What do you think the Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson and signed by 56 American leaders on July 4, 1776, means by the term, “created equal”?
In context, this rich statement reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wrote a law review article on just this topic a few years back. It is titled: “Created Equal: How The Declaration of Independence Recognizes and Guarantees the Right to Life for the Unborn,” and can be found on Lexis or westlaw at 28 Pepperdine Law Review 819 (2001). It concludes:
This article has attempted to show that the Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to life for the unborn. The argument is as simple, familiar, and straightforward as the language of the Declaration itself: “All men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator . . . with the unalienable right to life.” Because the sole purpose of the American government is “to secure these rights,” the legal right to an abortion, like the prior legal right to own another human being, must be brought to an end. Those who seek legally to protect abortion are on the wrong side of history. The fundamental truths of the Declaration, which formed this nation and freed a people from bondage, will one day rescue the unborn. As Abraham Lincoln said: “Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and, with it, the practices and policy which harmonize with it . . . If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it as to make and to keep it forever worthy of the saving.”
Hi Jill,
your question really has me in a tizzy because I know first-hand (my brother and sister in law are a bi-racial couple) and they do not take too kindly to me fooling around with ideas. That being said: I would think you will have plenty of posts supporting the fact that we are created beings.
One thing about being a created being is an acceptance of humility. In today’s lingo: I am NOT #1 – God is #1! Such a statement is a direct challenge/affront to control-freaks >>> my experience of being human is only fully realized by aligning our life with God’s wishes.
I have little problem understanding that we are ‘created’ beings, but I have a HUGE problem with classification as ‘equal’.
This word is the invention of the philosopher Rene Descartes who lived in France the century prior to Thomas Jefferson’s prologue to the American constitution was penned. Rene was a great mathematician, who applied the term to humans for the first time … hoping to rid European societies of a caste system based on a up-down system … aristocracy was ‘up'( and wealthy); common folk were ‘down’ (and very poor). Enter, T. Jefferson … he liked this concept very much. When starting the USA, the Founding Fathers hoped to build a society without this form of hereditary-caste so rampant in Europe. [The Catholic Church was not much better and mimed (still does to this day) this kind of divisiveness. We use the notion of hierarchy much too readily!]
Humans (like all creation) are created ‘uniquely’ and NOT ‘equally’. There are two large problems with this word. #1 – it is a word that compares and as such is opposite in character to being ‘unique’ creatures. #2 – it is a word of strict comparison. Perhaps the use of numbers here makes this easier to explain: we usually have in mind a number like 7 = 7 or 9 = 9, but 4 = 4 and 3 =3 even 2 = 2. If we have in mind that we must be ‘equal’, we will move toward 2 = 2 […NOTE: American education public system and union operations.]
Breaking free of this trap I think is found if we focus on the ‘uniqueness’ aspect of life. Instead of the playing around with the sub-10 as we now do, we will discover that we are 32,576.
It means that we are created equal. We are created when we are conceived in the womb. Not born equal.
I think that given the period in which it was written, this statement was meant to reflect the social standard that all white landowning males were created equal. To even attempt to infer that this equality was considered to extend to women or to ethnicities other than Caucasian is frankly just too farfetched.
John,
My understanding of created equally (in the Catholic sense) is that we are created uniquely, different in matter, but equal in dignity. While you may have an IQ of 160 and I may have one of 110, or you may be 6’0″ tall and I may be a midget (love those midgets), or I may be healthy and you may have that wiggy disease, we are equal in dignity…we cannot be defined as less “worthy” because of our differences…does that make sense? Everyone has the same rights…
Diana is wrong when she says that she has a superior right than an unborn child simply because the unborn child needs her to survive…the child is different than Diana, in that it’s needs are not the same, but it is the same in dignity and cannot be treated with any less respect simply because it’s needs are different.
Samantha,
You are probably right, but the words were written the way they were written, and regardless of their intention, our forefathers inadvertently, ensured that women, minorities and the unborn must be considered created equal. Slip of the tongue? Maybe. But prophetic nonetheless. A case of their own words coming full circle to bite them in the keister!
great post MK. exactly…
Why thank you Jasper, and thanks for the welcome back…there’s no place like home…*click*
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Unfortunately, keep in mind that the key word here is all MEN are created equal, and even then we’ve had a hard time adhering to that one. This is a difficult question, to say the least.
How about this. I am getting ready for a jam session, but when I’m done, I’ll come back on once I have more to say and have had time to think about this question.
Nice stumper, Jill!
“Diana is wrong when she says that she has a superior right than an unborn child simply because the unborn child needs her to survive…the child is different than Diana, in that it’s needs are not the same, but it is the same in dignity and cannot be treated with any less respect simply because it’s needs are different.”
MK, you misunderstand me. The fetus’ rights are *exactly* the same as mine. But it’s right to life is coming into conflict with my right to bodily autonomy. And the right to bodily autonomy wins over the right to life. No matter whose right it is. Whether it’s my right to my kidney over someone whose kidney is failing’s right to life, or my right to my vagina over a rapist’s right to life. It’s not that *I* win over the fetus, or the poor sick person, or the rapist; it’s that one right that I have trumps another right that the fetus has. My right to life doesn’t supercede anyone else’s right to bodily autonomy either.
Oh, and I’m with Samantha on this one. Given the time it was written and who it was written by, I think it means that all white, free, landowning males are equal (they all have the same rights).
Hi MK,
the problem does not lie in what is equated – dignity, value or rights it is the concept itself. How can anyone compare uniqueness? That word ‘unique’ defies ALL … even values comparing.
The problem you have with Diana and others is that while you may be thinking 9 = 9, she has very little notion that humans are worth much at all. To put it in numerical terms: 2 = 2. Please note that there is still an equal …. so rights are mother – 2 = baby/fetus – 2. At the very same time, you may self-believe it is mother – 9 = baby – 9. Both of you may speak exactly the same words, but remain fundamentally divided because you have experienced life differently.
People who firmly understand that God created them uniquely, has also understood that there is no upper limit. Such a number stems from God and is not within our human capacity to self-limit.
What do you think THE CONSTITUTION, as opposed to declaration, means by the terms….
“All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States…”
Cameron,
I know that I am making a mistake here by trying to take you seriously, but here goes…
“All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States…” is simply defining who is a citizen and protected as such. The subject of the unborn was not an issue when this was written. This wasn’t a testament to who was a person, just a definition of who was a citizen. Every country has these definitions.
My sister lives in Ireland and if her children were born here while she was visiting, the question of which country these children were considered citizens of, would have to be addressed.
(In my sister’s case it doesn’t really matter because she has duel citizenship, but you get the picture)
The children were still human PERSONS before they were born, that was never in question. Only their citizenship was debatable. So if you’re asking about the citizenship of the unborn, you might have a case using the constitution. But if you’re debating personhood, I don’t think it applies.
However, even in debating their citizenship, you would have a tough time, because this specific situation has never been addressed. If Roe v Wade is overturned, and husbands that kill their unborn children continue to be charged with their murder, and abortion is eventually made illegal, then I guess this problem will have to be dealt with…until then, sad to say, the unborn aren’t up for citizenship…
Diana,
Other than the fact the it is your opinion, why does your right to bodily autonomy trump the unborns right to life. It seems to me that if this is true it should be labeled Diana’s Law, as it is solely your perspective and not based on any facts.
On another post you argued that opinions don’t really matter (blue box/red box) because the truth was objective and yet you base your entire argument on your personal subjective truth. Prove that your right to autonomy is a greater right than the unborn child’s right to live.
“The subject of the unborn was not an issue when this was written.”
You’re sort of right. People have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of civilization… and it was OK up to the “quikening.” They just didn’t care like you do.
“This wasn’t a testament to who was a person, just a definition of who was a citizen.”
So… why are you all trying to get a fetus declared a citizen with a constitutional amendment. You need to get your priorities straight then if a constitutional amendment isn’t really necessary.
Your sisters a convoluted example for you purposes, as there isn’t actually any debate about what country they are citizens of so long as they were “born” in the US… they are US citizens. Interestingly, If she’d gotten knocked-up on a trip to Paris, then came here to give birth, are you saying her kids should enjoy french citizenship too?
“However, even in debating their citizenship, you would have a tough time, because this specific situation has never been addressed.”
Unequivocally, throughout history, in every society, that question seems to be universaly resolved. For the early fetus at least, nobody declares a fetus as a dependent, nobody calls CSI when there is a misscariage, nobody holds a funeral for the fetus. Universally, the early fetus is not considered a member of society.
The only thing new here is that abortion has become common and easy, and these attempts to stop it are unprecedented and confounded by higher order ethics.
“Other than the fact the it is your opinion, why does your right to bodily autonomy trump the unborns right to life. It seems to me that if this is true it should be labeled Diana’s Law, as it is solely your perspective and not based on any facts.”
More appropriately, when you dispense witht the fetus centric myopia…Why should a fetus have a right to an unvolunteered body or organs when no other person on earth does??
Cameron,
More appropriately, when you dispense witht the fetus centric myopia…Why should a fetus have a right to an unvolunteered body or organs when no other person on earth does??
Because it’s a unique situation and no one else on earth requires it. The bond between a mother and her child is not replicated anywhere else in the animal/human kingdom. It can’t be compared to kidneys or blood tranfusions or anything else that Diana has thrown at us. It is one of a kind, and most often it is a result of an action on the mothers part. Again, whether Diane believes that she consented to pregnancy or not is irrelevant. Her actions/choice had consequences. Accepting the consequences of ones actions is part of being an adult and a mature member of a society. Shirking your responsibilities does not further the common good even if it temporarily furthers ones personal agenda.
Cam,
So… why are you all trying to get a fetus declared a citizen with a constitutional amendment. You need to get your priorities straight then if a constitutional amendment isn’t really necessary.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this. Do you mean why aren’t we trying to get the unborn declared as citizens?
As to my sister, I realize that her circumstances are different because she got dual citizenship before she got pregnant. But if she got knocked up in the US while being a citizen of Ireland but then gave birth in Paris…I don’t know what the child would be…
While it is true that abortion has been taking place since the beginning of time, it is only in the last thirty odd years that our country has sanctioned it through the law. That is why us fetus centric types are up in arms. People will always do “bad” things, but in this case, the government has condoned this abhorrent behavior. That’s the difference and that’s the reason for the outcry.
If incest was made legal tomorrow would you argue that incest has been going on since the beginning of time and it’s only now that incest-centric types are complaining?
perhaps I did pose a very difficult dilemma … I wrote a university ethics paper with these same arguments … the Prof gave me a “B” [a warning, I think] and the words “… you can’t be serious!” about 35 years ago. I was and still am very serious about this.
Humans already make such a distinction when they give a human child a name. It is ‘the’ primary code to approach the unique aspects of a person. Perhaps as long as fetuses have no name … no distinction and a value so tiny … that abortion will continue. It is interesting that women from Project Rachael are encouraged to name each aborted-child, as part of the healing/grieving process.
Our brains operate by comparing things … from ‘blades of grass’ and ‘snowflakes’ to ‘clouds’… (except for names) ALL words are symbols of comparison, so are all sciences and all bodies-of-knowledge, etc … All this is done within a universe where everything is unique. So perhaps the US Constitution preamble needs a better word refinement where (one suggestion): ‘ALL ARE CREATED and valued UNIQUELY. Humans seeking such Liberties as … have decided to …’
“Because it’s a unique situation and no one else on earth requires it.”
Indeed… however you’d never guess a bunch a people saying killing is always wrong would actually acknowledge that this a unique scenario with respect to rights. Kudoos! You don’t seem to either understand or are otherwise unwilling to acknowledge the argument beyond that though, and invoking Diane’s organ anology suggests you think we’re comparing a fetus to an organ, rather than the original argument, that nobody has a right to an unvolunteered body or organ. Are you pussy-footing around or genuinely stupid?
What follows is the old “repsonsibility argument” which is an is-ought fallacy absent any cognative argument connecting is with ought. Generally, when it comes to peoples rights, we society requires substantial justifications beyond “that’s just how it SHOULD be.”
You really need to make a case for compulsory gestation that actually weighs the rights of both mother and fetus, per you acknowledgment, rather than resorting to transative semantics which dance around the genuine question.
Again, nobody has a right to your kidneys or your body, even if they need your donation to survive as a result of your actions.
“I’m sorry, I don’t understand this. Do you mean why aren’t we trying to get the unborn declared as citizens?”
You’re having trouble because we’re both mixing the vocab; citizen, personhood, human, member of society etc…
You all are trying to get constitutional amendments which define human at/upon conception. Why is there a need for this if the constitution already covers it inherently, per your notions. e.g. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5593764,00.html
“As to my sister, I realize that her circumstances are different because she got dual citizenship before she got pregnant. But if she got knocked up in the US while being a citizen of Ireland but then gave birth in Paris…I don’t know what the child would be…”
Amusingly evasive. I’ll take that as an acknowledgment that no country recognizes citizenship based on location of conception.
“While it is true that abortion has been taking place since the beginning of time, it is only in the last thirty odd years that our country has sanctioned it through the law.”
Nope… it’s only within the last century that our country has attempted to bann it… as it was clearly sanctioned before you idiot.
This is fricken pointless.
“That is why us fetus centric types are up in arms. People will always do “bad” things, but in this case, the government has condoned this abhorrent behavior. That’s the difference and that’s the reason for the outcry.”
No. You outcry because it’s become common, easy, and safe, thus trivializing the significance of an act you presume is always immoral under any and most circumstances suddenly. These are all novel occurances, which are historically unprecedented, and manifest as a result of advanced medical practices within the last few hundred years.
To ask the question again…
Why should a fetus have a right that no other actually extant member society has? There may be a reasonable argument, but you’ve done nothing but tired and trite semantics.
John,
That’s the most unique argument I’ve heard in a while. Foolish, but unique.
To summarize; if we stipulate that everyone is unique, then it’s OK to give or take rights from a certain class of people?
Why do you talk like it was the child’s idea to be conceived? Like the child somehow caused his mother to get pregnant, put himself into her womb? The child has no ability to stop pregnancy from occurring — only the parents can do that. The child is a product of their actions, whether they wanted it to happen or not, and they are responsible for it.
If you drive drunk, and kill someone, you may not have intended to but you are still responsible. The value of the life you took outweighs your right to keep your body out of prison.
I’ve heard pregnancy compared to waking up to find yourself surgically connected to someone who wants to use your kidney. But remember — the child did not cause the situation, the pregnant woman did! So what if the kidney thief only wanted the benefits of this surgery, but not the responsibility of keeping you alive? It’s not a perfect analogy, but it at least reflects where the responsibility truly lies — with the man and woman who created a child (without the child’s consent!) only to insist on his death.
Michelle, Perfect!
Michelle,
You’re thinking of Thomson’s famous Defense of Abortion argument, in which, for arguments sake, she assumes that the fetus does indeed have all the rights enjoyed by extant people. Simply rearranging the anology to something that suits your purposes, does not refute the original analogy.
The responsibility argument is falls on it’s face because the woman could not have made the fetus come to be somewhere other than her womb… an artificial womb for example. As result she is not meaningfully responsible simply because the fetus is. In other words, responsibility for existance does not equal responsibility for the fact that the fetus needs the womb. Ultimately we simply don’t take peoples body or parts for another person because they somehow are responsible for another person needing those parts.
Diana:
when should abortion be illegal? I believe you may have said after the 1st trimester, is this correct?
..in the case where the mother and babys health are fine, no problems.
Hi Cam,
guess you didn’t read my posts to Diana last night:
in summary: all humans have 4 powers to ascertain what a human is …. these are: physical, intellectual, emotions and ‘faith’ …. we severely restrict our assessment if we only use one power of these four. Diana (and now you) have this same difficulty and force concepts belonging mostly in other area’s into the intellectual process … example: what value is a your brother?
ANSWER: that depends very much on with power(s) you employ …. anywhere from only a few cents to an incredibly large amount.
Much the same thing applies to RIGHTS … it is very easy to assign rights to an adult as being of high value and absolutely negating the value of a fetus … both have rights … you seem to be saying: ‘well it’s just that some people are more equal than others.’
Diana, for instance, has little trouble espousing a huge value to her autonomy, and at the same time saying humans are without value because such cannot be proven logically. So which is it … rights are a huge value and they are inalienable or humans are without value … [you’ll have on tough time proving that humans have any value at all [like rights] without reference to a Creator].
Cam: “Why should a fetus have a right that no other actually extant member society has?”
Because if the unborn baby doesn’t have the right to use his mothers womb, then that would result in the right to kill a human being.
Plus, I believe Cam and Diana are against the womans bodily autonomy in at most the third trimester (I know, im saying they have a fraction of morals here). So, Cam and Diana, why doesn’t the woman have full bodily autonomy in the 3rd trimester?
Hi Cam,
“guess you didn’t read my posts to Diana last night: in summary: all humans have 4 powers to ascertain what a human is …. these are: physical, intellectual, emotions and ‘faith’ …. we severely restrict our assessment if we only use one power of these four.”
This doesn’t have anything to do with you uniqueness thought. This is the old “is it a human argument.” Rest assured John, you can spare me your philosphical waxings, as I happen to know and understand, like most people, that humans aren’t gestating other species in their wombs.
“Diana (and now you) have this same difficulty and force concepts belonging mostly in other area’s into the intellectual process … example: what value is a your brother?”
The only difficulty I’m percieving is your inability to answer the question uniqueness. Somehow, it comes as no surprised that you have to cast us somehow handicapped to first advance your convoluted torch of presumed truth.
“Much the same thing applies to RIGHTS … it is very easy to assign rights to an adult as being of high value and absolutely negating the value of a fetus … both have rights … you seem to be saying: ‘well it’s just that some people are more equal than others.'”
It’s like you haven’t ever heard anything anyone’s said. What part of “nobody has the right to unvolunteered organ/body” is synonimous someone having more or less rights? Our position is a null one and you sound like fool everytime you suggest your position is somehow about equal rights for all when in fact it’s special right or less rights for one or the other.
“Diana, for instance, has little trouble espousing a huge value to her autonomy, and at the same time saying humans are without value because such cannot be proven logically.”
I doubt Diana would agree with the way in which you’ve put words in her mouth. Perhaps you should refrain from demonstrating your ignorance about the oposition’s argument and simply try to explain your own enigmatic notions about why a fetus should have rights more rights or a woman should have less.
Are you so incapable of explaining your own notions? Must you answer every question by simply resorting to erroneous characterizations of those ideologies not in harmony with yours?
What is this preoccupation with uniqueness, and it’s significance with respect to abortion?
Pre-medical student:
To begin, I must say that until yesterday, Friday, July 2, 2004, I was strongly pro-choice. I am a pre-medical student, and being very scientific, I understood that the mass of cells that forms the fetal body is not often capable of survival before 24 weeks in the womb. I am also somewhat liberal, and I believed that every woman should have the right to choose what she did with her body and one that could potentially be growing inside of her. This summer, I was accepted into a pre-medicalprogram in NYC in which we are allowed to shadow doctors and see all sorts of medical procedures. When given the opportunity to see an abortion, I did not hesitate to accept the offer. It was something new, edgy, and exciting that I had never seen. When I entered the operating room, it felt like any other I had ever been in. On the table in front of me, I saw a woman, legs up as if delivering a child although she was asleep. Next to her was a tray of instruments for the abortion and a vacuum machine for suctioning the fetal tissues from the uterus. The doctors put on their gowns and masks and the procedure began. The cervix was held open with a crude metal instrument and a large transparent tube was stuck inside of the woman. Within a matter of seconds, the machine’s motor was engaged and blood, tissue, and tiny organs were pulled out of their environment into a filter. A minute later, the vacuum choked to a halt. The tube was removed, and stuck to the end was a small body and a head attached haphazardly to it, what was formed of the neck snapped. The ribs had formed with a thin skin covering them, the eyes had formed, and the inner organs had begun to fuction. The tiny heart of the fetus, obviously a little boy, had just stopped — forever. The vacuum filter was opened, and the tiny arms and legs that had been torn off of the fetus were accounted for. The fingers and toes had the beginnings of their nails on them. The doctors, proud of their work, reassembled the body to show me. Tears welled up in my eyes as they removed the baby boy from the table and shoved his body into a container for disposal. I have not been able to think of anything since yesterday at 10:30 besides what that baby boy might have been. I don’t think that people realize what an abortion actually is until they see it happen. I have been tortured by these images – so real and so vivid – for two days now…and I was just a spectator. Never again will I be pro-choice, and never again will I support the murder of any human being, no matter their stage in life. Sat, Jul 3 22:29:15 2004 –
“Because if the unborn baby doesn’t have the right to use his mothers womb, then that would result in the right to kill a human being.”
Ahhh OMG the negative rights are actually postive rights.
Alternatively… Because if the unborn has a right to unvolunteered womb then any person should have a right to unvolunteered organs so long as it means preserving their life.
“Plus, I believe Cam and Diana are against the womans bodily autonomy in at most the third trimester (I know, im saying they have a fraction of morals here). So, Cam and Diana, why doesn’t the woman have full bodily autonomy in the 3rd trimester?”
A woman has bodiy autonomy throughout the pregnancy. Later, the fetus is viable, and perserving the woman’s right does not require that the fetus is destroyed… only removed.
