NationStates Jolt Archive

I have made a proposal that many should find interesting enough to at least read through. If you have an interest in the science v. religion issue, this is indeed a proposal to consider.
All I ask is that you read it and if you agree vote for it and tell your other friends about it. If you disagree with it please do the same.
Thank you all.

The Enodian Government will instruct its delegation to vote against this proposal should it reach the floor of the UN (OOC: I can't see a reason to delete it, although I must confess to only having skimmed it). We do not believe that the burden placed on science is a fair one, especially given that religion is incapable of achieving such results either.
The Electorate of Enodia wishes to re-affirm that it is a nation with strong religious leanings. While the business of government is an atheist one, most of our leaders have affiliation with churches - hence this is not a mere "anti-religion" rant from an avowedly atheist nation.

The problem with not reading a proposal shines through.

If a person reads the proposal they will see there is no demand on science to undertake research of the type in question.

The proposal will only effect those Scientific agencies that chose to take on such reseach.

To require a research agency to preform such a task would be ludicrous.

The Enodian delegation has now had time to read the literature on the proposal on a more thorough basis, and wishes to clarify its objections for the benefit of the nation of Saul 2 Paul:


All UN nations adopt a policy that would reduce finances given, to any scientific research organization, that fails to produce conclusive results on any research/study being done, in order to disprove the teachings of any religious belief.
Any Research group, that undertakes such work, shall be required to prove beyond doubt that there results are correct.
Failure to comply, with this proposed act, will result in the reduction of government fundings, to the group, in the amount of 90%. This will effect all funding given to said group.

We take exception to the "Religion VS Science" stance of this section of the proposal. No scientific research or study in Enodia - at least - is being undertaken "in order to disprove the teachings of any religious belief". While there are certain cults out there who would understandably take offence at even the most simple findings of science, it is not the express intention of any scientific project to prove or disprove a 7-day creation story, the ascension into the sky of any human or reincarnation (to take tenets of faith from three "main-line" religions).
Further, we do not believe that the standard of proof for such hypothetical research is fair. While none of us in the delegation have a scientific background, we believe that one individual study cannot prove conclusively that something is true or false. To take the example of "smoking causes cancer", this was proven over many years and many studies - not with one study alone. As we read this proposal, it seeks to impede research which might behave in a similar manner.


For the purpose of determining a religion, it will be declared that, any belief system that is recognized at the time of the posting of this proposal, shall be a determining group. Any group formed after this posting will not be a determining group.

While it is clearly important to have this qualification for "that which makes a religion", the scope here is unnceccessarily broad. Research which, as a by-product, disproves the teaching of a belief such as scientology would be hampered here.

Again, we stress that this is only the reading of the Enodian Delegation. We welcome clarification from the leadership of Saul 2 Paul as to the provisions of this proposal which we may have overlooked.

All UN nations adopt a policy that would reduce finances given, to any scientific research organization, that fails to produce conclusive results on any research/study being done, in order to disprove the teachings of any religious belief.
Any Research group, that undertakes such work, shall be required to prove beyond doubt that there results are correct.
Failure to comply, with this proposed act, will result in the reduction of government fundings, to the group, in the amount of 90%. This will effect all funding given to said group.

We take exception to the "Religion VS Science" stance of this section of the proposal. No scientific research or study in Enodia - at least - is being undertaken "in order to disprove the teachings of any religious belief". While there are certain cults out there who would understandably take offence at even the most simple findings of science, it is not the express intention of any scientific project to prove or disprove a 7-day creation story, the ascension into the sky of any human or reincarnation (to take tenets of faith from three "main-line" religions).
Further, we do not believe that the standard of proof for such hypothetical research is fair. While none of us in the delegation have a scientific background, we believe that one individual study cannot prove conclusively that something is true or false. To take the example of "smoking causes cancer", this was proven over many years and many studies - not with one study alone. As we read this proposal, it seeks to impede research which might behave in a similar manner.

I think that you may have read something into this part that is not implyed. This does not require research to be done. It only sets rules for research that may be undertaken in the future. There have been numerous studies done in the field of science vs. religion in the past. This proposal is intended to establish a set of standards, for these studies, that would insure, that the one sided frivolous studies would not be attempted. Your example of the "smoking causes cancer" studies is a good one. The government, for years, had to deal with studies (of a scientific nature), which were backed, by the tobacco growers, the cigarette industry, the American Cancer Society, the AMA. and a whole list of other special interest groups. Not, until there were studies done that produced conclusive evidence, could the government take a stand on the issue. Once the evidence was there, the research dollars for the firms doing the studies that proved correct has escalated astronomically. No research, that did not participate in these studies was effected. This is the same effect proposed for this matter.


While it is clearly important to have this qualification for "that which makes a religion", the scope here is unnceccessarily broad. Research which, as a by-product, disproves the teaching of a belief such as scientology would be hampered here.

