples as parents in France and the fear that surrounds ART becoming prevalent: allowing lesbian couples and post-menopausal women to bear children (Ball, 558). The “disintegration of bi-parental heterosexual family unit” is another one of the fears that contributes to bioethics laws in France surrounding artificial reproductive technology. By finding similarities in Dr. Ball’s article with the article from Donum Vitae, the blog post helped to link the two different perspectives of religion and politics in bioethics. Lisa Cahill’s article, as part of Donum Vitae, addresses biomedical issues from the Roman Catholic Church’s view. She addresses when a person is considered a person: the zygote being considered a human individual versus later on in the pregnancy. The blog post notes that Cahill addresses when a human individual is considered but could go into further detail and analysis on what the significance of this consideration means.
Hi Garrett,
I like the way you describe the foundation that is created in the book of genesis on how we are “supposed” to understand life. In the article “Religion and Artificial Reproduction”, one of the things that stood out most to me is the assertion that in order to understand the further complexity of relationships we must keep the gift of life that god has given to us at the center. When you mention how relationship between science, religion, and politics are heavily dependent on the cultural description, where do you thinking keeping god “in the center” comes into this?
Dr. Ball’s article mentions that the lens looked at is through a historical point of view. Evidently, when history shapes us into thinking one way it is challenging for society to break this. Your analysis makes it very clear as to what the outcome on certain vulnerable populations is from placement of technological restrictions, but I wonder if you think there is a way to change this? Are we naturally just programmed to put historical facts above a lot of other important factors?
I find the point you make about the uncertainty and questions out there regarding when a persons life actually starts very interesting. What role do you think this plays in rejecting technological intervention, if any? Particularly, in the case of the French rejecting technological intervention, it is clear that cultural influence is very prevalent. Issues such as these should be looked at through an interdisciplinary lens, yet it seems that certain view points are actively prioritized over others. I would also be interested to know what your thoughts of between the relationship of law, science, and technology. What do you think about the point made in “Religion and Artificial Reproduction” when it comes to only permitting artificial ertilization for married couples. I am interested to know what role culture plays in this and more so, if there is a strong relationship between history and culture that creates a conclusion like this.
Up until recently, abortion was a primarily Catholic issue and, to my knowledge, all other Abrahamic religions had other matters that took the forefront of their message. Today, however, the story is much different. It was interesting to see where the opinions of the Catholic church came from and how their interpretation of scripture was similar and different. I also found the article from Duke Law went very well with the rest of the works and I think your analysis gave a good summary of how the two juxtaposed one another. The Catholic church believes that God plays an integral part in all parts of life starting from conception and therefore finds ART to be wrong for no other reason that. While the French saw it less of an immoral act but as a threat to the equilibrium of their society.
Garret,
Your blog this week was very informative of the readings but one thing I thought was lacking was a deeper look into the rift between science, technology, politics, and culture. The first two chapters of Genesis really are the foundation of Christianity and these two chapters have been impacting society since their beginning. God created all that we have and all that we are and like him we were made to create; this is the point of Donum Vitae. Anything that impairs the human bond between a man and wife in their promise of marriage to procreate should be prohibited. Also importantly noted in this document is the power given to those who use Artificial Reproductive Technology: “through these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree”. God, from the beginning of time has been the only one with a say of when life both begins and ends, through ART doctors are now able to take the form of God and make that decision themselves, defying everything God created us to be. This plays into how our culture views historical doctrine and takes the form of cafeteria christianity, where we, whether catholics or some other form of christianity, get to decide which matters we wish to accept and which ones we choose to ignore.
All in all, I thought your blog was very well written with a few typos but it was a great summary into the readings of this week.
I felt that the aim for this weekly blog assignment, of both summarizing, analyzing, and adding original insight was touched upon, but not wholly met. More depth and specificity would have definitely enhanced your response. You introduced the topic and overall theme of Genesis quite well, but it seems the overall points and argument presented within the Ball and Shannon et al. articles were not quite captured in your writing. It would have been helpful to explain a few central arguments before citing quotes from the Ball article. Additionally, a more in depth analysis on how the creationist story within the book of Genesis compares with the beliefs presented in the Ball and Shannon, et al. pieces would add to your response. For instance, how might belief in a creationist cosmology complicate the understanding of IVF from a religious perspective? What evidentiary support in the text supports that assertion?
In your second paragraph, your claim on “cosmological beliefs… [that have been] incorporated in… multiple countries and family structures…” needs a bit more elaboration. Perhaps you could have supported this claim with concrete examples of this phenomenon in both the public and private spheres and possibly narrowed down your assertion by indicating you were referencing only countries founded upon Judeo-Christian values. As a few classmates have suggested, it is definitely important to acknowledge the myriad of religious beliefs/practices that exist, even here in the United States.
The following sentence “These articles help to show how the complex relationship between science, religion, and politics are heavily dependent on the cultural description” warrants a bit more specificity as well; which specific cultural descriptions do you refer to here?
There were a few simple grammatical errors that were a bit distracting in your blog post; it is definitely important to proofread before submitting, i.e. “In Dr. Ball article, she ‘argue that the action of the…’” should be “In Dr. Ball’s article, she ‘argue[s] that the action of the..’” Sometimes it helps to read your writing aloud to catch these little errors; that always works for me!
After this week’s readings the fundamental connection between religion and science seems to still be a bit hazy. To me, the Bible seems to be a timeless piece who’s concepts cannot be challenged by new technology, however in the Ball and Sharen et. al pieces, reproductive technologies seem to claim that the story of creationism is more complicated. In your analysis I hoped you would touch on a question I have been contemplating: are religion and science explanations for creation necessarily mutually exclusive? As of now, I believe that religion and science can peacefully coexist, but I hope to be challenged by our discussion in class.
In addition, I was glad you mentioned the part of Ball and Sharon et al. where they discuss what it means to be a person. I couldn’t help but question the underlying premise of the question and wonder whose job it is to define personhood– is it man or God?
Overall, I think you did a good job at summarizing the main point of the articles, but I hope in class I get a chance to hear more opinions and analysis of the relation between science and religion and how that leads to acceptable or inappropriate reproductive technologies.
I thought this is a very good summary of all three readings. I agree that there are a lot of conflict between science and religion, but it would have been better if I could read about your own analysis or opinions about them. I do understand now why there is controversies of artificial reproductive technologies depending on the definition of first moment in existence, like you mentioned. I don’t think I can ever be on one side versus another. However, based on the book of Genesis, it is very interesting to me how different ideas can rise from a one definition. In Genesis 1:28, it states, “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Here, I would think God gave humans authority to rule over every living creature that moves on the ground, which can include ourselves, humans. I feel like that’s why we have rules and laws. However, because we have so many different perspectives, culture, religions, and thoughts, it is hard to make a conclusion over something like regulating the use of technology that help with procreation.