How does that make you feel Jasper? Would you be OK with a woman having a fetus removed early because she no longer wants it inside of her… so long as the fetus could be kept alive?
“Alternatively… Because if the unborn has a right to unvolunteered womb then any person should have a right to unvolunteered organs so long as it means preserving their life.”
very weak Cam.. the womans womb is not unvolenteered; for once the womans womb is volunteered, it cannot be unvolunteered because a innocent human life is at stake.
If a woman has true bodily autonomy, she should have the right to abortion after viabilty…
“How does that make you feel Jasper? Would you be OK with a woman having a fetus removed early because she no longer wants it inside of her… so long as the fetus could be kept alive?”
No.
“very weak Cam.. the womans womb is not unvolenteered; for once the womans womb is volunteered, it cannot be unvolunteered because a innocent human life is at stake.”
LOL… of course you need to first declare very weak.
For the sake of argument, I’ll assume initially volunteered. Can a person not pull out of an organ donation at the last minute, after saying he/she would donate?
“If a woman has true bodily autonomy, she should have the right to abortion after viabilty…”
It sounds like your just saying this to be toad…. unless of course you actually explain why. What is this “true” bodily autonomy thing you’ve tapped into that somehow requires the fetus be killed even if it could survive?
“No”
Why? The babies alive… the mom’s happy. This suddenly seems to be going beyond saving babies now, and seems to have something more to do with your opinion of the mother.
“For the sake of argument, I’ll assume initially volunteered. Can a person not pull out of an organ donation at the last minute, after saying he/she would donate?”
Yes, they can. But they also can’t ask for the organ back after they have donated it. (analogous to the womb with the baby..)
Boldily autonomy means control/governance over ones own body. Not merely being able to separate something from it, but being able to decide whats done to it.
“Why? The babies alive… the mom’s happy. This suddenly seems to be going beyond saving babies now, and seems to have something more to do with your opinion of the mother.”
No. There is more than just the physical needs of the baby here, it’s the emotional, bonding needs that the baby has, as the unborn baby can never be be fully supported by a machine.
Hi Cam,
you seem angry … non-plussed. It is a little weird to hear you call these unusual arguments re. uniqueness ‘foolish’ and then deride them and demand that I defend them.
It seems you cannot get your head out of this comparison idea … who has the more/greater amount/more basic rights … before the American constitution , it was this more vs less. The constitution while seeming to get rid of such a concept does not. If you analyze the word ‘equal’ you will notice that it is a strict comparison with no base. So 9 = 9 or is it 0.000025 = 0.000025 … take your pick!
The concept of ‘uniqueness’ is not too hard to grasp. It is just that I assign powers to this word that formerly belonged to the philosophic concept ‘equal’. I asked you (on purpose to detail why your brother had value). I could just as easily asked you to value your sister, your Mom or your Dad … please note that I did not ask you to evaluate ‘women’. The ones delineated are the very people who best understand your uniqueness. They are the very ones who you know as unique beings.
Now apply this knowledge to others … the concept of greater rights/value does not apply because these are human beings with names and not just a mark. Years ago, it was the practice of the Canadian federal government to assign numbers in lieu of a person’s name (to inhabitants of native groups). [Their naming of people in their tribe was very different than the white-man’s system.]
My, my! I disappear to finish that stupid paper and I come back to find that everyone has something to say to or about me. Goodness. You’d think that’d make me feel loved, and yet…
Oh well. I finished my logic paper. (Sorry gotta share that news with someone) I’ll be content with that.
MK,
“Prove that your right to autonomy is a greater right than the unborn child’s right to live.”
I’ve given so many examples of when the right to bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life. The violinist. The fact that you can’t be forced to donate your organs, even to your own child, even if it’s your fault that the person needs the donation. The fact that a woman can kill a rapist to get him off her – and it doesn’t matter whether he knows what he’s doing or not.
And on a more abstract level, I’ve also indicated (on the “Who are the Slaves?” thread)my thoughts on WHY the right to bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life, namely that the right to life is empty without the right to bodily autonomy.
So, I’ve given my justifications, rather than spending all our time arguing about these justfications, how ’bout we shift the burden of proof. You want abortion to be illegal. Prove that the right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy.
Your response to Cam’s question about why the fetus has a right no one else does:
“Because it’s a unique situation and no one else on earth requires it. The bond between a mother and her child is not replicated anywhere else in the animal/human kingdom. It can’t be compared to kidneys or blood tranfusions or anything else that Diana has thrown at us. It is one of a kind, and most often it is a result of an action on the mothers part.”
First, I’m curious. Are you now admitting that you’re fighting to give more rights to the fetus then anyone else has? I’m not trying to be sneaky or mean, I’m just curious.
And I’m not sure I see why it can’t be compared with organ donation. You donate your uterus, your blood, your nutrients. You grow a new organ (the placenta) and donate that. What is it if not organ donation? What is it if not allowing another being to use your body? Yes, there is lots of emotional stuff that comes with. And that’s great, but how do your emotions about it change the facts?
“Again, whether Diane believes that she consented to pregnancy or not is irrelevant.”
How is it not relevant? No person can use another person’s body without their consent. So it would seem whether or not I consented is THE issue. True, what I personally believe is immaterial, but I’ve not heard anything that even comes close to a proof that the sexual act is equivalent to consenting to donate one’s body to a fetus.
“Her actions/choice had consequences. Accepting the consequences of ones actions is part of being an adult and a mature member of a society. Shirking your responsibilities does not further the common good even if it temporarily furthers ones personal agenda.”
Sure. Accepting consequences might be mature, and shirking your responsibilities might be bad. But the fact that something is your fault or that you are responsible for it does not mean you consented to it. There are LOTS of things that are the consequences of our actions, that we are responsible for, and that we didn’t consent to. I don’t know anyone except demolition derby drivers who consents to a car accident. Yet they happen. And we’re responsible for them, and they’re our fault.
Jasper,
“when should abortion be illegal?”
It shouldn’t be. After a certain point we can and should regulate how the pregnancy is terminated, however. In post viability cases where mother and fetus are fine, the pregnancy should be terminated via induced labor and delivery. Why? Because just as we do in other situations in which rights come into conflict, if there is a way that we can regulate how a right is exercised that preserves both conflicting rights, then that’s what we do (and what we ought to do).
“I believe you may have said after the 1st trimester, is this correct?”
No. Never said that.
“Plus, I believe Cam and Diana are against the womans bodily autonomy in at most the third trimester (I know, im saying they have a fraction of morals here). So, Cam and Diana, why doesn’t the woman have full bodily autonomy in the 3rd trimester?”
I’m not “against” a woman’s bodily autonomy at any point. A woman’s right to bodily autonomy supercedes the rights of the fetus at any point during pregnancy.
John,
“Diana, for instance, has little trouble espousing a huge value to her autonomy, and at the same time saying humans are without value because such cannot be proven logically. So which is it … rights are a huge value and they are inalienable or humans are without value … [you’ll have on tough time proving that humans have any value at all [like rights] without reference to a Creator].”
Eh? Where did I say that?
Hi Cam!
Diana:”In post viability cases where mother and fetus are fine, the pregnancy should be terminated via induced labor and delivery”
Yes, thats called birth Diana.
So the killing of an unborn baby should not be allowed after viability? I assume yes, correct?
our definitions of boldily autonomy are different, Boldily autonomy means control/governance over ones own body. Not merely being able to separate something from it, but being able to decide whats done to it.
[all humans have 4 powers to ascertain what a human is …. these are: physical, intellectual, emotions and ‘faith’]
Unfortunately John, we’re all truly just animals fighting for our right to survive in a cruel world. Abortion may not be something that an animal can perform, but look at what male lions do when they take over a new pride. They kill every other cub so that their genetics can be the dominant ones, and that is just as bad as an abortion. Most crocodilians do the same thing. Hell, most sharks will eat their siblings while they’re still in their mother’s womb.
It’s all Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. We put ourselves as humans upon a golden pedastal and preach about how superior we are to the beasts when, without our brains, we are pretty much the weakest animal alive. Nature helped primates evolve so they could survive, and look how that turned out.
I can honestly say with a clear conscience that I despise the grand majority of humanity based on these observations. Calling ourselves human is like a white man bragging to a black man because he is white. It’s just another facade of dominance and ignorance.
Jasper,
“Yes, they can. But they also can’t ask for the organ back after they have donated it. analogous to the womb with the baby..).”
That’s a good response, except in the case of pregnancy the woman has made the donation in advance of having actually known she’s done so. It’s not so much a taking back as ending a service once it’s been discoverd. This harkens back to the violinist anology, in which you happen to wake up one day and find that you’ve been hooked up to another person.
“Boldily autonomy means control/governance over ones own body. Not merely being able to separate something from it, but being able to decide whats done to it.”
Yes… why does that require that the baby is killed if it could live on it’s own in your little world… or is this your way of unrealistically making prochoice look unreasonable? Telling us what we think even though that’s not what we think.
“No. There is more than just the physical needs of the baby here, it’s the emotional, bonding needs that the baby has, as the unborn baby can never be be fully supported by a machine.”
So it’s a quality of life thing now? You also seem to be qualifying the assumptions of the scenario with “fully.” Assuming equal quality, however unrealistic this may seem to you…???
John,
“It seems you cannot get your head out of this comparison idea … who has the more/greater amount/more basic rights … before the American constitution , it was this more vs less. The constitution while seeming to get rid of such a concept does not. If you analyze the word ‘equal’ you will notice that it is a strict comparison with no base. So 9 = 9 or is it 0.000025 = 0.000025 … take your pick!”
You
Hi Diana,
Big plans for the 4th?
Not so much. Some friends and I are planning to hit up this club in my area that has a roof top patio. The view is awesome, the booze is decent, and apparently it’s a great place to catch the fireworks. What about you? How will you be celebrating our independence from the mother country?
Equality is only a valid concept not as it relates to oneself but as it relates to our relationship with God and others. Equality is about service to others, not about service to self. That’s why abortion is so heinous, for it’s existence is wrapped in the cloak of self.
Let’s hear what God has to say.
Here’s what God thinks of equality:
Philipians 2 “Don
“That’s a good response, except in the case of pregnancy the woman has made the donation in advance of having actually known she’s done so.”
well, she didn’t read the fine print: “the woman may get pregnant if she engages in sex”
“Yes… why does that require that the baby is killed”
It doesn’t require it, but if she has true bodily autonomy, abortion or birth should both be legal options for her throughtout the pregnancy. Not just birth after viability… ( I just don’t agree with the bodily autonomy argument…..)
Geez, your using “Baby” now and not “fetus”. Great.
“So it’s a quality of life thing now?”
well Yes, an unborn baby should actually have extra rights besides just the right to life, as a pregnant mother should not be able to get drunk or smoke crack during her pregnancy..
Uh… HisMan, first off, I know you’ve been told before that not everyone believes that the Bible is the literal word of your god, but just in case hearing it again will help you realize it: Not everyone believes that the Bible is the literal word of your god. Not everyone believes that your god exists.
And second, that’s not a refutation of any argument, much less the one I’ve made. It’s a statement about seeds, and then a claim about how one goes about getting eternal life. I must have missed the day in sunday school when they taught that any quote from the Bible is automatically a refutation of any argument or statement you don’t like.
I wonder though, if the christian god did really exist and the Bible was really the literal word of that god, then wouldn’t the statement “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” indicate that I don’t have to go to hell. If I’m going to LOSE my life because I have the audacity to actually love it, that would seem to indicate that after I die, there will be no me alive to suffer in satan’s fiery pits. Damn. And I was hoping to meet Shakespeare.
Wow. Now that I really look at it, that’s Jesus justifying his own martyrdom – “We’ll get more jews like me if I die.” Fascinating, HisMan, but still not a refutation.
Diana,
Hmmm… it’s still up in the air. Some of my friends from gay straight alliance are having a shindig. They did it up right last year, and the christmass party was a hoot too, however there’s a been a rift in the group lately, that might make it much less fun. There’s always stuff going on at the bars, so I’ll can just hook-up with some other grad students at the last minute and do that.
Boldily autonomy means control/governance over ones own body. Not merely being able to separate something from it, but being able to decide whats done to it.
Hi, Jasper.
The issue of bodily autonomy relates the fact that a woman has the right to decide what she wants in her body and when she wants it there. Therefore, she has the right to decide that she does not want a fetus in her uterus. If that decision is made up to around 24 weeks, the fetus is nonviable and will die as a consequence of the mother’s decision to have her uterus emptied. Its not so much a decision to kill the fetus as it is a decision to not be pregnant; unfortunately, the two go hand in hand. After viability, a woman still can decide that she no longer wants to be pregnant, but the standard method of terminating a pregnancy at this point is thru delivery as the baby can survive in NICU. So the mother’s autonomy is preserved in all cases, but after viability it is agreed that the baby should not die if he can live. This is why third-trimester abortions are only considered acceptable if for some reason the baby cannot be delivered without endangering the mother.
Im pretty sure this is the basic jist of the pro-choice perspective on late-term abortions.
Diana and Cameron:
Acts 28:27
“For the hearts of these people are hardened,and their ears cannot hear,and they have closed their eyes
Diana,
As you pointed out on another post, this argument was not about proving whether or not abortion is right or wrong, but about showing that your belief that a persons right to bodily autonomy trumping an infants right to life is a matter of OPINION. You can’t prove it, because it is unprovable. You can try to “justify” it, explain it, rationalize it, but you CANNOT prove it. Why? Because it is YOUR opinion. Just as it is my opinion that the right to life beats a right to bodily autonomy is MY opinion.
The statement was about opinions vs fact. Not about pro-life vs pro-choice.
As for the situation being unique? Insuring a childs right to life is not a “special” right. It is the same right that you have. The uniqueness comes from the fact that once you have consented to sex and a baby is created due to your own actions, you forfeit your right to bodily autonomy and must accept responsibility for insuring your own childs right to life.
Nothing that you did creates the need for your lung. You just need lungs to live. So saying that you have the right to someone elses lung is comparable to a child needing it’s mothers womb is ludicrous. A lung is not a human being with rights and needs. A baby is. Apples and oranges, as I have pointed out a million times. (Which is how many times you have insisted on using the kidney argument)
It is YOUR opinion that kidneys and babies have equal rights. Not mine. If I smoke and get lung cancer, I didn’t consent to lung cancer but I sure as heck knew the risks going in. How dare my lungs have the unmitigated gall to get cancer and screw up my life and plans, interfere with my bodily autonomy, when I did NOT consent to lung cancer!!! I should be able to smoke without worrying about cancer. After all I took precautions! I smoked lights! I used a filter! I demand that someone take this cancer away from me. I didn’t ask for it! I didn’t consent to it! It has no right to be there!
mk, terrific points!
Hey Bethany,
How are you my love…
There is more of the argument going on at the Holocaust post. Join us. We could use a fresh voice.
Hope you’re feeling better. Tho I can’t say I hope the nausea goes away, as nausea is a sign of MORINING SICKNESS which is a sign of PREGANANCY!!!!
Yippeeeeeee!!!!
Good morning girls!
Cam, 1:13a, what was the rift?
The kidney argument is irrelevant!
Hey Bethany,
How are you my love…
There is more of the argument going on at the Holocaust post. Join us. We could use a fresh voice.
Hope you’re feeling better. Tho I can’t say I hope the nausea goes away, as nausea is a sign of MORINING SICKNESS which is a sign of PREGANANCY!!!!
Yippeeeeee!!!!,
Aww thank you Mk! I sure wish that is what the vomiting was from! If it had been I would have been embracing it! LOL
I think that this was definitely due to the virus, but I do hope that soon I will have morning sickness which will help confirm that the baby is doing okay. I know, it’s so weird to hope that I’ll be sick. lol
Since I am still so early, that’s most likely why the morning sickness has not started yet. Usually I don’t see it till about 5-6 weeks along.
Okay I will check out the other thread, but you’re doing so well…it’s awesome to see you posting again!
Bethany, how far along are you?
I’m about 4 weeks I think. But I won’t know for sure until the ultrasound.
HisMan,
Have you such a limited grasp of the bible that you must quote Acts quoting Paul quoting Isaiah? Why not just go to the hokey story with the six winged seraphim to begin with?
“Cam, 1:13a, what was the rift?”
Politics…power play.
We had a really close election for officers next year, and partly because some were told they hadn’t attended enough meetings to vote. This is mostly the previous president and his immediate clique trying to exert influence into the next year by getting his friends into the officer positions. However, when it was pointed out in the constitution that the voters in question had actually attended just enough meetings to vote, and that the nomination process of said clique was not constitutional, the clique relinquished some positions to the runners up. None the less, many are a little annoyed and bitter about the BS. What’s at stake is money of course. The group set-up a donation process and we started an endowment last year dedicated to an annual grant/scholarship. It’s supposed to be targeted for the numerous gay teens in the region that have been disowned by family and have little or no resources to make a crack at a college degree. It’s enough money to get here, set up an apartment, and cover books for the first semester. However, we retain full control over the money, as opposed the university throwing it into a general fund and doing what they will with it less we do oodles of hoop jumping. As result, absent any troubled teens (beleive it or not, these sorts of people are particularly chomping at the bit to go to Ole Miss), someone within the extant group can also be nominated for it. This year we gave it to a promising senior so he could do a pre-graduate internship in NY. Even though it ultimately comes down to a vote, the officers have a lot of influence in who gets the money each year, and I think a couple people have their eyes on it.
Oh Cameron, you’re such a name dropper, I’m so impressed……..again.
MK:
I might be able to buy into the bodily autonomy drift if there was true bodily autonomy. The fact is, it’s a myth. He owns our bodies. As it is written in Act 17:24-28″
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.'”
What do you think Diana (and Cameron) will be screaming on their death beds when He decides it’s time?
Maybe something like this….”It’s my body and I’ll cry if I want to, cry if I want to, you would cry too if it happened to you “.
He’ll say, sorry, wrong again, it’s My body, not yours.
Hi Cam and Diana,
It is very hard arguing straight with you two because you wish to duck and swerve at every point … most of us pro-lifers are pedantic in many ways because we see life and its relationships as very simple … almost boringly monotonous.
HisMan’s views of the power of what Diana calls his god … are actually the power of the Oneness who is God. [It is a point of logic that there is but one God.] The trick comes in attempting to prove that Jesus is God. [This is not so easy …. it can be done, but this ‘proving’ was not very easy for most of the apostles ((faithful Jews)), and is similarly none to easy for us either.]
If Jesus is God, He also claims that He is Truth … He is not limited by words as we are … to speaking ‘the truth’ as philosophers debate such, but being Truth trumps every philosophic argument ever presented. So HisMan’s refutes do have a proper place here … you might not like such intervention … but they do have their place … a dominating (not domineering) position in the hierarchy of argumentation.
@Cam the American constitution preamble calls such things self-evident … I nearly gage at these words because the whole universe is filled with uniqueness and not equality … for instance when did you ever buy any ‘type’ of anything in a store? And do you wish to trade a $1000 bill for a $10 bill …. after all are these not equally paper money? Won’t a dog eat either one and see no distinction? I do not have to ‘prove’ uniqueness beyond affirming such … you do it every time you post to me by naming me and by signing your name.
The use of the words to describe value as rights often get pared so much that we build intellectual word-images around human-types. [When we do this we assume falsely that terms like ‘rights’ and ‘person’ belong only and properly-only in the sphere of intellect.] By asking you to value your closest family … I assume that such would be astronomical. [Diana has little trouble calling herself ‘Daddy’s-girl’.] Then why isn’t this the value that is projected onto other humans? If this were done, then any kind of comparison (be it equal or caste-type) is mute. It would be like … ‘who has the most value … your Dad or your sister?’
@ Dan calling ourselves ‘human’ even if insane is not a problem in itself … all that means is that we fail to be the unique beings that we are created as. To stay sane we have to discard being in-control all the time and go-with-the adventure flow.
@Diana … we did get into this before but I used the word ‘sacred’ instead of ‘special’ so my argument was shot down. So, I will ask again … how a part-of-any-being (in this case ‘autonomy’) be special, when at the same time, the whole being does not have this designation? If this is not the case and the whole does have value/rights, where does these values/rights come from?
Masters of Deception:
The masters of deception know that a fetus is a living unborn baby; they know that a fetus is a separate genetic entity. They know but they don’t care. They have no respect for life. In their sinister world of deceit and distortion, life is cheap. Their callused consciences allow them to disregard or distort the facts. They argue for a woman’s right to reproductive freedom knowing clearly that what they are actually demanding is the right to kill unborn babies. They know but they don’t care. The masters of deception are not only great deceivers; they are also great pretenders. They rack their brains to craft phrases which make killing babies sound more humane: right to choose, terminate a pregnancy, reproductive freedom, etc. Millions are honestly deceived by their rhetoric, but abortionists, and most abortion rights leaders, are committing their atrocities with eyes wide open. The truth is, baby killing is a lucrative industry. Many who claim to fight for women’s rights are actually fighting for their own financial well-being. They don’t care about women or babies. They care about themselves.
John:
Christ needs no defender for this is what the Word says about Himself in the 4th Chapter of Hebrews:
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
As far as arguments and refutations of the philosophies of men, such are chaff in the wind…..2 Cortinthinas 10:
3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
As far as the value of any life to God, hence, trashing the bodily autonomy lie:
Matthew 16:26 “What good is it if someone gains the whole world but loses his soul? Or what can anyone trade for his soul?