Again, we stress that this is only the reading of the Enodian Delegation. We welcome clarification from the leadership of Saul 2 Paul as to the provisions of this proposal which we may have overlooked.This is the flip side of the coin, to the proposal. This is where the religious organizations put their belief up for examination. If the teachings, of any faith, were proved to be false, then (In my opinion) the people would have a right to know and make their religious belief choices on a more informed basis.

Kind of a bad quoting reply in the last post but I think you can make it out.

I did lose one thing while posting that I include here:

This proposal is not intended to limit research into the matter, on the contrary. It is intended to call upon researchers to make more studies and to have them be more unbias than has ever been attempted.
I may have left off a part that would have made it more palatable to some. I could have included a provision that no research, that resulted in inconclusive results, will be punished nor rewarded. Would that have helped?

If anything I want to increase research spending...

Well this then turns into an external agency having control (or at the very least dangling a carrot in the direction of) what scientists should be researching. Obviously the UN exists to inflict compliance upon member nations, but if I can possibly avoid it I'd prefer not to have my scientists given recommendations on what to research.

But it's only a recommendation! I hear you cry. Well, yes it is only a recommendation but it's a recommendation with money attached to it (if I read the proposal accurately) and scientists are always after that little bit more money to build the new quantum particle accelerator or whatever the latest gadget is.
Enodia's policy has always been to reward research and development, but on a case-by-case basis, rather than via the fiat of legislation.

I too agree with the reward on a case by case basis.
However, with there being multimillion dollar bonuses for research that leads to a cure for Aids, Cerebral Palsey, Spinal Bifida, Juvenile Diabetes, Cancer, Muscular Dystrophry and a host of other areas dealing with everything from the environment to cloning. I don't see why this is seen as dangling any more of a carrot than those.
I do thank you for your interest in this topic. Fun to deal with someone who knows how to think. Even when they don't agree.

I was afraid you'd raise those "search for a cure" situations.

At the risk of sounding thoroughly objectionable, it strikes me that research to provide a cure for a life-threatening (or even fatal) disease/condition serves much more of a purpose than research to prove (or even disprove, for that matter) the tenets of a religious belief. I'm sure the world would be very interested to know if scientists discovered that the Judeo-Christian God existed or if anything else found in the holy books of the world were true, but my feeling is that they'd more more interested in a scientist stepping up and saying "we've cured AIDS" or "we've cured cerebral palsy". Even "we're cured the common cold" would be a big one.

Then again, the first dealing I'd have with this proposal really would be if it reached the floor of the UN, so rebutting it now is a bit of a waste of time. Cursed irony.

All UN nations adopt a policy that would reduce finances given, to any scientific research organization, that fails to produce conclusive results on any research/study being done, in order to disprove the teachings of any religious belief.

*Ahem* Scientific research can't really be conducted for the purpose of disproving a religious belief. Why? There are two main reasons. First, any "scientists" who goes into an experimentation with a specific result in mind is in defiance of the definition of science. Secondly, science is a study of nature -- religion, by most accounts, is a supernatural thing.

This reminds me of the misunderstanding that scientific research can ever "fail." Science does not have a desired result. It is an attempt to answer a single question which is, more often than not, of a true/false nature. If the hypothesis being tested is proven false, the data is just as valuble as it would be if the hypothesis had held true. Science does not approach an end; rather, it is the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world around us and how it functions.

Any Research group, that undertakes such work, shall be required to prove beyond doubt that there results are correct.

What, you mean like all scientific findings ALREADY are, pretty much? Ever heard of peer review? If a study isn't well operated, it won't get reported in a scientific journal, period. Half-assed studies belong in two places: Sociology and tabloids.

This prososal also will reward any Research Group that undertakes the task of proving the teaching of any religions belief and succeeds. Success will be determined on the same scale as the failures (beyond a doubt).

Beyond a doubt. I hope you realize that one of basic principles of science is that NOTHING is ever considered true "beyond a doubt." Even laws as basic as gravity can be disproven. Science works on the assumption that, until something is proven wrong, we can operate on the relatively safe assumption that it can be considered to be correct.

Any Research group, that undertakes such work, shall be required to prove beyond doubt that there results are correct.
Failure to comply, with this proposed act, will result in the reduction of government fundings, to the group, in the amount of 90%.

Any Research Group that succeeds in proving the teaching of a religions belief will immediately be granted a 90% increase in government funds.

I see. So the only possible result of this proposal is that research "against" religion will be hopelessly crushed, and research "for" religion will receive doubled funding. Wow. I hope you didn't do that on purpose.

And I might as well protest, as usual, that this really isn't a global issue. Might you provide any reason for the United Nations to get involved?

As I have had an awful shock today I will not be in any state of mind to debate this further for some days.

This afternoon I found my brother dead in his car.

I will return to posting in a few days when things get settled down.

Both ICly and OOCly, I'm really sorry to hear that Saul 2 Paul. I'll be praying for you, mate.