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.