Mark 8:36 “What good is it if someone gains the whole world but loses his soul?
Luke 9:25 “What good is it if someone gains the whole world but loses or gives up his very self?
Apparently, EVERY soul is important to God and nothing on earth can be exchanged for it, not even a so called right to bodily autonomy, nothing, not one single thing.
Diana, you want to argue that becasue your body is yours who have the right to take the life of another inside of it. I would say you would be correct if you were the creator and thereby the owner of your body. However, since you had no say as to your existence, you are a mere creation, and the Creator holds sway over you and that which you do to others. Any other position is self worship based on a conclusion reached on a false assumption which is that you are god. Hence, your stance is in direct and utter rebellion towards your Creator. This is not an enviable, desirable or wise position to place oneself in.
Jasper:
I must disagree with you on one point that the Masters of Deception care about themselves. It should be said that they “think and believe” that they car about themselves. Again, when one makes a conclusion based on a false assumption the edifice is merely a Hollywood facade that will not stand, aka, they believe a lie.
No, if they truly cared about themselves they would seek the One who could truly make them alive.
MK,
“As you pointed out on another post, this argument was not about proving whether or not abortion is right or wrong, but about showing that your belief that a persons right to bodily autonomy trumping an infants right to life is a matter of OPINION.You can’t prove it, because it is unprovable. You can try to “justify” it, explain it, rationalize it, but you CANNOT prove it.”
Uh.. I didn’t say that. I said that it’s about justifying our beliefs. And why do we do that? Because doing so puts us closer to getting at the truth. I’ll never be able to prove anything with an absolute certainty. You can know with absolute certainty that you’re not plugged into the Matrix right now. But just because you cannot prove it to an absolute certainty doesn’t mean you don’t know it. We’re trying to gain knowledge of the facts, we do that by collecting evidence and reasoning about that evidence. That’s how we gain knowledge. That’s the only way we gain knowledge. So, you and I present evidence and reason about that evidence in an attempt to show that our beliefs are the correct ones, i.e. that we’ve got the facts.
And honestly, MK, if you don’t think that either of us can ever get at the facts, and really it’s just clashing opinions, then why are we even talking? Why bother with this fight? Or are you with Jill on this? Truth be damned, we’re just gonna work to make sure that people think the same way we do.
“As for the situation being unique? Insuring a childs right to life is not a “special” right. It is the same right that you have. The uniqueness comes from the fact that once you have consented to sex and a baby is created due to your own actions, you forfeit your right to bodily autonomy and must accept responsibility for insuring your own childs right to life.”
This is question begging, twice over.
“Nothing that you did creates the need for your lung. You just need lungs to live. So saying that you have the right to someone elses lung is comparable to a child needing it’s mothers womb is ludicrous. A lung is not a human being with rights and needs. A baby is. Apples and oranges, as I have pointed out a million times. (Which is how many times you have insisted on using the kidney argument)”
You’re mixing up what is supposed to be analogous. The lung is not analogous to the fetus, it’s analogous to the womb. Both organs. Not apples and oranges. Granny Smith apples and Golden Delicious apples. The fetus is analogous to the person who needs the lung (Since just like the person needs the lung to survive, the baby needs the womb to survive). Both people with the same exact rights who need someone else’s organ for their survival. Again, apples and apples. And the woman is analogous to the organ donor. Both people with the exact same rights. Again, apples and apples.
You raise an interesting point that, while I might have been responsible for the person’s need for the lung (say, I recklessly ran him over, or whatever), I have created the fetus, and not just the fetus’ need for the womb. But I don’t see why this makes a difference. Why is it that creating the fetus (and as a result, being responsible for the fetus’ need for the womb) would equal consent to use of one’s body while creating the need for the lung would not?
“It is YOUR opinion that kidneys and babies have equal rights. Not mine.”
Um, actually, that’s not my opinion. It’s my opinion that PEOPLE have equal rights. Kidneys don’t have rights. But people certainly have rights OVER their kidneys and their uteruses.
“If I smoke and get lung cancer, I didn’t consent to lung cancer but I sure as heck knew the risks going in. How dare my lungs have the unmitigated gall to get cancer and screw up my life and plans, interfere with my bodily autonomy, when I did NOT consent to lung cancer!!! I should be able to smoke without worrying about cancer. After all I took precautions! I smoked lights! I used a filter! I demand that someone take this cancer away from me. I didn’t ask for it! I didn’t consent to it! It has no right to be there!”
Um, are you claiming that smokers consent to getting lung cancer? Either that or you seem to be mocking me because it’s the fault of the smoker that they got lung cancer. I don’t deny that. But culpability is not the same as consent. Let me say that again louder: CULPABILITY IS NOT THE SAME AS CONSENT. I don’t know why people around here are constantly confusing the two.
HisMan,
In no uncertain terms, your god is a myth. I think you come here screaming about it because in the back of cloudy lil’ mind, you know nobody really knows what’s going to happen when you die. Your rampant self-fulfilling BS only makes one thing apparent to me. You’re needy and you have no genuine faith.
John
“It is very hard arguing straight with you two because you wish to duck and swerve at every point … most of us pro-lifers are pedantic in many ways because we see life and its relationships as very simple … almost boringly monotonous.”
John, perhaps they aren’t as simple as we thought, or as we would like them to be. In that case, then, Cam and I are just interested in all the nuances and complexities, not ducking and swerving.
“[It is a point of logic that there is but one God.]”
Not of any logic I know of.
“@Diana … we did get into this before but I used the word ‘sacred’ instead of ‘special’ so my argument was shot down. So, I will ask again … how a part-of-any-being (in this case ‘autonomy’) be special, when at the same time, the whole being does not have this designation? If this is not the case and the whole does have value/rights, where does these values/rights come from?”
Okay. Rights and people are not special or valuable per se. Nothing has a value unless we assign it one. Gold is only valuable because we place a high value on it. Dust is not valuable because we don’t value it. If we were to discover that dust could provide us with an energy source, then it would become extremely valuable. Rights are rights. Some rights supercede others when they come into conflict. So it’s not that the right to autonomy is special or valuable per se. But the right to autonomy, qua right that it is, supercedes the right to life, qua right that it is, when they conflict. I personally place high values on both rights, as do many of us. You, obviously, value the right to life more than the right to autonomy. But that doesn’t change which right supercedes which, since value has nothing to do with it.
HisMan,
I doubt you know anything about what I will or won’t be doing on my deathbed. Although, since you went there, I have to say that one of the things that really ticks me off is that if you’re wrong, you’ll never know it, since you’ll just blink out of existence like everyone else when you die. After all the BS that gets flung at people who don’t believe what you do, I’d really love and “I told you so” moment.
“Diana, you want to argue that becasue your body is yours who have the right to take the life of another inside of it. I would say you would be correct if you were the creator and thereby the owner of your body.”
Really? So if I actually own my body and god doesn’t, then I’m right and a woman has a right an abortion? I’m shocked to hear you say as much.
“However, since you had no say as to your existence, you are a mere creation, and the Creator holds sway over you and that which you do to others.”
Um, yeah, see, I’m pretty sure that my creators were my parents. There is no capital C “Creator”. So my parents own my body? And since when is creation equivalent to ownership. There is a smiley face that I drew in the dirt just outside the philosophy department, but I’m pretty sure I don’t own it. I certainly can’t set use priviledges on it – the grounds crew would look at my like I’m insane.
“Any other position is self worship based on a conclusion reached on a false assumption which is that you are god.”
I’m not god. When did I say I was god? (Alright, alright, I’ll admit it. The name has given me hopes of running around the forest with a bow and controlling the moon.)
“Hence, your stance is in direct and utter rebellion towards your Creator. This is not an enviable, desirable or wise position to place oneself in.”
It’s not enviable, wise or desirable to rebel against something that isn’t there? Yeah. I guess you’re right. It’d be a major waste of energy.
Cam,
You should totally check out this paper by Georges Rey called “Meta-atheism”. The basic thesis is that the vast majority of adherents to the various religions don’t actually believe, which is why their actions are inconsistent with their professed beliefs (super solemn funerals and the like).
Sorry to hear about the rift. I hate it when politics like that flare up in groups.
Diana,
…. proof, please … God does not exist.
@ Diana,
just read your post … re. there being only one God … check it out with your Jesuit friends – I remember taking this in class many decades ago but cannot remember the philosophic argumentation.
and ……. “But that doesn’t change which right supercedes which, since value has nothing to do with it.’… one more ‘huh-moment’. If rights are not values, then what are they? You seem to be saying that rights are self-assigned values? Then a ‘right to life’ is an assigned value from who? Diana? … the mother? but this value/right is hers to give or retract … but she herself has no value/worth?
John,
Um… the problem of evil… the paradox of the stone…the free will/omniscience paradox. The 3 O god (the god of the bible and the kuran) is a logical impossibility.
I’m going to a funeral today, a happy funeral. It’s bittersweet. We are sad that we don’t have her anymore but so overjoyed that she is in Heaven with Jesus and no longer in pain. She lived her life for Jesus and now she is with him! How exciting for her! It will not be a somber funeral at all! In fact, I can’t remember a funeral at our church that was “super somber”
Why? because we believe and have faith in our Creator!
John,
“re. there being only one God … check it out with your Jesuit friends – I remember taking this in class many decades ago but cannot remember the philosophic argumentation.”
I’ll ask around. I’ve never heard any argument to the effect that there must be only one god, but with all the philosophers of religion and theologians around our department (the theology dept. is just downstairs from us… they steal our coffee all the time), I’m sure I can find someone who knows it.
“and ……. “But that doesn’t change which right supercedes which, since value has nothing to do with it.’… one more ‘huh-moment’. If rights are not values, then what are they?”
They’re abstract possessions that derive from our natural telos (which, as humans is partially natural and, given society and cognition, partially constructed – but going into the details of that would take a book, not a post on a blog.)
“You seem to be saying that rights are self-assigned values?”
Not at all. Values are measurements of worth. The worth of an object is a human/higher order animal construct. As I said, the value of gold is assigned to gold by us. The green piece of paper with a dead president’s face on it in my purse has no inherent value; what value it has is completely depedent on where we place it on the scale of things that have import FOR US. Different dead president’s face, different import FOR US. For a dolphin, that same piece of paper might have no value, or only minimal value as it might serve as a plaything.
Rights, on the other hand, are not measurements of anything. As I said, they are abstract possessions (similar to the way that a certain word pattern might be copyrighted. The “type” (as in type/token distinction) – which is abstract – is possessed by the copyright holder)
Luvmy5kids, I am sorry for your loss, but so thankful that you have hope of seeing your loved one again, and knowing she is in a better place! I know you will miss her.
Diana, do you really believe you have no value unless someone values you?
Bethany,
Sort of. A better way to put it is that I believe I have no value just by virtue of being the collection of chemicals that I am. I have value only insofar as a value is assigned to me. So it’s not that someone has to value me. Our society places a very high value on persons (hence why your question sounds so serious). As a person, then, a very high value has been assigned to me, and you and all individual persons.
Diana, I hope you understand where I’m coming from when I say that is so sad. If I felt I was of no more value than chemicals, I would be seriously depressed. I know there is so much more than that to me. When I was a child, and I was the outcast in school, I used to believe that those children saying that I was ugly or worthless were correct, just because they thought it was so. That lasted years, it had a devastating impact on my soul. It wasn’t until I learned that I had true value that I came out of my deep depression. How can you be happy when you truly believe you have no value other than what others place on you? Knowing that I have value and worth, regardless of whether any other person regards me as worth living, is one thing that made life worth living. Knowing that I have a purpose on this earth, and that there is a reason for everything, is the way that I have come to find peace. I understand that you don’t agree with me, but I just can’t imagine how sad it must be to not feel that you have any value other than what people place on you… I mean, if you lived in the days where slavery was legal, would you consider yourself of no value if you were black, simply because other people placed little value on you? Would you calmly accept your fate? I just don’t understand this. Where does your “right to autonomy” come from, if you have no true value? And where does the right to life for persons come from, if we truly have no value?
I see this as such a negative way of looking at life. If you really don’t see yourself of more value than a couple of chemicals, then how can you think that you should have rights at all? I just don’t understand.
Diana:
You live in a sea of chaos where anything goes and everything is relative. It’s no surprise since in you’re world there is not god but you. How sad.
Cameron:
It’s no bother that you question my faith. Go ahead, it’s expected. My concern is not for me. I’m not on this site for selfish reasons other than to proclaim truth. It’s for guys like you. I’ll tell you like it is.
Apparently you’re willing to gamble all that you have on ignorance. It’s really very foolish. The truth is you’re a pretender. One who supposes to have it all together but in reality lives a lie. I’ve seen guys like you come and go a 1000 times, never making one iota of difference. Their epiphanys usually come too late.
exactly Diana … the Trinity is absolutely unreachable by logic … or reason. But is much easier to understand from an emotional view. Remember I said the emotional world does not run on words nor propositions but it does have a decided path. This ‘path’ is the logic of the group. So just as humans define themselves as individuals, they are as wont to self-identify as … (in your case … American; PhD candidate … on and on. The most intimate of these grouping is your family … you are not your family, but you certainly are a vibrant part of it.)
This IMO is how I understand the Trinity … God is a community … of three persons …. the Three are so much in love that they become One in their love. [It does get tough to handle when someone says ‘well the Holy Spirit IS the glue/the Love and the Peace!’]
….. and it is totally illogical and reachable only via a God-given experience.
Diana,
Um, are you claiming that smokers consent to getting lung cancer? Either that or you seem to be mocking me because it’s the fault of the smoker that they got lung cancer. I don’t deny that. But culpability is not the same as consent. Let me say that again louder: CULPABILITY IS NOT THE SAME AS CONSENT. I don’t know why people around here are constantly confusing the two.
We are not the ones confusing the two. You are.
We keep saying you are responsible for what you created and you respond with “but I didn’t consent to it.” And we say we know that, but you are responsible for it. And you say “but I didn’t consent to it”…
You are responsible for it. Therefore you need to take responsibility for it whether you consented to it or not. You consented to the act that caused it. NOW, you are culpable.
See, we are not confused.
Diana,
You’re mixing up what is supposed to be analogous. The lung is not analogous to the fetus, it’s analogous to the womb. Both organs. Not apples and oranges. Granny Smith apples and Golden Delicious apples. The fetus is analogous to the person who needs the lung (Since just like the person needs the lung to survive, the baby needs the womb to survive). Both people with the same exact rights who need someone else’s organ for their survival. Again, apples and apples. And the woman is analogous to the organ donor. Both people with the exact same rights. Again, apples and apples.
And you are mixing up our response. We get that you think needing someones lung to survive is like needing someones womb to survive.
But what you don’t get is that YOU PUT THAT SOMEONE THERE in the first place. Now you are RESPONSIBLE for them.
You didn’t put the lung in the donor so it isn’t your lung to take.
This is about responsibility for ones actions. Not about consent or rights or autonomy. It’s about being a grown up and accepting what life throws at you. Even if you don’t like it or it interferes with your agenda. You take RESPONSIBILITY for YOUR actions.
Diana,
You, obviously, value the right to life more than the right to autonomy. But that doesn’t change which right supercedes which, since value has nothing to do with it.
Then what does determine which right gets the limelight? If not value, then what? Why does your right get top billing and our right get buried? (pun intended)
What exactly in your scientific world determines this?
Bethany,
“I see this as such a negative way of looking at life.”
I understand why you might think that. But you have to understand that it’s not that I don’t see myself as valuable. I value my life very much, and I also see all other humans as extremely valuable. It’s just that I also believe that value, as a measurement, is not something that is in things inherently. Rocks don’t come into the world with “low value” as a part of them anymore than I come into the world with “priceless” as a part of me. Value is a human construct, a projection if you will.
It’s sort of the same way with colors. I believe the leaves on the tree outside my window are green. I see green when I look at them. But I’m also fully aware that those leaves are not inherently green. They have certain properties with that reflect light at certain wavelengths, but a being with a different perceptual system (one that processed those wavelengths differently) might see them the way I see red, or might not see a color at all. In just the same way, I believe that I have value (as do you and all other persons), when I see a person, I see a valuable being, but I’m also aware that their value is not inherent.
“If you really don’t see yourself of more value than a couple of chemicals, then how can you think that you should have rights at all? I just don’t understand.”
Because, as I was discussing with John earlier, rights are not values, nor are they dependent on values. Values are measurements of worth. Rights are possessions. Rights can be valuable to us, but they are not values.
“You live in a sea of chaos where anything goes and everything is relative. It’s no surprise since in you’re world there is not god but you. How sad.”
HisMan, I love how you get off on telling people what they feel, what they think, and where they live, because you’re so often wrong. If you really think this about me (especially the “relative” bit), then you have absolutely no idea who I am or what I think.
John,
You may be right about the trinity, but my reference to the 3 O god means the god who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Any definition of life apart from the Creator God is futile.
We were not designed to understand everything, but to trust Him. I don’t understand the why I only know I am commanded to trust in a Being who has infinite power over my destiny. Not a destiny just tied to the bounds of space and time, but of the more real destiny of eternity.
If our goal in life is to understand the universe we will be sadly dissappointed. Just ask some of the greatest minds that have ever pondered existence. I am not saying we shouldn’t seek knowledge, however, the quest itself has no sacred meaning. The secret to life is finding the eternal truth of Jesus Christ. Any knowledge apart from this is worthless.
The apostle Paul summed it up this way in Philipians the 3rd Chapter:
“Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.
Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh
I understand why you might think that. But you have to understand that it’s not that I don’t see myself as valuable. I value my life very much, and I also see all other humans as extremely valuable.
Why are you valuable, in your opinion?
Diana,
You may be right about the trinity, but my reference to the 3 O god means the god who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Well if he isn’t, then I don’t want anything to do with Him…
Diana,
Did you not say this, “Uh… HisMan, first off, I know you’ve been told before that not everyone believes that the Bible is the literal word of your god, but just in case hearing it again will help you realize it: Not everyone believes that the Bible is the literal word of your god. Not everyone believes that your god exists.”
First of all, He’s not just my God as if I made Him up and possessed Him. He’s the self-revealed God of the universe. The God of everyone.
Are you now telling me that the Bible is the literal word of God or not? Because if you don’t believe the Bible is the literal word of God, then you don’t believe in a God of absolutes, the God of the Bible. The alternative view is a world very chaotic and relative.
This view doesn’t reflect reality and is contrary to scientific thinking. I mean why seek to find truth by the observation and substantiation of facts if truth is relative? Does gravity exist just on earth or throughout the universe? Are biological processes discoverable and verifiable?
What realy stuns me about all you so-called “scientific” thinkers is that what you believe requires more faith than what I believe. You want to embrace the religion of science based on the assumption that truth is fixed and discoverable and then, when it comes to spiritual and moral things, you want to throw that assumption away and base all your conclusions on guesses, opinions, feelings, etc. It makes no sense.
Why, I ask? My assumption is that you don’t like the answers because it requires a change in lifestyle. It requires changes in thinking and speaking. It requires ceasing from the peverted things you do with your bodies. It requires giving of self. Yes, it requires the humble admission that we are not god. In the scientific world you would all be labeled as quacks and kicked out of the club embracing such a similar attitude.
MK,
“You are responsible for it. Therefore you need to take responsibility for it whether you consented to it or not. You consented to the act that caused it. NOW, you are culpable.”
I’ve never denied culpabillity in the matter. But you can’t just say “you’re responsible for the fetus’ need for the organ, therefore you must donate it whether you consent or not”. You need to justify that claim. Because to me, it sounds like you’re saying that I should be forced to donate an organ to a man who I ran over in my car because I’m responsible for his need for the organ. And that doesn’t sound right to me.
I’m sure your response will be that in the case of pregnancy one is responsible for the fetus’ existence, where as in the case of the car accident, I’m reponsible for the man’s needing the organ. But in both cases I am responsible for the reason that the person needs the organ. So why does the fact that I’m responsible for the fetus’ existence make a difference?
“Then what does determine which right gets the limelight? If not value, then what? Why does your right get top billing and our right get buried? (pun intended)What exactly in your scientific world determines this?”
This is a huge question, similar to the one that I was tossing around with John earlier. And it’s a good question. It would take a book to explain all of this, since it has to do with where rights derive from, which has to do with the whole idea of ethics. It’s a book I don’t plan to write, and honestly, I don’t have time to go into all the details. I will have to go work eventually.
Basically, though, the idea is that since rights derive from our natural telos (our natural…end, goal, purpose, thing that we strive at.. it’s hard to translate the full greek meaning into english), when they conflict, their ordering, so to speak, is determined by how they fit with that telos and with each other.
The reason, I believe, that the right to autonomy supercedes the right to life is that the right to life is empty without the right to bodily autonomy. From a purely scientific, naturalistic viewpoint, your life JUST IS the continued functioning of your body. If you don’t have dominion over your body, then you don’t have dominion over your life. And if you don’t have dominion over your life, then your “right” to it is hollow. You are stripped of any control over how you use the life you have. Now, control over something (i.e. the ability to set use privileges) is just what it means to own something. Ownership is the ability to set use privileges. So, since without the the right to bodily autonomy, you have no control over how your life is used, that is, are unable to set use privileges over it, then you do not own your life. As a result,the right to life is completely obliterated. You cannot have a right to something you do not rightfully own.(Unless you are like HisMan and believe that god owns your life, but he grants you the right to life, but you asked for a justification within a scientific (and, I assume naturalistic, framework), and god doesn’t exist there.)
