Why Are Most Religions Against Cloning?

[DaShi]

It doesn't make sense. Religious communities around the world should be embracing cloning as the true miracle of science that they always dreamed of. I mean, what do religions hate more than other religions? Sex! However, sex had to be tolerated for reproductive purposes. "Be fruitful and multiply" and all that rot. Cloning now gives religion exactly what it wants. A method of reproduction that completely evades sex, including filthy fertilization. Now we just need to find a way to grow these clones in vats and it will be perfect. The female body will never again be violated. Children will be born pure. So why are religions so against this?

[zulu9812]

They take the viewpoint that their god created life, and any attempt on our part to do so is emulating god. If we can do the same things a god can, who is left to worship?

[Boris Godunov]

Well, as far as Christianity goes, perhaps they are afraid it will minimize the miraculousness of the Immaculate Conception.

Most opposition to cloning is based on pure ignorance as to what cloning is and how it works. Since religions seem to specialize in rampant ignorance, especially regarding science, then I find it understandable how they would be opposed to cloning. Laughably childish, but understandable.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Since religions seem to specialize in rampant ignorance, especially regarding science, then I find it understandable how they would be opposed to cloning. Laughably childish, but understandable.

You are showing rampant ignorance of the reasons they are usually against cloning.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
You are showing rampant ignorance of the reasons they are against cloning.

Care to elaborate? I think you knee-jerked a response without reading what I wrote. I said that, if their opposition is based on ignorance, then I wouldn't be surprised. I didn't say it was all based on that.

Still, I've yet to seen opposition to cloning that is rational that couldn't also be applied to invitro fertilization, artificial insemination or just plain sex.

[Arrian]

I assume it has to do with dabbling in creation. But I honestly don't know, since I pay very little attention to what any given religion says.

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Care to elaborate? I think you knee-jerked a response without reading what I wrote. I said that, if their opposition is based on ignorance, then I wouldn't be surprised. I didn't say it was all based on that.

I read what you wrote, and I disagree with your belief that religion is rampantly ignorant of science. Some religions are, but that generalisation is like saying America specialises in religious nuts.

[Kontiki]

My two cents:

It seems to me that most major religions view man as naturally flawed and prone to "sin" or whatever equivalent there may be. Therefore, despite the fact that cloning could/does have many positive benefits, there is too much possibility of a downside (creating a clone army, downgrading the sanctity of life if another, exact replica can be created in its place, etc.) for it to be acceptable.

I'm not saying I agree with this (cause I don't), but rather that it is my best guess as to why "religion" has a problem with cloning.

[Sava]

Boris is correct in his statement that, in general, religion (more specifically Christianity) is ignorant of science. Usually they pick and choose what they want to believe and dismiss as evil. There are also varying degrees of this. The average Joe or Jane who considers themselves a believer in God, I'm sure doesn't believe in the Bible and creationism literally. But for those select few evangelists, Boris' statement is correct.

I think that a clarification of which religious people we are talking about would be needed. That's all.

Although, I have to agree that ignorance is a big part of why most religions are against cloning.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I read what you wrote, and I disagree with your belief that religion is rampantly ignorant of science. Some religions are, but that generalisation is like saying America specialises in religious nuts.

Except that I didn't say all religious people were ignorant of science, merely that world religions seem to be the chief proponent of scientific ignorance. When one considers the history of such institutions like the Catholic Church in the past and Islam and Christian fundamentalism today, I think that's a valid statement. I doubt there is any other impedence to science as significant as religious objection. You just were taking what I said to an extreme that I didn't say for the purpose of a snappy retort.

[Sava]

Remember, the Catholic church didn't acknowledge that Galileo was right until 1992. And that's a mainstream sector of western religion.

[Lars-E]

Was your problem with religion Sava? Your nick was the guy who founded the Serbian Orthodox Church and schools in Serbia.

[Sava]

Actually my nick is my real name My signature sums up what my problem with religion is.

[Lars-E]

Read about your Serbian name-brother in religion then. It might be beneficial to your spiritual health

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Sava
Remember, the Catholic church didn't acknowledge that Galileo was right until 1992. And that's a mainstream sector of western religion.

They implicitly acknowledged it years before that.

[Sava]

I'm sure it was only a PR move... I bet the Popes secretly still believed the Earth was the center of the universe and such.

[Inverse Icarus]

theres also the nasty debate over where a clone's soul is (we discussed that recently on poly).

when we can clone life (and create it later with genetic engineering) we are the gods of whatever we create.

all we'd have to do is spawn life on some habitable rock, leave some commandments, and run away and we'd be god.

[Dauphin]

Except that I didn't say all religious people were ignorant of science

Since religions seem to specialize in rampant ignorance

You used religions plural and did not qualify in any way. To me that is generalisation.

world religions seem to be the chief proponent of scientific ignorance. When one considers the history of such institutions like the Catholic Church in the past ... think that's a valid statement

The Catholic Church did a lot to advance science, its just a few high profile cases where it disagreed with the way revolutionary new ideas were taught that it appears that way.

As an example of its pro-science postion - One of the leading cosmologists of the 1920s was LaMaitre, a RC priest and scientist, who was the key proponent of the later named Big Bang theory.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by UberKruX
theres also the nasty debate over where a clone's soul is (we discussed that recently on poly).