Now, I know the next thing you are going to say is something like: “Well, turn about is fair play – you can’t have the right to bodily autonomy without the right to life.” But that’s false. You can’t have the right to bodily autonomy without BEING ALIVE. But being alive does not itelf make for having the right to life. Presumably most of you think that rose bushes do not have the right to life, but they are certainly alive. Similarly, it is POSSIBLE to have the right to bodily autonomy without having the right to life (although the right to bodily autonomy might generate the right to life, as our little deconstruction showed). I’m not saying that this is actually the case, but what I pointed out is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for embodied beings to have the right to life absent the right to bodily autonomy. And that’s why the right to bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life. Because while it’s POSSIBLE to have the right to bodily autonomy without the right to life, it is NOT POSSIBLE to have the right to life without the right to bodily autonomy
There is a lot more to it. A LOT more. But that’s the basics. And now that I’ve written a haphazard paper on Jill Stanek’s blog, I’ve got to go grocery shopping.
Bethany,
I am valuable for the same reason that all humans are valuable. We have great import for each other. We rely on society for many of our needs, we rely on each other for gaining knowledge about the world. We need each other for love and companionship which are psychological needs inherent to our species… the list could go on and on. We are social animals, and as such place great import on others.
And also, I like myself. My continued existence has import for me because I happen to enjoy existing.
HisMan,
“First of all, He’s not just my God as if I made Him up and possessed Him. He’s the self-revealed God of the universe. The God of everyone.”
So you say. He’s not my god. I don’t believe in contradictions because they can’t exist.
“Are you now telling me that the Bible is the literal word of God or not?”
No. When did I say any such thing?
“Because if you don’t believe the Bible is the literal word of God, then you don’t believe in a God of absolutes, the God of the Bible.”
That’s correct. I don’t.
“The alternative view is a world very chaotic and relative.”
No, HisMan, it’s not. This is propaganda, pure and simple.
“This view doesn’t reflect reality and is contrary to scientific thinking. I mean why seek to find truth by the observation and substantiation of facts if truth is relative?”
Truth isn’t relative. God doesn’t have to exist for there to be an objective reality or an objective fact of the matter.
“Does gravity exist just on earth or throughout the universe?”
Throughout the universe, as far as I know.
“Are biological processes discoverable and verifiable?”
Yup.
“What realy stuns me about all you so-called “scientific” thinkers is that what you believe requires more faith than what I believe.”
It requires trust in others and confidence in a method. Not faith.
“You want to embrace the religion of science based on the assumption that truth is fixed and discoverable and then, when it comes to spiritual and moral things, you want to throw that assumption away and base all your conclusions on guesses, opinions, feelings, etc. It makes no sense.”
Um, what? Science is not a religion. It is a method. Fundie propaganda again. And I don’t base anything on guesses, opinions and feelings.
“Why, I ask? My assumption is that you don’t like the answers because it requires a change in lifestyle.”
Um… my beliefs about the ultimate nature of the universe are not based on the lifestyle I lead or want to lead. They’re based on evidence and reason.
“It requires changes in thinking and speaking. It requires ceasing from the peverted things you do with your bodies. It requires giving of self. Yes, it requires the humble admission that we are not god.”
As far as I know, I think and speak rather well. Education does that for people. And also as far as I know, I don’t do anything perverted with my body. I also try to help people when I can, volunteer when I can, donate what I can. And I would certainly say that I am very “giving of myself” with people I love (not in any sexual way, in the way that you share who you are with another person). And, hisman, I already said I’m not god.
“In the scientific world you would all be labeled as quacks and kicked out of the club embracing such a similar attitude.”
?
Diana,
While you’re at the grocery store, thank God for food, A/C, light, the ability to walk, and money to buy the food and all the people God used to grow, package, process, transport, stock, and sell that food to you.
All that is God’s demonstration of His love for you. Why is that so difficult for you? Why do you spit in His face by denying His existence when everything around you cries out, “I Love You”?
HisMan- the gospels were written by man. Written by man about 100 years after Jesus died. Try to piece together a conversation, word for word, between two people 100 years ago.
My point is that the greater part of the gospels is MADE UP.
Erin,
While that may be true, those “made up” words have been influencing all of society for 2000 some years…including you.
The calendar alone should tell you something. And much of the bible is historically accurate. Dr. Seuss, while entertaining has not had quite the same effect with his made up stories…
PS Dan just spilled the beans about his kilt habits…
@ Heather4Life, HisMan, Jasper, et al;
“God’s Gonna Cut You Down”
You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut ’em down
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut ’em down
Well my goodness gracious let me tell you the news
My head’s been wet with the midnight dew
I’ve been down on bended knee talkin’ to the man from Galilee
He spoke to me in the voice so sweet
I thought I heard the shuffle of the angel’s feet
He called my name and my heart stood still
When he said, “John go do My will!”
Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut ’em down
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut ’em down
You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin’ in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What’s down in the dark will be brought to the light
You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut you down
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut you down
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut you down
Gotta love the Man In Black. Great song, it really is. Anyways, while I do love Johnny Cash, and I do like this song, this is basically what you guys say over and over and over again. You can’t really use a biblical reference in a factual argument because, like Erin said, a greater portion of the Gospels were made up. Also, considering that the Bible has been passed through kings and world leaders since it was written, and they all edited it to fit their ideals, you can’t really trust it.
I am valuable for the same reason that all humans are valuable. We have great import for each other. We rely on society for many of our needs, we rely on each other for gaining knowledge about the world. We need each other for love and companionship which are psychological needs inherent to our species… the list could go on and on. We are social animals, and as such place great import on others.
If all of society did not respect you or value you, and all of the rights that you enjoy today were taken away from you, would you fight for the rights which were taken away (because you know deep down that you really do deserve such rights), or would you accept your fate without a fight or struggle (since you only have such true value as others place on you)?
@Diana and HisMan,
It sure is comical to read your words. It has been my experience that the so-called ‘scientific method’ is as HisMan says much closer to religion and its reasonings than it is to any inherent logic. I cannot forget Robert O. Becker’s (Cross Currents) assessment of research funding. He wrote “Research follows the Golden Rule: he who has the gold sets the rules.” Right on, says I. Perhaps, this type of scruteny should dog the science-world, but this sort of analysis does not. Much too often it’s, “we scientists are above reproach because we follow the method.” It is OK to kill with impunity (abortion), because my science allows me to do this. All that is needed is the right argument/rationale! [Excuse me while I barf!]
Science ((and its method)) are at the SERVICE OF HUMANS; humans are not at the service of science.
Jesus: “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.”
@Bethany –
” all of society did not respect you or value you, and all of the rights that you enjoy today were taken away from you, would you fight for the rights which were taken away (because you know deep down that you really do deserve such rights), or would you accept your fate without a fight or struggle (since you only have such true value as others place on you)?”
wild … for the vast majority of younger folks these words seem out-of-place but for folks like me with obvious disabilities; for senile seniors; for very poor folks and for unborn children such words are chilling.
Erin and Skinhead,
If the Gospels are made up you will die in your sins. In fact, this is the Gospel which was witnessed by more than 500 people and not all of which were believers. Christ’s existence is a historical fact and was not made up. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-7, “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
And Erin and Skinhead, this is what you are doing and what God thinks of such actions as described in Galatians 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
HisMan,
“It’s no bother that you question my faith. Go ahead, it’s expected. My concern is not for me. I’m not on this site for selfish reasons other than to proclaim truth.”
You are, in no uncertain terms, the epitome of morality for self-promotion.
For example:
“Apparently you’re willing to gamble all that you have on ignorance. It’s really very foolish. The truth is you’re a pretender. One who supposes to have it all together but in reality lives a lie. I’ve seen guys like you come and go a 1000 times, never making one iota of difference. Their epiphanys usually come too late.”
Funny… I feel the exact same way about you. While I know you’re pretending to have faith in the lord and pretending to know and understand the bible, and most certainly pretending to know that which can’t be known… I’m not certain what I’m pretending to be. I certainly don’t come here like you proclaiming my virtues with a laughably obvious and hypocritical abandonment of any modicum of humility.
Well… at least it’s far better that you have something so benign and fruitless to obsess about (Jayyyyysuussss), otherwise you’d probably be a drug addict, or a criminal, or something… you certainly don’t seem to have much else going for you.
Seriously… what do you do with yourself when you’re not engaged in these pious masturbations??
The evidence that Science is a religion is the existence of the “Theory of Evolution”.
Note it is a “theory” but many on this site believe and I repeat, “believe” it is fact.
Diana, you should reexamine your base assumptions since having swallowed them hook, line and sinker, you are being reeled in for the kill and that with a smile on your face.
My hope for you is a realization of God’s love, mercy, compassion and wrath to come.
Erin & Dan,
a few things you should know about the new testament gospels … 3 of them are similar and at least two of the earliest ones seem so similar in places … like word for word in Aramaic – Jesus’ native language – that today many scholars hold that these sayings come from an even earlier common source (written ???) … that is prior to 60AD (about 30 years after Jesus death). The last gospel written is thought to be John’s … written @100AD. In some parts it is so personal, that only John himself could know, so it is believed that as a very old man, he wrote his gospel.
The word ‘gospel’ translates as ‘good news’. So these are books of faith, and not history documents.
I guess the other thing you should know about in this ancient society that had no tv, radio, telephone and where the great majority of people could neither read nor write – hence no books or newspapers … there was, and still survives today – what is called the Semitic memory …. Historians are absolutely astounded at the amount of highly accurate information that is available of events that occurred hundreds of years ago. Thoughts and ideas, and names can get passed down from one generation to another verbatum … absolutely without flaw of any kind. [If the person telling these details made the slightest change, there were always others around to correct the phrases being used.] … it is thought that the stories of Adam and Eve are of this sort … over 5,000 years old. Remember, I talked of the common text for the two gospels (above). These texts are also in the form that they are easy to remember. They seem to come from texts specifically designed to remember. If the earliest Christians could not read, why have written texts at all?
So text fidelity is the very least of my concerns.
“The evidence that Science is a religion is the existence of the “Theory of Evolution”.”
So does that make religion science?
“Note it is a “theory” but many on this site believe and I repeat, “believe” it is fact.”
You don’t know what “theory” means, and you certainly don’t recognize face even when it slaps you upside the head. You believe everyting comes down to a magic man in the sky…. hardly an authority worthy of any question.
“My hope for you is a realization of God’s love, mercy, compassion and wrath to come.”
Hope about sums it up. It’s not faith that you have HisMan…. it’s something more like hope or wishful thinking.
John,
They are looking for proof. None will be given since the presence of proof negates the need for faith.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. As it is written in Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
John,
How do you cope with the contradictory accounts in the synoptic gospels.
Hi Diana
in your post to MK where you talk a little of the Greek ‘telos’,@2:47PM I get the impression that for you RIGHTS are very much like talents and not values. Rights to me are one special set of values. Are we just talking about semantics here … like how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?
While we ‘debate’ children die … I feel so useless in trying to help stop the slaughter!
I just had an amusing epiphany.
After reading what John wrote, in defense of the historical accuracy of the bible, and then seeing it juxtaposed with HisMan’s luddite anti-science rant…
The contemporary fundamentalist rejects that there is anything ambiguous in the bible, even though most normal people can deal with it and acknowledge it. They believe that the bible is historically accurate, because it is written, and hence, therefore, thusly… true. This is a novel and recent manifestation of the influence of scientific empiricism on modern sectarian dynamics. This way of thinking, despite all their ranting about the lack of spirituality affected by science, is ultimately holding their God, their bible, their jebus, subordinate to scientific thinking.
Science rocks!
ROFLMAO
Bethany,
“If all of society did not respect you or value you, and all of the rights that you enjoy today were taken away from you, would you fight for the rights which were taken away (because you know deep down that you really do deserve such rights), or would you accept your fate without a fight or struggle (since you only have such true value as others place on you)?”
You’re not reading what I’ve said. Rights are not values. Rights have nothing to do with value. Value is a measurement of worth; rights are possessions that are had independent of any worth assessment. So yes, I would fight for my rights and the rights of everyone else. (And by the way, in the situation that you present, I’d likely still value me.)
“The evidence that Science is a religion is the existence of the “Theory of Evolution”.
Note it is a “theory” but many on this site believe and I repeat, “believe” it is fact.”
This is a non sequitur if ever I’ve seen one. And it includes a misguided notion of “theory”. Seriously, go look up scientific theory.
“Diana, you should reexamine your base assumptions since having swallowed them hook, line and sinker, you are being reeled in for the kill and that with a smile on your face.”
Hmm… I would have said the same thing to you hisman, except instead of “smile” I think I would have said “self-righteous, indignant look”. And you’re wrong. I’m constantly questioning the underlying assumptions with regard to science and reason itself. I’m a philosopher; it’s what we do. It just so happens that as yet there is no better tried and true method for gaining knowledge about the world.
John,
“in your post to MK where you talk a little of the Greek ‘telos’,@2:47PM I get the impression that for you RIGHTS are very much like talents and not values. Rights to me are one special set of values. Are we just talking about semantics here … like how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?”
No, John, we’re not talking just semantics. Unless I’m talking actually talking ABOUT semantics (which is frequent – it’s my major field of interest), it’s almost never a matter of semantics with me. There is a drastic difference between a value (which is a MEASUREMENT) and a right. The way you seem to be using “value” seems to indicate that you’re talking about things that we value (like “traditional family values”). If I’m wrong, then please correct me. But that would mean that our rights are completely contingent on whether or not we are valued. Presumably for you that means valued by god. That won’t fly with me since I don’t think god exists, but even then. Rights are not possessed contingent on anyone’s (including god) thinking you’re important. Or are you claiming that your right to life would just evaporate if god decided he didn’t value you anymore.
“And Erin and Skinhead, this is what you are doing and what God thinks of such actions as described in Galatians 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
First they denied it was a life, but recent science proved it to be, so they moved on to other lies, like “personhood” and “bodily autonomy”. One day, yes one day you will have to answer for those lies.
Masters of Deception
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/baby-choice.jpg
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3934865f12e3.htm
They lie about God
They lie about Abortion
They lie about our troops
They lie about America
They lie about faith
They lie about rights
They lie about morals
They lie about life
I don’t care about God.
I don’t lie about abortion.
I don’t like about the troops.
I don’t lie about America.
I don’t care about faith.
I don’t lie about rights.
I don’t lie about morals.
I don’t lie about life.
Hi Cam,
much of the contradictions … for instance was the sermon on a mount or was it on a plain … can be answered if these texts are understood as works of faith … as teachers’ texts to help guide a learner. What is very important is what Jesus says: if what He says is said on a mount, it harkens back to Moses giving the commandments. This action speaks of Jesus as the New-Moses: “Blessed are you …” , very important stuff. It also is a reminder of Jesus’ death on the hill of Calvary. {can’t remember what the other symbolism was about).
Jesus is thought of as so many things and so many different titles, that many of these are shown by Jesus’ public life recorded in the gospels. I guess if they made a small list (instead of incorporating these in the text the way it was done) of the things Jesus was believed to fulfill, it would easily fill 5 solid pages of these titles … he was the New-Abraham; the New-Isaac (sacrificial lamb); the New-Adam (Jn’s Alpha and Omega); the New-Melchiezedec (Jesus’ cross is the new altar-of-sacrifice); the New-Moses; the New-temple; the New-Jerusalem; on and on.
to help … these are not modern historical accounts … we make a huge mistake in treating these as such.
Sorry Cam, can’t help too much …. but Jesus Himself is my Peace and He reveals His Being the way He wants to … wish I could do Him better in scripture, but I’m such a beginner!!!
Hi Rae-Rae …
Hi Jasper-Jasper. How are you this evening?
good, how are you? will you give church a try this sunday?
@Jasper: Pretty decent. Possibly. If the boy I’m planning to ask out says yes, I may have to go because that would prove there really is a God. :-p
well good-luck, if he doesn’t say yes, he’s silly. plus, there will always be someone else, you’re still young….
Diana,
thanks very much … your ideas about me and the way I comprehend the word ‘values’. You are exactly right … in your understanding of what I’ve written.
It’s just that after many years of working with my theory {the 4 circles] I tend to lean toward the emotions aspects and tend to underplay the physical + intellectual processing that fills science/philosophizing these days.
Right now am very tired and sleep-time is a comin’, fast! Hope you’ll be here tomorrow – nite!
When someone starts screaming that science is a religion it only shows how threatened their version of religion is by science.
Hi PP,
I do not know who exactly you mean when you make such a blanket statement, but I can assure you that at least HisMan, Jasper, and I are very (almost too) aware of the intellectual, political, emotional, psychological, etc … and religious shortcomings of science when approaching religion. We all have had years of the ‘method’ and such is often mute … because ‘the method’ just does not fit.
For instance, tell me how reasoning handles peace. If peace does not happen via ‘the method’,
does this mean peace does not exist.
Anyone who screams may be unsure of themselves, but this makes them unfamiliar/uncomfortable with this material … it doesn’t make them wrong … only lousy (not cool) teachers/students. Years ago, I had a fabulous calculus instructor. [He even wrote a few textbooks on calculus.] Within a very few months we were doing more calculus than students who had been at it for years.
I certainly don’t come here like you proclaiming my virtues with a laughably obvious and hypocritical abandonment of any modicum of humility.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*deep breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*snort*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*stitch in side*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Ahhhh Cam…that was a good one!
Cam, 9:23a: Ah, yes. Power and money. Two of the three typical reasons for organizational spats, the third being sex.
LOL mk!!! When I saw that post, that was exactly my reaction!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
John, you made some incredible points last night.
This post especially rang true to me:
“It has been my experience that the so-called ‘scientific method’ is as HisMan says much closer to religion and its reasonings than it is to any inherent logic. I cannot forget Robert O. Becker’s (Cross Currents) assessment of research funding. He wrote “Research follows the Golden Rule: he who has the gold sets the rules.” Right on, says I. Perhaps, this type of scruteny should dog the science-world, but this sort of analysis does not. Much too often it’s, “we scientists are above reproach because we follow the method.” It is OK to kill with impunity (abortion), because my science allows me to do this. All that is needed is the right argument/rationale! [Excuse me while I barf!]
Science ((and its method)) are at the SERVICE OF HUMANS; humans are not at the service of science.”
Good morning, Jill!
Bethany,
“If all of society did not respect you or value you, and all of the rights that you enjoy today were taken away from you, would you fight for the rights which were taken away (because you know deep down that you really do deserve such rights), or would you accept your fate without a fight or struggle (since you only have such true value as others place on you)?”
You’re not reading what I’ve said. Rights are not values. Rights have nothing to do with value. Value is a measurement of worth; rights are possessions that are had independent of any worth assessment. So yes, I would fight for my rights and the rights of everyone else. (And by the way, in the situation that you present, I’d likely still value me.)
You don’t think that the two really have anything to do with each other? If a society does not value another person, does that person not lose their rights? Did blacks (and others) not lose their rights simply because society did not value them highly? Did it not take a change in their value (personhood) before they were given back their rights?
* in their perceived value
@Jasper: Pretty decent. Possibly. If the boy I’m planning to ask out says yes, I may have to go because that would prove there really is a God. :-p
Rae, if he doesn’t say yes, I know it’s hard to believe right now, but you’re better off without him. I can’t tell you how many times I was rejected (and heartbroken about it) before finding prince charming. That’s worst case scenario though….I think he’ll probably say yes. :)
We have great import for each other. We rely on society for many of our needs, we rely on each other for gaining knowledge about the world. We need each other for love and companionship which are psychological needs inherent to our species… the list could go on and on. We are social animals, and as such place great import on others.
If one does not contribute in some way to society, whether because he or she is unable, or unwilling, does this make this person less valuable as a human being?
Is the reason that you place so much emphasis and importance on the things you contribute to society based on the idea that you would have no value or worth if you did not?
I think it’s great to contribute to society, however, I do not think that one should feel that the only way to have value as a human being should be to be able to contribute in some significant way.
I think this is possibly one reason that you can see no problem with unborn children being wiped out…since they are too young and weak to contribute to the world in some way that you feel is significant.
correct me if I’m wrong…you believe that they are not of true value (before viability),hence the reason you believe your rights trump theirs when the two are challenged?
While we ‘debate’ children die … I feel so useless in trying to help stop the slaughter!
John, I feel the same way, so often. :(
“I think he’ll probably say yes.”
Well, as flippin’ cool as Rae is, he’d have to be downright silly not to.
And also, I like myself. My continued existence has import for me because I happen to enjoy existing.
Suppose one does not like themselves, and they do not enjoy existing (say, because of depression or some other such reason), are they of less value, because they consider themselves less valuable?
If this same person, who did not consider themselves valuable, sat on the couch all day, watching Tv, and eating Tv dinners….never cleaning up after themselves, and basically living like a pig…are they still valuable as a human being in your opinion?
All of the things you listed as a reason that humans were valuable was based on what we DO…
Well, as flippin’ cool as Rae is, he’d have to be downright silly not to.
I totally agree!
“…sat on the couch all day, watching Tv, and eating Tv dinners….never cleaning up after themselves, and basically living like a pig…”
That reminds me of a certain roommate of mine =/.
lol Heather, I know a few like that too! :)
“lol Heather, I know a few like that too”
I can’t stand people like that.
For months, my roommate Allison and I were the only ones to clean the apartment (we’ve all lived together for about a year).
Matthew has only recently started cleaning, and he complains about being the “only one” to do so.
…End rant :).
Anyway, how are you?
Ugh, that had to be so annoying. I remember when I invited someone to live with us for a few months…I was promised a lot of help and all of that…what I basically ended up getting was (basically) another child to clean up after. lol
I’m doing okay….yesterday the kids were still sick with a stomach virus and throwing up all over the place. I washed covers pretty much all day long.
But hopefully today, they will be feeling better. Seeing a little baby heave …it is too much. It just feels so unfair. I’d rather be sick and them be fine… :(
The boy is freakin’ nineteen years old! You’d think he’d know how to at least clean his own dishes.
Sometimes it’s all I can do not to slap him for his snotty “No, I don’t need any help” comments.
I hope your children get to feeling better soon. My throat has been hurting the past few days. I’m just hoping that it’s better by Thursday, otherwise I have to see the doctor…and I don’t like doctors. Well, hospitals, actually.
Did you watch Hell’s kitchen last night?
I’ve never watched it. Is it any good?
Oh you should have seen. It was so good. Yes, I love Hells kitchen. I think you’d like it too.
I don’t really like doctors either, but lately I’ve been having to see them a lot.
I hope your sore throat wont develop into anything more. Thanks for the well wishes. :)
If it’s anything at all like Top Chef I’m sure I would enjoy it. I’ll have to try to remember to watch it sometime.
The other day, I woke up with my throat hurting so much I wanted to cry. It’s…like a bruised sore, not a scratchy sore. For now, I’m just taking ibuprofen when it starts hurting too badly, and drinking hot tea.
Wow, you might really want to go ahead and see a doctor. I don’t know much about sore throats and all of that but if it’s that painful, it probably needs to be looked at.
Oh! I mean to ask. How’s the whole pregnancy deal going?
Rae,
At the risk of using your personal life to illustrate the ongoing argument about values, may I just say that you have a choice.
Ask the guy out.
If he says no, you can continue to recognize yourself as valuable regardless of his “rejection” or you can let his reaction define your worth.
If you go with Diana’s plan, then you are in for a rough time because you are saying that you are only as valuable as another persons says you are.
If you go with Bethany’s plan, it won’t make one iota of difference in how you see yourself because you recognize that you are valuable simply because you “are“!
Of course, if he says yes, (and he’d have to be an idiot not to), then you win on both sides. You know you’re valuable, and he confirms it!
By the way, which one are we asking out? Can I pray about it? I’m so excited…what’ll we wear. (When we ask him as well as when we go out with him?) Are we gonna double date? Where are we going? You could always go fishing. Then he can’t run away…and the mullets are always good for filler entertainment! Course, there’s always the old stand by movies…nobodies put on the spot. Or how bout somethin’ silly, like kite flying and a picnic. Mini-golf? That’s always an ice breaker. Oh the possibilities are endless…
Let me know…
*meant
John, me too.
Heather….I’m not sure yet. I am trying to stay positive about the pregnancy, but right now I am having doubts whether I am even really pregnant (even though the doctor said I probably am), or whether if there is a baby, if it is doomed to miscarry. (It’s sooo hard to know how to feel.) I think the hardest part is waiting, but hopefully I will know soon.
I actually am planning to call the doctor today and see if I can get an ultrasound a little earlier. It probably won’t be easy, but maybe they will say yes.
Oh, they’re finally open, so I’ll be calling them now.
Thanks for the chat today. I enjoyed talking to you. :)
Ew.
I don’t like this episode of Charmed. It’s kind of lame, and their superhero costumes are oogly.
Well, again….
I’ll keep you, and the rest of your family, in my thoughts. I hope everything works out.
Bethany:
When one doesn’t know how to feel about a certain situation, the Bible lights our way.
Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.”
@Diana and Bethany, and others,
Diana is a very articulate and careful lady. She assessed what I was alluding to very accurately.
In my opinion though she does make some inherent errors that are not easily spotted. One of the first ones is defining rights as quasi-objects … something similar to the way we might perceive talents. If this is in fact the case, on what basis are rights assessed if something like what happened to Terri Shiavo happen (an accident robbed her of proper brain function) or, does a child with anencephalitis (or people with Downs Syndrome) ever have rights … no brain, just rights? Are rights permanent markers?
I’ll leave off here to do some work … but while I’m away … could someone quote some scripture re. ‘worthiness’? Thanks
Hisman, thank you so much. I needed that.
John,
Here is one, and I’ll find more in just a minute:
Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are worth more than many sparrows. Luke 12:6-7
Verses about how much God loves us. If God loves us this much, obviously He sees us as of value.
“Since [you are] precious in my sight…and I have loved thee…Fear not: for I am with [you].”
(Isaiah 43:4-5)
“Behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.” (1 John 3:1)
He loves us so much that, “He bowed the heavens also, and came down.” (Psalm 18:9)
And, “He sent from above, He took me, He drew me out of many waters.” (Psalm 18:16)
He loves us so much that, He has engraved us upon the palms of His hand. (Isaiah 49:16)
He loves us so much that, He will never leave us or forsake us. (Hebrews 13:5)
“For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed; but my [Love] shall not depart from thee, neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.” (Isaiah 54:10)
“As the heaven is high above the earth, so great is His [Love] towards them that fear Him.” (Psalm 103:11)
“Many are the afflictions of the righteous. But the Lord delivers them out of them all. He keepeth all his bones; not a one of them is broken.” (Psalm 34:19-20)
“When you pass through the waters (trouble) I will be with you; and through the rivers, they won’t overflow you; when you walk through the fire, you won’t be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord…You are precious in My sight and I LOVE YOU.” (Isaiah 43:2-4)
“God commendeth His Love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.” (John 3:16)
“…having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.” (John 13:1)
“What shall separate us from the Love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?…I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” (Romans 8:35, 38-39)
John, here are a few more:
Luke 12
24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?
26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?
27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of a doubtful mind.
30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
PiP:
There is a God shaped void in everyone’s heart.
We were designed and programmed to seek to have that void filled only by God.
Anything, be it education, money, sex, drugs, children, whatever, can be termed a religion if it is used to fill that void. People use science to fill that void. If you don’t believe me, just look at how a majority of scienctists foolishly reject the Bible because science elevates observation and measurement over faith. For many, science is definitely a religion…a substitute for God and it won’t save them…it’s a ruse.
Most of you who post on this site are very young and are filled with the pride of life. The majority have not experienced life, in all its beauty, ugliness, contradictions, betrayals, expectations, disaappointments, dreams, death of friends and loved ones, etc. to understand what that means.
As life’s experiences accumulate on our souls we will either turn to God in surrender or reject Him in rebellion which are really the only two ultimate states in life.
As an older poster on this site, I am willing to take all the abuse of Cameron and Diana, and Rae and Erin to plant seeds of wisdom. Someday you and the others will need them as the storms of life toss you like rag dolls. It is my hope then that they will turn to the only One who can save totally, Jesus Christ.
What really concerns me about Cameron is that he has allowed a root of bitterness to take hold of his heart. This is why he can blaspheme Jesus without so much as a wink, thinking that he is getting away with something. The problem with this is that he doesn’t realize that the deeper the root, the more painful it will be when the great surgeon attempts to yank it out. He is in for one HELL of a ride. I pity him.
“I do not know who exactly you mean when you make such a blanket statement”
Only that most anti-science remarks I’ve heard come from religious fundamentalists who seem threatened by the audacity that scientific theories contradict a literal version of biblical events.
“but I can assure you that at least HisMan, Jasper, and I are very (almost too) aware of the intellectual, political, emotional, psychological, etc … and religious shortcomings of science when approaching religion. We all have had years of the ‘method’ and such is often mute … because ‘the method’ just does not fit.”
I am pretty sure that science doesn’t apply the scientific method to the supernatural because science’s purpose is to study the natural world. It doesn’t have any say on religion whatsoever, so to imply that the method is itself a religion is completely baseless (and in my opinion kind of stupid). It’s like picking a fight for no reason. Why bother?
“For instance, tell me how reasoning handles peace. If peace does not happen via ‘the method’,
does this mean peace does not exist.”
Have you seen any scientific papers on peace and the existance of peace? Don’t you think the subject of peace to be a philosophical question? Come on, you can do better than that.
“Anyone who screams may be unsure of themselves, but this makes them unfamiliar/uncomfortable with this material”
Implying that peace is a subject approached by the natural sciences comes off as unfamiliar/uncomfortable with scientific material. So does someone saying “evolution is a religion” and “scientific method is a religion.”
“it doesn’t make them wrong … only lousy (not cool) teachers/students.”
Huh? If a biology teacher tells me that evolution is a religion I’d have to question their ability. Other people who are fundamentally opposed to practically proven scientific theories…well, I’d say it’s a matter of misunderstanding. Or purposeful ignorance. Pick one.
“Years ago, I had a fabulous calculus instructor. [He even wrote a few textbooks on calculus.] Within a very few months we were doing more calculus than students who had been at it for years.”
Well, that is awesome. I’m not sure what the point is here, though.
“Anything, be it education, money, sex, drugs, children, whatever, can be termed a religion if it is used to fill that void”
So now education is bad? Anyone here see what’s wrong with that statement? Here’s a new one! Having an education is the devil’s tool!
” If you don’t believe me, just look at how a majority of scienctists foolishly reject the Bible because science elevates observation and measurement over faith”
That is simply wrong. The last I heard, 80% of scientists believe in God. Maybe the majority aren’t fundamentalists but since when is fundmentalism the only right way to approach God? But see, most scientists realize that their religion A) doesn’t contradict science B) is an entirely different subject. To believe otherwise is displaying ignorance!
“For many, science is definitely a religion…a substitute for God and it won’t save them…it’s a ruse.”
No, for some, it seems logically impossible to believe in God. But that is an individual choice and not using science as a religion.
“Most of you who post on this site are very young and are filled with the pride of life. The majority have not experienced life, in all its beauty, ugliness, contradictions, betrayals, expectations, disaappointments, dreams, death of friends and loved ones, etc. to understand what that means.”
Huh? What does this have to do with religion and science?
“As life’s experiences accumulate on our souls we will either turn to God in surrender or reject Him in rebellion which are really the only two ultimate states in life.”
You are right. It’s a choice all must choose. What does this have to do with science again?
“As an older poster on this site, I am willing to take all the abuse of Cameron and Diana, and Rae and Erin to plant seeds of wisdom.”
Alright. So I can’t contradict anything you say even though it’s a false statement? I’m way too young to understand anything of substance? Instead of understanding the nature of science you seem to be willfully ignorant of the subject, as education is the devil’s tool and all that.
“Someday you and the others will need them as the storms of life toss you like rag dolls. It is my hope then that they will turn to the only One who can save totally, Jesus Christ.”
Good!
“What really concerns me about Cameron is that he has allowed a root of bitterness to take hold of his heart. This is why he can blaspheme Jesus without so much as a wink, thinking that he is getting away with something. The problem with this is that he doesn’t realize that the deeper the root, the more painful it will be when the great surgeon attempts to yank it out. He is in for one HELL of a ride. I pity him.”
Alright. I still don’t think this is a good response to the subject matter at hand. Unless you were trying to change the subject?
Here’s another point about science.
One of the major weaknesses of science is the reqauirment that a theory be proved or disproved based on observation and measurement. The assumption is that what is seen or viewable is all there is. No proof, no banana. Science works very well and has proven to be a useful tool as far as the visible world goes. Yes, science is a gift from God to benefit his children but not to replace Himself.
We can’t see electricity move through a wire, however, we can observe it’s affects. Because we can observe its affects, we can quantify and formulate it’s behavior and thereby harness its power. Science is a way for man to act like gods….to be able to control the environment in which he lives, a humanist manifesto if you like. So, when a fax intellingensia type, self-elevated by his own sense of importance and higher comparative test scores and hearing constantly from others, “you’re smart”, begins to think he can control things and people through science, the self-deception begins.
The problem with the current definition of the scientiifc model is that it is based on sight. This assumes that an invisble and unseen world does not exist. This is a HUGE mistake, especially since faith is evidence of things not seen and without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, as is possible with any tool or gift from God, when science is used to replace God, it becomes evil.
Many scientists who diss faith have made a choice whether they know it or not because the proof for God’s existence is all around them. If they were to use the scientific method honestly and with integrity they could come to no other conclusion than God exists. The Bible speak to this fact in Romans 1:18-20, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities
On second thought, would someone mind deleting my post?
I’m irritated and can barely manage to string two words together at the moment, so…yeah.
Heather, I unpublished your post for you, but I can publish it again if you change your mind. :)
Bethany,
“You don’t think that the two really have anything to do with each other?”
I don’t think one’s existence depends on the other.
“If a society does not value another person, does that person not lose their rights?”
Nope.
“Did blacks (and others) not lose their rights simply because society did not value them highly?”
No. They didn’t. They were legally DENIED their rights. That is we didn’t legally RECOGNIZE their rights. But the rights were still theirs. They just weren’t allow to exercise them. What you seem to be suggesting is that slaves did not have any rights until we decided to grant them to them. That’s true legally, but it’s not true metaphysically. If it were true, then your right to life, to free speech, etc. would be totally dependent on whether or not our country recognizes them.
I understand that we often mince words here, saying things like “women didn’t have the right to vote before the 19th amendment”, but that suggests that your rights are not something that you have inherently (or, perhaps from your perspective, are not something that your creator endowed you with). I think what we’re really saying is that women did not LEGALLY have the right to vote.
“Did it not take a change in their [perceived] value (personhood) before they were given back their rights?”
Yes. A change in their perceived value was required before we gave them access to their rights. But a slave had the right to life before the 14th, 15th and 16th amendments just as much as he had it afterwards. We just (very wrongfully) didn’t recognize that right, because we had inconsistent views about the value of the slave.
PiP:
You are not a teacher and I am not a kintergartner. OK?
I won’t go through all of your ranting critiques of what I said, however, where did I say education was bad or a tool of the devil? I never said that. I believe in education. I have an engineering degree from RIT, A PE license, a master’s degree in Theology and am a Doctoral candidate, I also sit on boards of major ministries. I think education is wonderful. I said that people can use anything, be it education, etc., etc. to fill the void in their hearts that is only meant for God.
Please read and understand and that without prejudice before you comment. It makes you look foolish and immature.
Thank you, Bethany. I appreciate it.
I guess I’m just a bit irritable today. It might be a good idea for me to get offline for a bit and just read a book…or at the very least, avoid this particular site :P
Heather B.:
Again, if most of you would READ and not jump to conclusions before rnating commenting, what I prefaced with that post about youth is the word, “Most”. Most does not mean “all”. Nor did I address you personally.
Therefore, the subjective conclusion YOU made was that I was talking to YOU.
YOU could have chosen to exclude yourself from my statement by saying to yourself he is not talkig about me rahter than assuming I was talking about YOU.
My statement are general in nature based on what is stated on this site. I don’t pretend to know everyone’s life experiences. Personally, I have many young friends that have been through more of life than I will ever hope to, hence I used the word “MOST” and not “ALL”.
I am not dissing youth I am simply stating that the majority of young people have not experienced enough of life to see the big picture. The lack of acceptance of Christ in one’s life is either due to a failure to see the need for Him or an outright rejection of Him. A full life lived will usually present one with the opportunities to make either choice based on experience. These take a lifetime.
“One of the major weaknesses of science is the reqauirment that a theory be proved or disproved based on observation and measurement. The assumption is that what is seen or viewable is all there is. No proof, no banana. Science works very well and has proven to be a useful tool as far as the visible world goes. Yes, science is a gift from God to benefit his children but not to replace Himself.”
Right. I don’t think science has claimed to explain anything but what is observable in nature.
“We can’t see electricity move through a wire, however, we can observe it’s affects. Because we can observe its affects, we can quantify and formulate it’s behavior and thereby harness its power.”
Is this a bad thing?
“Science is a way for man to act like gods….to be able to control the environment in which he lives, a humanist manifesto if you like.”
No, science affords us the ability to manipulate nature and technology to advance us as a species. I don’t think it’s purpose is to “act like gods.” Unless you want to live like the Amish? Care to get rid of that computer you own?
“So, when a fax intellingensia type, self-elevated by his own sense of importance and higher comparative test scores and hearing constantly from others, “you’re smart”, begins to think he can control things and people through science, the self-deception begins.”
Please give me names. Who controls people with science? I don’t see how controlling “things” (or you can be specific?) is contrary to God’s will though..
“The problem with the current definition of the scientiifc model is that it is based on sight.”
Not necessarily. Observation doesn’t mean “sight.” Thunder for example, is not seen, but heard. Electricity like you said is not able to be “seen.” But we can observe and manipulate it nonetheless.
“This assumes that an invisble and unseen world does not exist.”
If something cannot be observed or measured at all, then science does not measure or quantify it. Some scientists say that therefore it doesn’t exist. Some disagree, but again this is a philosophic realm to discuss and not a scientific one.
“This is a HUGE mistake, especially since faith is evidence of things not seen and without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, as is possible with any tool or gift from God, when science is used to replace God, it becomes evil.”
You are right, but I have yet to see how science and its theories are inherently bad, as you appear to think.
“Many scientists who diss faith have made a choice whether they know it or not because the proof for God’s existence is all around them. If they were to use the scientific method honestly and with integrity they could come to no other conclusion than God exists.”
Many scientists believe in God so they, like me, would agree with you there. You even said this is an individual venture right? Not a collective one?
“The Bible talks about the unseen world in Ephesians 6:10-18”
Cool. You know the Bible is a religious document and not a scientific one right?
Okay. I’m trying very hard not to get testy here, but I don’t understand why everyone seems to completely misunderstand/misrepresent what I’m saying (except, I think, John). It’s really not that complicated. Was I not clear enough?
“If one does not contribute in some way to society, whether because he or she is unable, or unwilling, does this make this person less valuable as a human being?”
No. We place import on other human beings because of the various things we need them for. That is, we place a high value on the KIND (the type – HUMAN) because of the high import that they have for us. As such, we place high import, high value, on ANY human, regardless of whether they contribute to society or not.
“Is the reason that you place so much emphasis and importance on the things you contribute to society based on the idea that you would have no value or worth if you did not?”
Um… no. I would still have value even if I didn’t contribute to society. I would still have value if no one contributed to society. Why? Because we place value on HUMANKIND because as a matter of nature we need them. And we need them whether they are doing what we need or not. So they have import for us whether they are doing what we need or not.
The reason I may sometimes point out my contributions to society, etc, around here is that a good number of people around here (not you) like to think that just because I believe a woman has a right over her own body, and just because I had an abortion, I must be completely selfish, cold, callous person. So I place emphasis on these contributions to demonstrate that I’m not.
“I think it’s great to contribute to society, however, I do not think that one should feel that the only way to have value as a human being should be to be able to contribute in some significant way.”
Nor do I.
“I think this is possibly one reason that you can see no problem with unborn children being wiped out…since they are too young and weak to contribute to the world in some way that you feel is significant.”
Since that’s not my position at all, it has nothing to do with my reasons for supporting abortion rights.
“correct me if I’m wrong…you believe that they are not of true value (before viability),hence the reason you believe your rights trump theirs when the two are challenged?”
Where did my views get so completely bastardized? I thought I had made myself so clear, so many times.
First, the KIND human has value for us. So value starts at conception. Hence the ruckus. Hence why obtaining an abortion is a difficult decision. Heck, this value continues after death. Hence the strong desire for proper care of a corpse, the deep seated aversion to necrophilia, etc.
Second, I do not think that the woman’s right trumps the fetus’ right because it’s HER right, or because she is superior, or because the fetus is a fetus… I believe the right to bodily autonomy, QUA right, trumps the right to life QUA right. It has nothing to do with whose right is in conflict with whose and everything to do with which rights are in conflict. Hence why your right trumps the violinist’s right in that case. Has nothing to do with value or personhood and everything to do with RIGHTS.
And third, I’m not sure where you got the whole viability thing, but I believe that where we can preserve both rights we ought to (just as we do in so many other cases in which rights come into conflict) and that this becomes possible at viability. Personally, (although I’m not sure) I believe that a fetus is a full person with full rights by the second trimester (because that’s when brain activity starts). Which is why I believe that while a woman has a right to abort at that point, her decision to do so for reasons other than health, etc would be immoral.
MK,
“If you go with Diana’s plan, then you are in for a rough time because you are saying that you are only as valuable as another persons says you are.”
Read the above posts to Bethany. That’s not what I’m saying AT ALL. No single person has to value you. They don’t even have to know you’re alive. We value the KIND. Just as we value the KIND gold. Gold is valuable even lying under the dirt when no one knows it’s there (and hence can’t value that piece of gold). Same thing.
Bethany, MK, I’m sorry if I got a little witchy there. I just feel like I’m explaining and re-explaining and people keep attributing to me beliefs that I’ve already said I don’t have, and it’s frustrating. Maybe I just need a cup of coffee…
Yes. A change in their perceived value was required before we gave them access to their rights. But a slave had the right to life before the 14th, 15th and 16th amendments just as much as he had it afterwards. We just (very wrongfully) didn’t recognize that right, because we had inconsistent views about the value of the slave.