I don't see that as being a particularly tough debate, since if one argued a clone had no soul, one would also have to argue one in a set of identical twins didn't have a soul, since it is essentially the same process.

Ming and Rah, which of you got the soul? My money is on Rah...

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see that as being a particularly tough debate, since if one argued a clone had no soul, one would also have to argue one in a set of identical twins didn't have a soul, since it is essentially the same process.

Ming and Rah, which of you got the soul? My money is on Rah...

thats a good point... i should go stick THAT one to a preist.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

Except that I didn't say all religious people were ignorant of science

Quote:

Since religions seem to specialize in rampant ignorance

You used religions plural and did not qualify in any way. To me that is generalisation.

It is a generalization of religious institutions, and I believe a valid one, but not one of religious people. Religious people and institutions aren't the same thing.

The Catholic Church did a lot to advance science, its just a few high profile cases where it disagreed with the way revolutionary new ideas were taught that it appears that way.

As an example of its pro-science postion - One of the leading cosmologists of the 1920s was LaMaitre, a RC priest and scientist, who was the key proponent of the later named Big Bang theory.

The modern Catholic church, yes. In the past, not so much. Anything that tended to undercut official church doctrine was suppressed with vigor. Today that role is, as I said, generally occupied by Islam and Christian Evangelical religions.

And again, can you think of any institutions who have been more influential in the suppression of science throughout history? I can't.

[Inverse Icarus]

The church will openly agree with any scientific hypothesis that will eventually lend support to their crap. i mean theology.

say the big bang theory was somehow accepted as fact. how did it start? god did it. bang.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
Remember, the Catholic church didn't acknowledge that Galileo was right until 1992. And that's a mainstream sector of western religion.

The Catholic church admitted it was wrong in comdeming Galileo in 1992. (How many other institutions/organizations formally acknowledge wrongs committed centuries ago?)

Teaching evolution has been in the Catholic school curriculum quite a bit longer than that, and teaching the heliocentric solar system and a number of things related to Galileo's work has been in the Catholic shool system for many decades.

Abbé Georges LeMaitre was a major figure in the further development of Einstein's theories of relativity in the early 1920s, and was a contributor (with the active knowledge and support of the church) to the development of the big bang model of the universe.

With respect to cloning, much of the mainstream religious opposition centers on ethical and moral issues regarding potential abuse of clones and cloning of humans.

[Inverse Icarus]

like the clone army! march on!

[DinoDoc]

/me wonders if he should bother writing a serious response given the rampant ignorance displayed by some of the posts in this thread

[Ben Kenobi]

*Having less hesitation than Dinodoc*

There are several reasons religious organisations oppose cloning. To understand their position, you have to divide cloning into two sections, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves in-vitro fertilisation of embryos, which are harvested in order to provide stem cells. Religions oppose this because embryos are always destroyed and they consider embryos to be fully persons, just like ourselves, only younger.

Reproductive cloning is somewhat harder to understand from a non-religious perspective. Christians take reproduction very seriously, although they most certainly do not oppose sex. Read Song of songs- there is lots of beautiful Christian love poetry.

Cloning is problematic because it seems to encourage breakup of families. If one person can produce genetically identical clones, then why would they need anyone else for a family? This is seen as opposite to what is best for children. Children need a stable family to grow up, and Christians fear cloning devalues this arrangement.

Other fears are genetic disorders, and experimental problems with cloning. Since killing embryos for experimental purposes is considered unethical, therefore clone research cannot kill embryos to develop a procedure for clones. Also, since we do not know what happens to clones as they age, it is imprudent to clone human beings.

[Dauphin]

And again, can you think of any institutions who have been more influential in the suppression of science throughout history? I can't.

Can you name any institutions which have given as much active support to scientific development throughout history?.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cloning is problematic because it seems to encourage breakup of families. If one person can produce genetically identical clones, then why would they need anyone else for a family? This is seen as opposite to what is best for children. Children need a stable family to grow up, and Christians fear cloning devalues this arrangement.

This argument makes no sense to me. This would also have to apply to invitro, which I don't see religious organizations clamoring to decry. In fact, many of the women who had invitro and then sextuplets/septuplets were devoutly religious, and it was seen as a blessing. I don't see how cloning for reproductive purposes would devalue the family. I think the contrary is true. The expense and difficulty of the process would likely require a couple of financial means, and it would also likely ensure their being bound to themselves and their children more closely.

Certainly, the "let's have sex and make a baby" method isn't proving particularly conducive to families staying together.

Other fears are genetic disorders, and experimental problems with cloning. Since killing embryos for experimental purposes is considered unethical, therefore clone research cannot kill embryos to develop a procedure for clones. Also, since we do not know what happens to clones as they age, it is imprudent to clone human beings.

Such fears are of the medical ramifications, ones that are, as yet, unfounded. That doesn't, IMO, prescribe a wholesale dismissal of cloning in and of itself. And to say that it might lead to health problems so we should do it would be rather short-sighted, as pretty much all medical breakthroughs that rely on today first had to be tested to make sure they worked and look for side effects, etc. This logic would seem to preclude almost any medical advancement.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Can you name any institutions which have given as much active support to scientific development throughout history?.

Absolutely. The various governments of the world, particularly when engaged in war making, have been the largest benefactors of scientific research.

[Dauphin]

Larger than the foundation of countless universities and most of their development, which inspired the renaissence?