Diana, you’re missing my point. Yes, I agree with you that it was not that their actual rights that were being taken away, it was their liberty to exercise that right. I just don’t delve into the precise semantics of it like you do. I simply don’t have time to dissect every single word that I say to make it understood.
That was not the point. You seem to be saying (when you say that rights and value have nothing to do with one another) that the way society values us has absolutely no bearing on our freedom to exercise our rights, and that is not true. People take away our freedoms every day based on their perception of our value.
And…if you believe that we are only truly valuable as much we are valued by others, and you believe that we truly have no inherent value, then why do you even believe that we are endowed with certain rights anyway, regardless of value? Where do these rights come from? Why do we absolutely deserve these rights?
Sorry if that first paragraph came off a little snippy. I didn’t mean for it to.
“I just feel like I’m explaining and re-explaining”
That’s because you don’t make any sense and you keep reiterating the ACLU talking points, using “bodily autonomy” and “viability” to justify killing innocent unborn babies. Plus, you can’t seem to articulate why the “bodily autonomy” fake right trumps the “right to life” without comparing the womb (that the baby needs for life) to other organs, etc.
It’s very sickening.
“You are not a teacher and I am not a kintergartner. OK?”
I hope I didn’t come across as such, just offered my take on it. But this goes both ways. Don’t lecture me based on assumptions, please. I may be younger but I am also not stupid, either.
“I won’t go through all of your ranting critiques of what I said”
Why not? I can take it. I don’t mind ripping into others’ arguments because I expect to be ripped into back. I thought that was the whole point of debate?
“where did I say education was bad or a tool of the devil?”
You implied it when you said it replaces God in the majority of scientists. As if a scientific education teaches such things when it clearly does not. So studying evolution would be the devil misleading us into this religion of death. I think that’s a stupid (implied) assumption myself. This is what it came across in the context of the situation anyway.
“I believe in education. I have an engineering degree from RIT, A PE license, a master’s degree in Theology and am a Doctoral candidate, I also sit on boards of major ministries.”
Awesome!
“I think education is wonderful. I said that people can use anything, be it education, etc., etc. to fill the void in their hearts that is only meant for God.”
I just found it funny how education was up there with alcohol and drugs. That’s all. Like it is some volatile substance one should be careful of. Anything can “fill that void,” your point was, and I get it, but your choice of wording came off as though I should be very careful of learning about the natural world, of learning about other philosophical viewpoints other than mine, and learning to use my resources wisely. Oh dear, I hope my education doesn’t become an addiction.
“Please read and understand and that without prejudice before you comment.”
What? That doesn’t make sense to me. But I think I can guess. But I can say the same thing about you. What about the basic assumption you put in your posts that theories like evolution is a religion. I feel that you are more guilty of this than I. I read how you feel about the subject of science by your posts: “What realy stuns me about all you so-called “scientific” thinkers is that what you believe requires more faith than what I believe. You want to embrace the religion of science based on the assumption that truth is fixed and discoverable and then, when it comes to spiritual and moral things, you want to throw that assumption away and base all your conclusions on guesses, opinions, feelings, etc. It makes no sense.”
I get the sense that all scientists and “scientific thinkers” are a member of this “religion” and that the scientific method takes loads of faith (?) and that science=spiritual life for everyone.
I told you that is false. It is a personal choice and not a collective one. And I don’t think that there is anything wrong with science itself whereas you seem to have problems with it.
Sorry if that came off prejudiced…that is what I read into your statement. I also remember some posts in the past where you claimed evolution is a religion, and all that. I think declaring it so is ridiculous. Excuse my prejudice in trying to take your statement seriously..
However I seem to remember you spouting off judgments on people all over the place and when someone called you on it you would deny you ever did so. When I came on here at first the very first thing you did was tell me my religious beliefs, how I feel about certain issues based on this one, and how you are much superior based on age and type of religion.
I feel that is acting prejudiced. Respond to my arguments, please, like I am to yours.
“It makes you look foolish and immature.”
Thanks for the tip.
Bethany, MK, I’m sorry if I got a little witchy there. I just feel like I’m explaining and re-explaining and people keep attributing to me beliefs that I’ve already said I don’t have, and it’s frustrating. Maybe I just need a cup of coffee…
Diana, I read your new posts, and while I understand what you’re saying, I still disagree with your premise.
“you can’t seem to articulate why the “bodily autonomy” fake right trumps the “right to life” without comparing the womb (that the baby needs for life) to other organs, etc.”
What Jasper said there is exactly why I still am confused by your posts. You haven’t explained to me in clear enough terms why, if the fetus is a person, which you have admitted it is from conception, why it’s right to life does not supercede the woman’s right not to be inconvenienced. You said (at one time when I asked) that it was because the right to life isn’t truly a right (or something to that effect) unless you have full bodily autonomy. I don’t know why that is. Why? Do you have the right to do anything you want with your body anytime, anywhere? Is the fact that prostitution is illegial in most places a violation of your bodily autonomy? And do you feel that you truly do not have a right to life because of that?
AND, if it is true that you really don’t have a right to life without full bodily autonomy, then why isn’t the fetus afforded the right to full bodily autonomy? Do you think that the fetus is more than happy to be sucked out into little pieces? Does he consent to it? I mean, does he or she get the chance to decide whether he would like to be diced up into pieces and thrown in a disposal drain or given birth to? I dont think so. So what you’re saying is that the fetus really doesn’t have a right to life at all, in my opinion.
Pope John Paul II Christifideles Laici:
“Sorry if that first paragraph came off a little snippy. I didn’t mean for it to.”
It’s cool. Believe me. I understand.
“That was not the point. You seem to be saying (when you say that rights and value have nothing to do with one another) that the way society values us has absolutely no bearing on our freedom to exercise our rights, and that is not true. People take away our freedoms every day based on their perception of our value.”
I’m not saying that at all. Rather, I’m merely saying that value does not determine the rights we actually have. I completely agree that perceived value has a drastic effect on what rights our society allows us to exercise. (How could I not recognize that? I’m a woman!) Typically, however, that “perceived value” of classes of people is inconsistent with our valuing of the kind, which is the important part. I wrote a paper on this when I was an undergrad (when I actually believed much more like you seem to on this topic). We sometimes create kinds that don’t actually exist to try to alleviate the inconsistency, but it ends up not working. We also sometimes attribute false characteristics to the kind in a similar attempt, but that inevitably fails as well.
“And…if you believe that we are only truly valuable as much we are valued by others, and you believe that we truly have no inherent value, then why do you even believe that we are endowed with certain rights anyway, regardless of value? Where do these rights come from? Why do we absolutely deserve these rights?”
They derive from our natural telos (end, purpose, thing we strive for… as I said above, you can’t really translate the ancient greek to english). The rights that we possess are those that are necessary to acheiving that telos. I’m with Aristotle on this that the natural telos of all beings is flourishing, but I believe that there is a touch of contractarianism involved. (Note: A TOUCH of contractarianism. Contractarianism as a full theory collapses into a very complex relativism and I AM NOT a relativist)
This question seriously also requires a whole book that I’m not planning on writing, but if you’re interested, I would suggest reading Alasdair MacIntyre’s *After Virtue*. For an easier read, try his *Dependent Rational Animals*. I differ slightly from the views presented in both books, but the basics are there for both an ethical system and the foundation of rights within that system. (You might actually like DRA. It was written after MacIntyre’s conversion back to Catholicism, and, as such, contains some ideas I can’t agree with, but it presents a much more plausible ethical theory than the divine comamand theory that gets thrown around here.(VERY bad theory to have. So much so that virtually no christian philosophers actually espouse it)).
For some info on contractarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls
For info on MacIntyre and a little on virtue ethics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_Macintyre
It doesn’t look like either of these go into rights so much, and I haven’t skimmed to double check the veracity of the entries (Wiki is notoriously bad with philosophy entries), but it’s a starting point.
I’d love to hang out and post some more, but work calls.
Hey Diana. I don’t know what post we were talking in on Friday, but I don’t want to abandon the subject all together. I also don’t want to hijack this topic. Do you want to move discussion on consent to pregnancy to the 4day break post?
I have quite a bit to say on bodily domain vs. life,but I’d like to see your response to Bethany before I delve into things.
Diana,
I can see where a lot of the problem is coming from.
When we talk about religion and our particular forms of expressing it, we are talking about something that we have studied, questioned and taken apart for years. Within each “church” as well as within the “church” in general, there is a certain lingo, known by the other members. When I refer to the Eucharist, I use one word. To me that word speaks, literally, volumes. Jasper and John and Valerie, know exactly what I’m talking about. Hisman, Jill, Bethany and Lauren, while Christian, do not experience the Eucharist in their particular churches. So while they may know the term, their understanding of it is nowhere near as wide as John, Jasper, Val’s and mine.
By the same token, when any of us speaks of the crucifixion, we ALL know what we are talking about on a very deep level.
But…
Rae, and you and Erin and DanS, and all the other non-believers may have some sort of vague understanding of this event, but cannot possibly comprehend the depth of it’s meaning. We throw words around like grace, and mercy, and salvation eternal life, stigmata, suffering,…and while you may know what we mean, you can’t know what we mean…because you haven’t studied it.
By the same token, you are trying to explain teleology (I looked it up and hello…huh?)to us by trying to use words we can understand to explain something we have never heard of…there are words out there that would make it easier but first you’d have to explain each one of those to us…
Like explaining calculus to people who can’t add…
Be patient with us. We are patient with you when you trivialize our faith (not you personally) because we understand we are asking you to grasp something that is barely fathomable. You are asking us to grasp concepts that are overwhelming because we don’t know the “lingo”…
You have been taking philosophy classes for years.
Why? because you couldn’t possibly learn all there was to learn in the first class of your first day…think of us as students…freshman, green around the ears and remember that the fact that we are questioning you doesn’t necessarily mean we are judging you, so much as we are trying to understand you.
I’m not gonna lie, we are also trying to find the flaws in said philosophies so we can rip ’em to shreds, but can’t possibly hope to do so, until we know what the heck they are.
Think about it, other than Samantha, not one non-christian on this site has ever asked us to more completely explain what we believe and why.
They just assume they know what we believe and attack it without question. At least we are trying, albeit not succeeding, to understand you.
Relax, all is well…we’ll just keep trying. Kay?
Bethany,
To help with that confusion, see my post at July 2, 2007 02:47 PM. I go into further depth there, which I really can’t again, since I HAVE to go work.
“What Jasper said there is exactly why I still am confused by your posts. You haven’t explained to me in clear enough terms why, if the fetus is a person, which you have admitted it is from conception, why it’s right to life does not supercede the woman’s right not to be inconvenienced.”
It’s not the right to be inconvenienced. There is no such thing. It’s the right to self-determination. The right over one’s own body.
“You said (at one time when I asked) that it was because the right to life isn’t truly a right (or something to that effect) unless you have full bodily autonomy. I don’t know why that is. Why?”
Again, see my above post.
“Do you have the right to do anything you want with your body anytime, anywhere?”
That depends on what you mean. There is a difference between your right over your body and your right to, say, move about where you like, etc. One is “from the skin in” so to speak and the other is not.
“Is the fact that prostitution is illegial in most places a violation of your bodily autonomy?”
Yup. As is the illegality of drugs.
“And do you feel that you truly do not have a right to life because of that?”
I feels as though my right to life is partially destroyed, yes. (Even though I don’t use drugs…well, nicotine and caffeine, but nothing else, and I would never have sex for money) But the point is why, in general, the ordering of rights is the way it is, and it’s because one is necessary for the other. That doesn’t mean that partial denial of one right results in complete denial of the other. It’s partial denial. But the reason they are ordered the way they are is because one is necessary for the other.
“AND, if it is true that you really don’t have a right to life without full bodily autonomy, then why isn’t the fetus afforded the right to full bodily autonomy?”
It is. But it is in violation of the woman’s right.
“Do you think that the fetus is more than happy to be sucked out into little pieces?”
I don’t think the fetus is happy or sad about anything. Especially in vast majority of abortions (pre 12 weeks) where the fetus doesn’t even have brain waves. There’s nothing to BE happy.
“Does he consent to it?”
No. Not capable of consent. But once again, being in violation of her right, his consent becomes irrelevant. Just as the mentally handicapped rapist’s consent is irrelevant.
“So what you’re saying is that the fetus really doesn’t have a right to life at all, in my opinion.”
Why? Because the way that rights are ordered is such that the woman’s right supercedes his? Because the fact that he is in violation of her right negates the need for his consent to a violation of his? That doesn’t negate his right to life, or his right to bodily autonomy.
I’ll admit that given the way the right to bodily autonomy and right to life are so closely intertwined, the question of the fetus’ right to bodily autonomy is an interesting one. I’d really love to engage in this argument further at some other point. But I really, really, really have to go work. I need to finish editing my prof’s logic text book before the end of the week.
MK,
Agreed. I will try my best to explain things. I’m sometimes afraid of adding “and this means this” to my posts for fear of sounding pedantic.
As for religion, I’ve totally had my share. I don’t understand all the mystery of the rituals of the Catholic church (although I love them. Even I, a non-believer, feels something strangely spiritual when listening to latin mass, the smell of incense in the air. And I love saying the rosary, although that’s probably sacreligious (sorry)), since, while baptised catholic, I was not raised as one. But the majority of my family is catholic. My parents have finally settled on a Liberal Catholic church (for now anyway, and by Liberal Catholic, that’s what I mean, not a catholic church that is liberal, but a “liberal catholic” church, as opposed to “roman catholic”).
I do know EXACTLY where hisman is coming from. I’ve been there. Fundamentalist pentacostal and fundamentalist southern baptist both. I’ve heard the misrepresentations of science, been under the yolk of excessive rules AND been at a point where I believed it all with all my heart and soul, so to speak. That’s probably why I have far less patience for hisman than I do for you, Bethany, etc.
I’ll do my best. Oh, and as far as ripping the philosophies to shreds – that’s what it’s all about! That’s what I do! Build a theory up, test it, hear objections, alter it, hear more objections… that’s the point! But I’d appreciate it if we are going to be attacking philosophies that we don’t shelter some off (aka, religious philosophies). If you can try to rip my foundation to shreds, it’s only fair that I can try to rip yours to shreds (in a rational way, of course).
MK and Bethany, presumably as moderator you have my email. I’d be more than willing to also entertain emails (but don’t give it out on the board!).
Lauren,
I honestly don’t remember our conversation (I’ve been in so many recently). But I would be happy to continue it. At this point, though, I really must go work. The prof whose textbook I’m editing also happens to be chair of my dissertation committee, so I can’t afford to be late with his book. See y’all later?
Diana,
Pendant and Rip away…assume I know nothing and take no prisoners…
It works when you attack ideas and not each other.
I honestly feel that that is what you do. Even when I get frustrated beyond words with the violinist/kidney thingy I am attacking it and not you.
Cameron would do well to learn this lesson. Even something as simple as saying “that’s why I think you all sound so idiotic” as opposed to “that’s why you’re all idiots” would go along way in furthering honest discussion…
Anyway, go to work already, would ya?
Addiction is sooooooo hard…
now the “Right of self determination” trumps the Right to life ?….drugs and prostitution should be legalized?
..more gibberish nonsense from Diana…
Diana: “Why? Because the way that rights are ordered is such that the woman’s right supercedes his?”
says who?
“Because the fact that he is in violation of her right negates the need for his consent to a violation of his? ”
the unborn baby has violated his mothers Rights? like the baby is an alien from outer space…
when she helped put him in her own womb?
To translate: killing unborn babies should be legal….
this has become a total joke..
what lenghts people will go to justify killing…it’s just unbelievable…where do these people come from….
Pst. I’m designing a site for my husband. Anybody have any ideas for links/ content? Thus far it looks pretty darn boring. I know he doesn’t want it to be to “frilly” so I’m trying to stick to pretty basic formatting, but I’d love input.
here’s a link to what I have so far (don’t blink or it will change I’m sure!)
http://liverpop.wordpress.com/
Diana: “My parents have finally settled on a Liberal Catholic church (for now anyway, and by Liberal Catholic, that’s what I mean, not a catholic church that is liberal, but a “liberal catholic” church, as opposed to “roman catholic”).”
It’s important to note that the Liberal Catholic church (yes, it’s liberal and not catholic at all) is in no way related to the Real Catholic Church…these people justify abortion, etc..
This was led by John Courtney Murray (fake Catholic theoligian ) and led to many Catholics following this distorted teaching…
I will tell you why I hate analogies. Especially the analogies on abortion. *rips out hair* It’s because they are totally irrelevant, unfair, and untrue. It’s just a way to side step the real issue at hand. What if I tried to tell you that it is my RIGHT to drink and drive because my addiction to alcohol must be satisfied first and foremost. Let’s say I kill someone while driving drunk. I’ll tell the judge that my rights to drive drunk trumped the life of the dead person because I am an alcoholic. UGH! Stop the madness already!!
Amen Heather
BTW, that judge would laugh me right out of court!! I’m sure that the majority of society wouldn’t show much support either.
jasper, thanks. Gotta get off the merry go round already! I’m spinning!
Heather,
Once the pro-aborts could no longer dispute that an unborn was alive and living, the “bodily autonomy” right became the newly crafted lie to justify killing unborn babies. See, Diana is using the talking points of the ACLU lawyers..and we know what the ACLU is all about. They do anything to avoid talking about the atrocity that abortion is.
I think what we need to do is tie contract law to obvious biological reality. Should one consent to intercourse, one should automatically consent to the biological reality of a possible child. This would stop all these round and round arguments about whether a uterus was “volunteered” or not.
The vagina was obviously volunteered for some man’s temporary pleasure.
@MK and Bethany: Well, the boy said he would go to lunch with me sometime…but I think he figured I was asking as a friend because he told me not to take it the wrong way, but he was being fair to let me know that he has had an on/off girlfriend for the past two years. I was pretty embarrassed about that because I had noooooo idea and from what I knew he was totally single.
So I say that it’s good that it’s not an out-and-out rejection, but I was still pretty embarrassed and panicky about it. I am just really grateful I was at home and I asked him over the internet as opposed to in person (because I probably would have just *died* from embarrassment). But I am very glad he was very sweet about the whole thing and he was still nice to me as usual at work, so it’s all good.
Who knows? ^_^
But thank you for the well-wishes.
Tony and jasper, excellent points!!
Rae, hello to you. Hope you have a fun 4th tomorrow! Tony,jasper, Bethany, MK and all….. Happy 4th!
HisMan,
“As an older poster on this site, I am willing to take all the abuse of Cameron and Diana, and Rae and Erin to plant seeds of wisdom.”
I haven’t seen Diana or Rae or Erin come anywhere close to something that would justify you pigeon-holing them with me. Don’t be such cowardly victim…. it’s just one of us peppering the challenges with biting reality. Everyone else is humoring your insults with nicey-nice faces on.
Buck up!
Hi folks,
maybe I should explain …. the vast majority of my buddies are like me ‘scientific-types’. Time and again science inquiry seems to get hijacked so-often that you really do start to wonder whether there is a scientific-method or just a comfort-zone for scientists. Here’s just one site http://www.chenier.org where Tom Beardon has a website. There is little doubt that Tom is an electronics genius. He also rails against the often misguided mathematics that is well over 98% of known electrical theory.
I have also heard that over 90% of all matter present at the BIG Bang remains unaccounted for… so what this says is that our science (and its methods) have discovered a total 1/10 of all that exists. In reality … would you stick with the 1/10 or venture forth a bit! [A caution: remember the dictum about the birds in the bush.]
Tom says there are as many as 200 known properties to magnets and of these only a few dozen have been characterized. And then, there is: at http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ John’s periodic table; light theory … atomic structure and galaxy-structure theories are very unusual and make some chemical theory … a thing of the past. Finally, there is http://www.frankgermano.com . Any one of these will dispel any solidity to the science that is now operating. So revolutionary are these that (if these are correct) then a large portion of what we understand that what was solid is indeed quicksand. Science as now practiced is closer to faith than fact.
“One of the major weaknesses of science is the reqauirment that a theory be proved or disproved based on observation and measurement.”
I feel like I
John,
are you incapable of finding fault with science without arguing from ignorance?
“When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective.”
Journal of Psychiatric Practice. 7(3):163-172, May 2001.
“When we talk to god, it
“The question I try to answer in this paper is: How should we distinguish mad from sane religious belief? After looking at the clear-cut but opposed answers of Freud and Jung, I then examine the modern psychiatric answer, particularly as presented in the DSM IV. After arguing that each of the three answers is unsatisfactory, I look at what I take to be the more promising approach of Con Drury, Wittgenstein
Cameron:
For once I agree with you. Religion is neurotic.
I don’t espouse religion. I espouse a relationship with the living God. Not based on ritual and obsessive-compulsive behaviors but on an active and living faith in the God of the Universe.
Besides Cameron, whether you know it or not, your religion is trying to lead people away from God and it is neurotic. I mean, how do you do your job and spend all this time on the internet Mr. Knowitall. You are kind of like a messiah in reverse. Yep, saving women and the freedom to kill their children and well, from God, too, all at taxpayers expense. What a case you are. You should be proud of yourself. You are the antithesis of a knight in shining armor. You’re more like a clown in a rusted tuna fish can. Proud, arrrogant, dishonest, bored (and boring), self-amused (in more ways than one), and a top-notch blasphemer and very good at plagerism. Is that how you got through college tough boy?
By the way, does your Universtiy know that you spend inordinate amounts of their time on the internet? What would they do if they were alerted to your dishonest behavior? Is that a government grant you’re being paid from? I’d bet the OBM would love to know what grad students are doing at your Universty while waiting for the mold to grow on their socks and in their belly buttons. It wouldn’t take much to let them in on the ruse you know. Wouldn’t it be a laugher if your Department lost a grant because of what they discovered you do on the internet during work time. Yuu’d never find a job in your field, unless you wanted to do cutting edge research on the effects of radiation on the flavor of saffron, in Iran of course. That’s OK, come to Phoenix, I can help you find a job driving a cab.
“You’re more like a clown in a rusted tuna fish can”
LOL!!
Hi folks,
better clean-up the discussion from this morning …as you know I theorize 4 aspects to human – physical, intellectual, emotional and ‘faith’. Each in turn has its own end or goal: purpose, understanding, meaning and significance. From what I glean from Diana (the telos) and some of the philosophers that I studied, she develops her rationality from physical + intellectual realities and uses the goal of purpose to arrive at understanding.
I asked for some scripture on worthiness. Bethany was kind enough to provide a whole slew of these. To me the most famous one is likely John the Baptist who said “there is one coming after me and I am not worthy to untie His sandles.” Please notice that Bethany’s posts use the word ‘significant’ which is not in any of Diana posts. Because Diana eliminates the existence of God, she also rids human life of significance. She contends that it is possible to have Rights and not have significance. I do not!
Her concept of telos is void of both meaning (in my sense) and significance …. IMO we project our worth, our rights because of the experience of love in our families (our source of meaning)… it does not come from a general understanding of type … human. For Diana, neither meaning(from the experience of love within a family) nor significance(that comes from God) is found as cornerstones to human reason, at least acted-on-reason. That is not standard philosophy at her university.
God’s criminal justice system given to Moses is far superior to the US Constitution in a number of ways.
See the reasons why here.
http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html
Hi (for those who have trouble following this argument),
an example is :::: the difference between a ‘house’ and a ‘home’
or between ‘father’ and ‘Daddy’ …. btw – Abba is the Aramaic word “Daddy” but is translated as ‘Father’ in English. In French it’s “pere” and ‘Pappa’
Great post John,
I’m glad someone understands this teleos stuff…
I love the house and home example.
I often tell my older kids to “put their dishes in the dishwasher” or “as long as you’re living here, you’ll have to go to Mass on Sunday”.
My reasoning? This is their “home” but it is my “house”…and I get to make the rules!
I’m sure God must feel the same way. This is our home but it is HIS house and if we want to continue to live peacefully in it, we would do well to follow the “rules”.
This does not make God a dictator any more than it makes me one. I love my children just as God loves me, but without rules…well, lets just say that I have left these guys in charge of the house before and it didn’t go well. No one around to enforce the rules.
As to the rights vs rights argument…I could even agree with Diana. But I would have to add that these rights were given to us by the Guy that owns the house and not by any human philosopher.
I would also argue that her ordering of these rights is mixed up. Life must come first. If we remove the right to life as number 1, there might not be anybody left to argue for the right to autonomy…
Life comes first, then autonomy. So the “right” to life should come first…then the “right” to autonomy.
HisMan,
“I don’t espouse religion. I espouse a relationship with the living God. Not based on ritual and obsessive-compulsive behaviors but on an active and living faith in the God of the Universe.”
It appears you don’t understand what the psychologists are talking about.
Normal people are religious and have belief systems. Most of them know and understand that their belief system is just that… a belief system, and they believe it because they have faith in the absence of any ability to actually have evidence. You espouse that your supernatural belief system is a factual reality. That, in no uncertain terms, is delusional, not to mention a humorous attempt to place scientific authority on it.
“Besides Cameron, whether you know it or not, your religion is trying to lead people away from God and it is neurotic.”
Translation: I’m rubber you’re glue, and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
“I mean, how do you do your job….”
*Yawn
“By the way, does your Universtiy know that you spend inordinate amounts of their time on the internet? What would they do if they were alerted to your dishonest behavior?”
My university only cares that I get my work done. Clearly another threat though, intended to silence and squelch the free exchange of ideas… coming from the coward with psuedonym.
Don’t you want to try to save me anymore??
Cameron:
The only one suffering from delusions is you. And teh biggest delusion is what you think about yourself.
What’s so sad is that someone who has the potential for doing great things for God is willling to spit in his face. That is the quintessential definition of a fool. And this despite the mountain of evidence, no universe of evidence, you choose to believe, and I must emphasize the word believe, that there is no god.
That takes more faith (or should I say hard hearted act of conscious rebellion) than I will ever have or perhaps it should be described as a psychopathology since it’s underlying psychology is vicious and venomous as demostrated by your willingness to take others down the abyss with you as you espouse the killing of innocent children under the guise of being for woman. What a spineless coward.
And Cameron, I couldn’t save you if I wanted to because frankly, I was just as lost as you are now and without hope apart from Jesus Christ. And please be careful, one can go too far in rejecting Christ without possibilty of recovery.
And being an employer, your statement about your employer not caring what you do with yout time is a crock. You know very well the terms and conditons of the grant money the University agreed to and you were briefed on. I am sure they have a policy about engaging the internet on work hours.
And no Cameron I am not trying to stifle your ability to express your opinions, I’m just trying to expose your lack of character and how deep it is and why no one should believe a word you say about anything, be it abortion, women, God, or anything else. You’re a pretender and a dangerous virus on this site that trys to poison those who are seeking some answers on abortion.
Why Jill let’s you remain on this site is beyond me. Perhaps because your statements are so foolish and idiotic it is easy to refute them and expose the likes of what your side truly believes. Let’s face it Cameron, no one, in their heart of hearts, wants what you have, a life a hopelessness wrapped in itself, nihilism, at best.
Hi Cam,
like most of the pychiatrists you quote … you simply do not ‘understand’. What HisMan says is exactly in-line with faith revealed in the scriptures. Two new words have been added to assist in this process … they are ‘one’… as in “may they be one, as you and I are one …”
the other word is ‘in’. This particular word is far too easily glossed-over. When scripture says things like … ‘faith in Christ Jesus’, this is not a belief in someone outside of who you are … like faith in Hilary Clinton. But because we are one in God … I speak; act; see and believe as God believes. Therefore, it is quite proper to say ‘in Christ Jesus (as Christ Jesus)’.
Does this make you more terrified? I DOUBT IT! There is even more of a chance of we being labeled as ‘loonies’ … ‘fetus-centric loonies’ … sounds just too good not to relish!. St. Paul was similarly received by the intelligentia of Athens …. hey, we’re following some very good company!
HisMan,
You’re starting to sound particularly vehement, personal, and threatening…. which indicates to me that you may actually recognize, as abhorent as it may be to you, some truth in something I’ve said.
If you find it so threatening, such that you must threaten others or otherwise attempt to discourage further discussion, maybe you should just drop it.
I think your hate is consuming you.
John,
I don’t know what you mean with the “one” semantics, however the “in” is pretty obvious and not lost on anyone in or outside of your faith.
It’s interesting that you invoke Paul, who often rehashed old testament stuff (fear and wrath kind of god) yet he was an apostle of the forgiving/loving social activist Jesus. In away he epitomizes that bipolar thing (e.g. HisMan’ jekyl and hyde routine) which has become such a malignancy in contemporary fundamentalism.
Alas, it doesn’t seem we’re on the same discussion here. You’re defeding Christianity in general, and I’m focusing on some unsavory aspects of its followers, granted I pigeon-hole the entire lot often.
To cut to the heart of the matter, I think a better defense would be to consider the frequency and character of the psychologically troubled in the absence of religion (i.e. human nature). To what degree does religion facilitate dysfuction, would some be better off with no religion, or would they likely be just as dysfuctional?
Cameron:
I don’t hate you. I hate what you do and say on this site. For four or five months you have spewed nothing but venom at those of us who believe in Christ. You are leading people to hell and I hate that as my Savior does also. He loves you Cameron but won’t force himself on you and will allow you to send yourself to hell if that’s what you want.
The fact is Cameron my actions demonstrate complete love for you because I am not afraid to speak the truth to you. If anyone is on shaky ground it’s you.
Why don’t you just focus on taking responsibility for your own eternal destiny and stop lying to people. It’s really Christ not us that you hate and it is evident in your words.
It’s hard to understand why anyone would hate Christ.
Perhaps and I hope unwittingly, you have embodied all that satan is and does, but perhaps intentionally, I don’t know. Satan is the ultimate loser/fool, so his only goal and personal sense of delusional satisfaction before he is thrwon forever into the pit of hell is to take as many with him to destruction as is possible. I don’t want that for you or any one else. Truth is the weapon I wield.
I really believe Cameron that if somehow you could come to the realization of who Christ is, you would be a spiritual giant, for I see in you a potential for great passion. Unfortunately, you see this gift as a toy, a plaything that you masturbate with it before the world. What a collossal waste. You should read the parable of the talents.
I continue to pray for you Cameron but no longer will I let any of your foolishness go unchallenged.
Is that what you really want? You have time to change?
Hey, happy 4th, and easy on the booze.
John,
I appreciate your logic and insight. You are gifted.
HisMan,
“You are leading people to hell and I hate that as my Savior does also.”
LOL… I’m flattered, but in reality I haven’t convinced anyone here of anything. Your sheep are safe around the toothless cyber wolf.
“The fact is Cameron my actions demonstrate complete love for you because I am not afraid to speak the truth to you. If anyone is on shaky ground it’s you.”
In no uncertain terms, you want me to go away because I don’t respect your authority.
Thanks, happy 4th to you too… don’t look down the barrel if it didn’t go off.
“AND, if it is true that you really don’t have a right to life without full bodily autonomy, then why isn’t the fetus afforded the right to full bodily autonomy?”
It is. But it is in violation of the woman’s right.
“Do you think that the fetus is more than happy to be sucked out into little pieces?”
I don’t think the fetus is happy or sad about anything. Especially in vast majority of abortions (pre 12 weeks) where the fetus doesn’t even have brain waves. There’s nothing to BE happy.
“Does he consent to it?”
No. Not capable of consent. But once again, being in violation of her right, his consent becomes irrelevant. Just as the mentally handicapped rapist’s consent is irrelevant.
“So what you’re saying is that the fetus really doesn’t have a right to life at all, in my opinion.”
Why? Because the way that rights are ordered is such that the woman’s right supercedes his? Because the fact that he is in violation of her right negates the need for his consent to a violation of his? That doesn’t negate his right to life, or his right to bodily autonomy.
I’ll admit that given the way the right to bodily autonomy and right to life are so closely intertwined, the question of the fetus’ right to bodily autonomy is an interesting one.
Diana, sorry it took me so long to reply. I have been cleaning up from all three children’s throwing up all day. Poor things, they are miserable. My hubby’s got it too.
Anyway, continuing on.
You told me that you truly do not have the right to life if you do not also have full bodily autonomy. You also claim that a fetus does have full bodily autonomy.
Instead of looking at it from the woman’s point of view, try looking at it from the other angle. Imagine yourself, living in a womb, and (forget that you are not aware of all of this, it is irrelevant)your mother is going to take away your home- which you had nothing to do with, in fact, SHE created the circumstances for you to be brought into existance) and destroy you with or without your consent, regardless of the fact that you did nothing to trample on her rights. She knew what could happen when she conceived you, yet she is going to destroy you, simply because you exist and she feels inconvenienced by you. (Maybe she’s even experiencing some discomfort). You simply exist, as a result of HER actions- not your own.
This means that you do not truly have the right to autonomy, and you do not have the right to life. Where is the right to self determination here? I don’t see that the fetus has any right to develop to the point where he or she is allowed to self determine his or her life (an infant is given this opportunity legally, even though he or she is unable to consent as well).
Where is the right to have control over one’s own body? The fetus does not have this. You do not allow the fetus the right to life, or the right to bodily autonomy.
If the fetus is denying the mother her right to bodily autonomy, why does the mother get to take away ALL of the child’s rights, and the most important right of all- the right to being allowed to LIVE — not just the one, in return for the one right?
And why is a temporary right so much more important than a permanent one anyway?
For 7-8-9 months you may be inconvenienced by a pregnancy…yes, you may even suffer from morning sickness or other such pregnancy problems during that time. However there are things that can ease situations like these…and it is still only temporary. It is not equal to death. It’s just not. It is not life threatening in most cases and if it is no one has ever said that the woman doesn’t have the right to do what she must to save her life. Abortion has always been legal to save the mother’s life.
Why is it necessary to give a child the death penalty because they are borrowing nutrition from your body for a temporary amount of time, something absolutely resulting from a decision YOU made? This makes no sense. (It is NOT the same as removing life support. It is a direct intentional act in an effort to destroy the child’s life, as opposed to life support, which is simply letting nature take it’s course.)
Justice is not rewarding someone with death for inconveniencing you. It’s just not fair.
Do you think that a healthy siamese twin should be able to kill her less healthy twin, if she feels inconvenienced by her? If so, does that give the other (weaker) twin the right to bodily autonomy or the right to life? Why would the healthier twin be more important than the less healthy twin? The other twin, she could say, is trampling on her right to do whatever she wants with her body. She doesn’t want to ‘donate her body’ to the other one. Is this a legitimate argument? Who is more important? Is either?
Also, what if it was the weaker twin who wanted the healthier twin gone? What if it was both of them? Who would win? Would either of them be justified in killing the other twin?
Bethany,
EXCELLENT!
Also Diana,
You say that the right to life and the right to autonomy as well as all rights are given to the person simply by virtue of being “a person”…but who or what automatically gives them these rights.
I’m following your whole “rights are inherent” and I even agree with the fact that there is a difference between having a right and having a legal right, but I know where these inherent rights came from…Hence the words “I hold these truths to be self-evident…) But since you don’t believe in a creator, where do you think these rights came from?
Also, if everything, including human beings can be measured in scientific terms…ie: emotions are just chemical reactions, then how do you explain things like “beauty”, “truth”, “love” etc…
If Darwin rules the day, I can understand how some animals have had to adapt to survive certain living conditions, but how do you explain adding 39 to a crickets chirps to get the current temperature, or a butterfly’s wings, or sleep?
These things simply can’t be explained away as necessary to survival. (I realize you need to sleep to survive, but why?) As far as I know crickets don’t need to tell the world the temperature in order to survive, and butterfly wings are beautiful…well, they just are. But they serve no real purpose!
So how does your hard science explain the unexplainable?
Actually, butterfly wings serve several purposes. In many toxic species, the bulk of the toxins are in the wings: in those same species, the pigmentation that alerts predatory animals of said toxins also reside in the wings. Other butterfly species mimic the toxic species to gain the same benefits. And other butterflies have large “eyespots” on the wings to make themselves appear bigger, encourage predators to go for the wings instead of the more vulnerable bodies, and to startle other predators. Different species also have different wing shapes depending on where and how they need to fly: Monarch butterflies, for example, migrate long distances and thus have larger wings.
You’re also neglecting the most obvious reason: flight.
Less,
Obviously I wasn’t talking about the fact that they have wings, I was referring to the fact that the wings are beautiful.
Or maybe not so obviously.
Explaining why we find them or anything beautiful, and why the wing are beautiful to begin with.
This is what I was asking Diana. How do youscientifically explain the particular patterns and colors. And why do people find them so pleasing?
MK:
It’s the evolution gods. Don’t be silly now.
MK,
They may seem “beautiful” to us doesn’t neccessarily mean that beauty is the sole function. As a future member of the medical community, I think that the human body is absolutely beautiful. But the majority of functions were magnified in the species via evolutionary theory.
Also, you can be a Christian and a Darwinist. We just believe someone was behind it. JPII said that himself.
Also, HisMan, there you go implying that science is a religion again. I am not imagining this.
Hi MK and PP,
MK has hit upon one of the real biggies in both classical philosophy and theology. ‘BEAUTY’ may seem to be straight forward for Darwinists, but like the word ‘happiness’ it has a lot of richness …. enough to keep Greek philosophers engaged for hundreds of years.
Science prefers answers that allows us to explain things away … once known, we just file it away in our brain. Beauty is one of those things that evokes awe and awe is too-often dismissed as a waste of time. [It takes time to ‘smell the roses’; become a hugger; toss a mullet … will med’s school ever teach this as important stuff. A babe’s birth is filled with awe (and even reverence). Can the same be said about abortion? Is this no-loss?
Isn’t it strange how the time we spend in love … being with someone special is never a waste, but torture and very lengthy when we feel alone.
No John you keep making this same mistake:
Science does not attempt to qualify anything, only provide explanations for natural phenomena. Let’s take this a bit of a time.
“MK has hit upon one of the real biggies in both classical philosophy and theology. ‘BEAUTY’ may seem to be straight forward for Darwinists, but like the word ‘happiness’ it has a lot of richness …. enough to keep Greek philosophers engaged for hundreds of years.”
Cool. But, beauty is always subjective in science. I’m not sure when it became “straight forward.” Which is my point. Science is not the be-all, end-all of life, so scientific study does NOT equal quality of life. It’s like saying that because mathematics is numbers and dimensions that MUST imply that mathematicians think that philosophical subjects such as beauty or dieties don’t exist or don’t matter.
“Science prefers answers that allows us to explain things away ”
You mean answers to natural phenomena that were discovered via the scientific method? What do you mean by “explain things away”? Are you suggesting that science prefers easy answers? If that is the case, I can easily disprove that–it’s called biochemistry.
“Beauty is one of those things that evokes awe and awe is too-often dismissed as a waste of time. ”
Why is this science’s fault? When did science ever deem any other academic subject useless rather than compliment it?
“will med’s school ever teach this as important stuff.”
You’d think that most med students already know how to appreciate beauty. If they don’t by that age, I wouldn’t say it would be the med schools’ job, or fault for that matter.
” Can the same be said about abortion? Is this no-loss?”
Well obviously not. Science says that the baby is a being with separate DNA, and that it is most definately alive. Science invented sonograms, science aided medicine–now we have the nicu for all of the premature babies so they can live and be happy. So…I am not sure when science=abortion..
“Isn’t it strange how the time we spend in love … being with someone special is never a waste, but torture and very lengthy when we feel alone.”
Ain’t that the truth.
PIP,
You misunderstood my point…
Diana has been teaching us about telos, a philosophy that, I think, is about the “outcome” or “goal” of everything.
(from the Greek word for “end”, “purpose”, or “goal”) is an end or purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term “teleology,” roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle’s biology and in his theory of causes. It is central to nearly all philosophical theories of history, such as those of Hegel and Marx. One running debate in contemporary philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological language (as in the “purposes” of various organs or life-processes) is unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that can ultimately be spelled out nonteleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological vocabulary: on Davidson’s account, an action is just something an agent does with an intention–that is, looking forward to some end to be achieved by the action.
So I think what she is saying is that everything can ultimately be explained by looking at it’s purpose.
I am asking about beauty, truth, honor, virtue, love…because these things don’t fit the “it brings about a pleasant chemical reaction” answer…
The fact that beauty is subjective is why I brought it up. Not only are butterfly wings beautiful with no apparent “purpose”, the fact that we find them to be beautiful is just as confounding. Why? Why do we find some things beautiful. What is wonder and awe? What is honor? What is the purpose of these subjective sentiments?
What makes her beautiful to you and not me?
Another interesting thing to think about is the “golden mean” and the Fibonacci series. How do things turn our so “perfect”? Look at a sea shell. (Did you know that the lighting whelks opening is on the opposite side of every other shell like it?)
“The sequence, in which each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers is known as the Fibonacci series: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, … (each number is the sum of the previous two).”
“The Fibonacci numbers are Nature’s numbering system. They appear everywhere in Nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pinecone, or the scales of a pineapple. The Fibonacci numbers are therefore applicable to the growth of every living thing, including a single cell, a grain of wheat, a hive of bees, and even all of mankind.”
How does something like this happen randomly? How do people who don’t adhere to a creation theory, explain this?
We were saying that the markings on a butterfly do have apparent “purpose,” evolutionarily thinking. Most subjective thinking on beauty is just a philosophy question. Those that use science to back up their philosophical standard should answer to the questions, but don’t knock science for that, which people often do. It’s important to keep that separate, in my opinion. It just all depends. Individual scientists come from all different backrounds, and even some 80% of them believe in God.
Also, MK, evolution is anything but random! Mutation is “random” in the sense that they don’t occur with bias towards advantage or disadvantage–but forward evolution is the product of natural selection, which is NOT random at all!
I have not studied fibonacci numbers, but flowers probably were an advantage by having the number of petals or whatever. Maybe the number of petals could have increased light or any kind of reproductive and survival advantage, and this amount of petals was increased via natural selection.
Ask a botanist/mathematician. Perhaps they can provide a more specific evolutionary explanation..
Heh, heh Mk,
have never heard a good Darwinian (evolutionary) explanation for the existence of mosquitoes. Got one PP??????
just got this ……..
“A pastor entered his donkey in a race and it won.
The pastor was so pleased with the donkey that he entered it in the race again, and it won again.
The local newspaper read:
PASTOR’S ASS OUT FRONT.
The Bishop was so upset with this kind of publicity that he ordered the pastor not to enter the donkey in another race.
The next day, the local newspaper headline read:
BISHOP SCRATCHES PASTOR’S ASS.
This was too much for the bishop, so he ordered the pastor to get rid of the donkey. The pastor decided to give it to a nun in a nearby convent.
The local paper, hearing of the news, posted the following headline the next day:
NUN HAS BEST ASS IN TOWN.
The bishop fainted. He informed the nun that she would have to get rid of the donkey, so she sold it to a farmer for $10. The next day the paper read:
NUN SELLS ASS FOR $10.
This was too much for bishop, so he ordered the nun to buy back the donkey and lead it to the plains where it could run wild. The next day the headlines read:
NUN ANNOUNCES…HER ASS IS WILD AND FREE.
the bishop was buried the next day….
The moral of the story is…. Being concerned about public opinion can bring you much grief and misery … and even shorten your life. So be yourself and enjoy life….. Only worry about your own ASS not someone else’s…..You’ll be a lot happier and live longer!
John!! LOL I fell over laughing!..that was way too funny! I just have to share it with my hubby and some friends.
@John: That’s pretty funny, I think I heard a joke similar to that but it was about fishing and it had to do with the Pope…
Pip,
Diana is a philosophy major. That is the context that I am asking the questions. I get the the butterfly wings serve a purpose, the whole color thingy, but why in those specific patterns. That can’t be scientifically beneficial.
As to the Fibonacci series…read the link I sent you. It’s not about the number of petals. It’s about a freaky (no one can explain it) occurence in ALL of nature having to do with the ratio of one part to the whole…It’s perfection through mathematics. It’s dolphins, and sea shells and the Mona Lisa and flowers and the list is endless…
It happens over and over in nature. But why?
OMG… did john just tell a naughty joke?
LOL
I like to share but it’s a challenge comming up with one that doesn’t step over the line.
Did god happen randomly or non-randomly?
John,
Excellent joke…here’s one…
A man is traveling through a town and sees a sign that says “TO GET SCREWED BY THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR TURN RIGHT”
He turns right and stops in front of a convent.
He can’t believe it! He’s got to check it out.
So he gets out, climbs the stairs, rings the bell and sure enough a little nun in a full habit opens the door.
“Can I help you?” she asks.
“I saw a sign that said I could get screwed here by the little sisters of the poor. That can’t be true, can it” he asks.
“Absolutely” she replies “but it’s gonna cost ya!”
“How much?” he asks
“$400.00” she answers
“Fine” he says, not believing his luck. He hands her $400.00 and she points down the hall.
“Follow that hall till you reach the last door on the left. Open it go through it and you’ll get screwed…” she tells him.
He follows the hall and comes to the last door on the left. He takes a deep breath, does a quick hair comb, turns the knob, opens the door and steps through.
He finds himself in an alley. A sign is posted outside the door that says: Thank you for visiting and for your generous donation. You have just been screwed by the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Moral: Making assumptions with a closed mind is apt to get you screwed. Or don’t mess with nuns. Their boss is no chump, but screwin’ with Him is likely to make you one.
Hi MK,
there some stuff that doesn’t go into the science mode at all …. and that is humor … like trying to explain a joke …. would love to see a dissertation/dissection on the humor of Groucho Marx … then I think maybe I’d rather not!
Exactly John! I knew you’d understand!
“have never heard a good Darwinian (evolutionary) explanation for the existence of mosquitoes. Got one PP??????”
If anything that question should be for the creationists. Mosquitos evolved like every other species. Do species have to have a purpose for existence? What is the purpose or explanation for any other species? It’s all about reproduction and survival, so purpose in relation to us is subjective. Unless you have a creationist explanation? Part of the fall, perhaps?
“Diana is a philosophy major. That is the context that I am asking the questions”
I realize that, which is why I targeted your anti-science questions in particular. Sorry if we got confused. There tends to be a lot of anti-science sentiment when it really should be pointed another direction.
“I get the the butterfly wings serve a purpose, the whole color thingy, but why in those specific patterns. That can’t be scientifically beneficial.”
Sure it can. That’s exactly what evolution is about. Here is an article about patterns and evolution: http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34255
“As to the Fibonacci series…read the link I sent you. It’s not about the number of petals. It’s about a freaky (no one can explain it) occurence in ALL of nature having to do with the ratio of one part to the whole…It’s perfection through mathematics. It’s dolphins, and sea shells and the Mona Lisa and flowers and the list is endless…”
I don’t remember getting a link, but began researching it and I realize it is not just number of petals, but I used it for an example. I dont know a whole lot about it myself, but it is likely the ratio was widely beneficial across species. Again feel free to ask a mathematician or botanist or biologist or someone who has a better idea of how to explain it.
Pip,
The mystery still remains of how the two genes actually function to determine wing patterns. And as the scientists pursue the mystery, they hope to gain new insights into the intricacies of evolution at the molecular level and how natural selection drives evolution.
This explains (partly) the how of the changes and evolution of the wings…but not the why. And by their own admission, much of it remains a mystery…
As for the Fibonacci series? You can’t ask a mathematician or botanist or biologist because they are stumped. That’s my point. Can’t be adequately explained. Here’s a link :
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#petals
Hi PiP,
“I realize that, which is why I targeted your anti-science questions in particular. Sorry if we got confused. There tends to be a lot of anti-science sentiment when it really should be pointed another direction.”
You may be right … it is just hard to get your head around to the people-who-do-the-science (the scientists) are flawed people but science itself has a built-in correcting mechanism in ‘the method’. Please explain why the death of millions is about a flawed ‘oops’? People may no longer exist, but ‘hey, weren’t we smart?’
You may be right … it is just hard to get your head around to the people-who-do-the-science (the scientists) are flawed people but science itself has a built-in correcting mechanism in ‘the method’. Please explain why the death of millions is about a flawed ‘oops’? People may no longer exist, but ‘hey, weren’t we smart?’
John that’s exactly how I feel about much of the science talk…like when Diana and Less have said just recently that psychologists tortured little children, and yet it’s basically not a problem, because we have all this data to analize now. Hurray for Science! I realize they’re not directly saying the method is right, but I do feel that they justify it without meaning to, by saying that we should be happy to have the data anyway. Just forget the fact that others had to suffer or die unwillingly for that information…that’s irrelevant…because they “furthered science”… Just like embryonic stem cell research. For some reason, we’re not supposed to care that human lives are being used for research..because it “furthers science” …There are already more ethical ways to further science….human lives shouldn’t have to be sacrificed for Science.
Like you said, it’s certain people who DO the science who we have a problem with…not Science itself. There are more ethical ways to observe and evaluate.
“This explains (partly) the how of the changes and evolution of the wings…but not the why. And by their own admission, much of it remains a mystery…”
As you can see by the article, we have a good idea. But you are right, we haven’t locked into every aspect of its evolution, but that doesn’t mean we won’t. That is not a problem of natural mechanisms, it’s a problem of us fully understanding it.
“As for the Fibonacci series? You can’t ask a mathematician or botanist or biologist because they are stumped. That’s my point. Can’t be adequately explained”
Your website also explains that not EVERYTHING in nature has the numbers. Still, if indeed the presence of these patterns cannot be explained fully, I am sure someone is working on it. I just offered my explanation–that there might just be an evolutionary reason for the numbers and patterns in nature. Again, us not being able to fully understand it doesn’t mean that our theory is wrong, just that we haven’t discovered what selective factors were involved. If we do find out and it legitimately undermines the theory of evolution, we have to work out the kinks, obviously.
“it is just hard to get your head around to the people-who-do-the-science (the scientists) are flawed people but science itself has a built-in correcting mechanism in ‘the method’.”
Well, that’s right, humans are flawed. So far, the self-correcting “scientific method” is the only way to get less biased answers to natural phenomena, unless you have a better “method”?
“Please explain why the death of millions is about a flawed ‘oops’?”
Can you explain this fully? Like what you mean by that statement? Can’t you say the same or worse for religion? Wouldn’t you call religious violence an oops? Does that make it excusable? I’m pretty sure that science generally sees any deaths and unethical practices of the past a lesson learned and hopefully never happen again.
“People may no longer exist, but ‘hey, weren’t we smart?'”
Aren’t the scientists the ones offering ways to benefit the human species? What about those who say global warming is a myth and those that don’t try to help make our home a better and more liveable place? That most of the opposition comes from the religious right? I don’t really understand what this is trying to mean, then. It seems like those last two sentences can apply to the obstinate religious types more than scientists. Granted, every human is flawed. However, science at least admits this, whereas religion believes it is ultimately right and therefore surpasses this bit of humility. It can be dangerous.
“because we have all this data to analize now. Hurray for Science! ”
Ever read Brave New World? What happens when science is placed above morals and humanity. Scientists are also human, you know. It is the job of philosophy and religion (to an extent) to point out when science is going too far. For me this is another way for science to remain the honorable institution it is. We used to do awful experiements on chimps to help understand human behavior. We did get a good glimpse, but there is not a psychologist I have met that think doing such tests are ethically sound..
“because it “furthers scienc”
Most of the arguments for stem cell research are not to “further science” but to further “human health.” But I agree it is a question of ethics, so many scientists do disagree on the issue, actually, and my biochemistry professor in particular.
“human lives shouldn’t have to be sacrificed for Science.”
Nor should they have to be sacrificed for Religion. Any religion. We can all agree that no human lives should be sacrificed for any institution or educational reason, right?
“Like you said, it’s certain people who DO the science who we have a problem with…not Science itself. There are more ethical ways to observe and evaluate.”
I agree. But again you hint that the problem is with the “method” and not the “ethics.” Ethics puts down limits. Ethics is part of philosophy. This is what I mean by different areas complimenting each other.
Nor should they have to be sacrificed for Religion. Any religion. We can all agree that no human lives should be sacrificed for any institution or educational reason, right?
Are you implying that I have condoned sacrificing people for religion, or did you mean something else? I’m confused.
Hi Pip,
its obvious that you like making distinctions re. science … its method … its ethics … etc. But you love making sweeping generalities about ‘right wing religion’. Tis strange because I have extensive schooling in both disciplines. The world of religion is far wider and far more in-depth than any science … biochemistry and medicine included. [In common terms … such ‘science’ is chicken-feed!] The world of science is mainly about obtaining observational skills [the how’s]. The world of religion attempts to answer the why’s – vagaries of life … it is far more liquid than deterministic science.
Again the chacterization of science as being determinist or reductionist are mindsets of scientists and not the science itself. Flawed humans choose what science applies and how to apply it. Can anyone separate the action from the actor? Sounds much like the Church separating the sin from the sinner! [Seems like the science that is in use has more aspects than ‘pure science’. When referring to science as a religion, maybe that is a big part of it.]
there is the ontology aspect of science … how do you ‘know’ … does what you experience of a phenomenon and what I experience the same? Prove it. You nor anyone can prove … we accept truth on faith. Pretend that sensory input was not consistently the same …. on what basis would your knowledge be? You must believe in a consistent repetition for any science. Is this not faith?
“there is the ontology aspect of science … how do you ‘know’ … does what you experience of a phenomenon and what I experience the same? Prove it”
Just passing through and noticed this and had to say something. That’s epistemic, John, not ontological.
“Are you implying that I have condoned sacrificing people for religion, or did you mean something else? I’m confused.”
Sorry. I just meant that there is no excuse for taking human life. But sometimes the mistakes made in the past doesn’t undermine the majority of good things it has done for us–be it religion or science. I was making a distinction between mistakes and true ideologies. To say that science is responsible rather than scientists, it is like saying an entire religion is responsible rather than the individual religious.
“But you love making sweeping generalities about ‘right wing religion’.”
No, just pointing out that generalities go both ways. You can’t say that about science without realizing it could be turned around just as easily.
“The world of science is mainly about obtaining observational skills [the how’s]. The world of religion attempts to answer the why’s – vagaries of life … it is far more liquid than deterministic science.”
Exactly what I mean by complimenting rather than disregarding.
“there is the ontology aspect of science … how do you ‘know’ … does what you experience of a phenomenon and what I experience the same? Prove it.”
Science deals more with falsifiability rather than proof. But since faith is “belief without proof” I guess you are right. How about belief in the presence of repeatable experimentation, and falsifiable evidence? There is some faith in scientific practice, but faith in the sense of “confidence or trust in a thing.”
Simply put, the “faith” of science is different than the “faith” of religion. I believe in God myself, but I know there is a difference than trusting reliable standards and trusting an entity nobody can prove or falsify. This is why I must say something when someone says science is a religion. They are nowhere near the same thing. They don’t contradict each other.
“Flawed humans choose what science applies and how to apply it.”
Flawed humans choose what religion applies and how to apply it.
“Can anyone separate the action from the actor?”
Given that ulitarianism and science have gone much further than any religion to improve the human condition, it’s no suprise that you’d dig on the Kantian side of it and somehow, tenuously, find the alternative flawed. However the supiority arguments only illustrate a closed mind incapable of recognizing that each is appropriate in different sets of situations.
“Is this not faith?”
True faith finds its authority in the supernatural. No amount of ontological stoner talk makes the epistemological assumptions, made for the purposes of pursuing the scientific method, a supernatural authority.
Hi PiP,
figured I should attempt to answer you, eh?
“it is just hard to get your head around to the people-who-do-the-science (the scientists) are flawed people but science itself has a built-in correcting mechanism in ‘the method’.”
Well, that’s right, humans are flawed. So far, the self-correcting “scientific method” is the only way to get less biased answers to natural phenomena, unless you have a better “method”?
guess one of the biggest problems I encounter is what is the acceptable response to “natural phenomena” … even what is considered “natural” = boringly repetitious and what is unique = not boring … please classify … moon trajectory around the earth; solar eclipse; snowflake in a blizzard; pictures from the Hubble telescope; global warming; a newborn human. Science is usually without awe (so-called objectivity). Does this also not hide indifference/callousness?
“Please explain why the death of millions is about a flawed ‘oops’?”
Can you explain this fully? Like what you mean by that statement? Can’t you say the same or worse for religion? Wouldn’t you call religious violence an oops? Does that make it excusable? I’m pretty sure that science generally sees any deaths and unethical practices of the past a lesson learned and hopefully never happen again.”
A past lesson can also serve as a prototype… we do not necessarily ‘learn’. Example: re. a positive posting @ earth day – ‘I really am concerned that there is somehow a huge disconnect here: many environmentalists talk about the human footprint being much too large as of now. [The ‘footprint’ is a measure of how large the human impact on the environment is.] One of the ways to reduce the impact is to reduce the number of humans. As hard as this is to believe:
Already started at Codex in Rome: objective – reduce world population immediately 2 BILLION + (more in the short term) 1 BILLION –
HOW – in the last few days – no upper limit on crop pesticides
– permit industrial toxins in food that were so bad that by voluntary
agreement were banned by all nations in 2001
– history – – force GMO (non-labeled) food in Europe
– change organic rules to allow GMO and irradiated foods – not labeled
– force countries to NOT assist in times of famine
– etc.
What does ‘green’ mean? – become a cemetery owner? Maybe the bandwagon is filled with human-lemmings? SHOW START TIME – THIS FALL (2007)’
Science often changes things … it doesn’t often advance/improve anything … a step-backward … a regression may be as marked … eg. modern electric fields intersecting and interfering with normal body electric fields (books by Robert O. Becker).
“People may no longer exist, but ‘hey, weren’t we smart?'”
Aren’t the scientists the ones offering ways to benefit the human species? – No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What about those who say global warming is a myth … often we too say global warming IS occurring, but we vehemently disagree that human C02 emissions are the CAUSE or EVEN CONTRIBUTE MUCH.
“and those that don’t try to help make our home a better and more liveable place?”
… THE ATTEMPT IS TO BECOME RICHER … MOST DRUG RESEARCH IS THUS DIRECTED … your needs are of little motivation
“That most of the opposition comes from the religious right? ”
… someone has to stop this insanity – No!
“I don’t really understand what this is trying to mean, then. It seems like those last two sentences can apply to the obstinate religious types more than scientists. Granted, every human is flawed. However, science at least admits this, whereas religion believes it is ultimately right and therefore surpasses this bit of humility. It can be dangerous.”
sheer cr**! One day’s killing by Stalin (who rid Russia of religion) was higher than 3 centuries of the Inquisition. In the last century, alone some of the regimes that purposely tried to rid their societies of religion were Communist regimes … estimated death toll = 100 million.
Hey John,
Abortion passed that number up years ago…
“guess one of the biggest problems I encounter is what is the acceptable response to “natural phenomena” … even what is considered “natural” = boringly repetitious and what is unique = not boring ”
Where does this come in? Since when did natural mean boring? A biologist obviously loves their field, and does not find their subject matter boring at all! So what is the problem? That you think we all find natural things to be boring? And since when is natural phenomena not unique?
“Science is usually without awe (so-called objectivity). Does this also not hide indifference/callousness?”
Science is as objective as possible, but that does not mean that the phenomena studied does not inspire awe. Even though biochemistry is one of my least favorite aspects of biology, I still find it awe inspiring how coordinated many of the reactions are (like the citric acid cycle). Science is facts. But that doesn’t mean it promotes indifference or callousness–if anything it creates the passion for detail that scientists are known for. I’m surprised you asked this, as you have more scientific experience than I.
“Already started at Codex in Rome”
Citation please? This is the first I’ve heard of this, and may very well be a minority. Most scientific ideas concerning global impact is to reduce harmful activities and find alternatives to phase them out..
” No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
If the benefits of science aren’t a greater understanding of the world around us, including a greater ability to manipulate our resources, in turn increasing technology and medical science to benefit humanity….what are they?
“often we too say global warming IS occurring, but we vehemently disagree that human C02 emissions are the CAUSE or EVEN CONTRIBUTE MUCH.”
Why? Even if our contribution is smaller than we think, the stuff we are doing currently obviously isn’t good. Why not go for cleaner fuel while we can? A win-win situation. Are we too wrapped up in our lifestyles to try to change fuel efficiency? Talk about convenience at the expense of others…
“… THE ATTEMPT IS TO BECOME RICHER … MOST DRUG RESEARCH IS THUS DIRECTED … your needs are of little motivation”
Since when are all scientific endeavors selfish? Are you assuming all researchers are making lots of money? And when are pharmeceutical companies representative of all other research institutions?
“… someone has to stop this insanity – No!”
Where does it come from? Please tell me, where does the major opposition come from?
” One day’s killing by Stalin (who rid Russia of religion) was higher than 3 centuries of the Inquisition.”
I wasn’t doing an athiest/theist society experiment. Not counting number of deaths or anything. Just saying the nature of the two. Science is at the hands of the people, flawed beings. We naturally try to make it as unbiased as possible through various means but everything is a little human-biased. Whereas, religion is at the hands of God, a perfect being. So the two are very different and separate ideas with different goals.
Just hear me out here. I am religious so I’m not trying to be like, “ho hum, religion bad, science good.” Humans are inherently flawed either way. But science is not a religion for the same reason [insert religion here] is a religion. Scientists are people from all different ideologies–some atheist, most theist, many Catholics and Christians. But a religion is a specific set of specific ideologies that the person adheres to.
Also, when I was talking about issues like global climate change, I was referring to a group of religious individuals with a political slant. They generally oppose even established theories like evolution. I was not insulting the group as a whole, but criticizing them for being anti-science in general.
I guess my main question for you, John, is this:
You feel you have experience in the scientific field. Where do you see yourself in the scientific world? There seem to be areas you are very disillusioned with, and while I do understand the dislike of pharmeceutical companies, what other fields are you so against? And why? I feel like I’m trying to say something you don’t understand, or that I’m assuming things about you that aren’t true.
I propose that you are not against science per se, but against ideologies of some scientists or certain companies. If so, your dialogues confuse me a lot, because it almost seems to say one thing and then another (e.g. it is just the scientists, but while we are at it, everything is just about money and not people…). Can I just ask you to clarify this for me, so I can read your posts in the correct perspective? thanks.
Hi PiP,
You are correct: the information collected by science is typically neutral. Almost all of it (read quote by Robert O. Becker above. ‘Pure science’ rarely happens because it is not funded. http://www.chenier.org ) is interpreted by flawed people – and this includes me, politicians, media hounds, salesmen, scientists, etc.
[What would happen if T. Beardon is correct, Historically such ‘rengades’ (if successful) have gotten murdered.] We all have an agenda. For everyone their own agenda is good … a wee bit of profit helps sell the merit of any stance. Eg. pro-abortion is ‘good’ business because many people get paid for doing this. A few decades back, some people got well paid to assemble H-bombs … a ‘flawed’ consequence of Einstein’s theories. Is the global warming bit pushed by a political agenda? Read and listen to the video about Codex at http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php Some people think the war on cancer a joke. Dr. Ralph Moss was hired by the Sloan-Kettering Institute specifically to discredit and deride any natural remedies that showed promise. Folks like him call this a ‘cancer industry’ and others claim that the whole of orthodox medicine is reliant on an old-science and is a ‘disease industry’ …. pharmaceutical companies/doctors/hospital profits increase as sickness increases … cures are mere delaying tactics … sickness is managed & rarely cured.