[SPasse]

Ninong,

“However, rather than get into a discussion of whether it is moral to abort a second or third trimester fetus, let's address the question of whether it is moral to use a blastocyst that is less than a week old for stem-cell research -- a blastocyst that would have been destroyed anyway because it was not wanted by the owners who did not need it for IVF.”

I believe that human beings come into “existence” at the moment of fertilization. Up until that point, it is just a “birth control” decision so all forms of contraception that do not abort a fertilized egg are OK.

I also disagree with IVF because many eggs are fertilized and only the ones that are successfully implanted (and carried to term) “live” So if you outlawed IVF, you would loose the “lets not waste blastocyst/embryos” argument.

The Catholic Church (and other Christian Fundamentalist churches) consider the pill a potential form of abortion because in addition to its “usual” method of contraception (prevention of ovulation) it will sometimes inhibit the implantation of a fertilized egg.

The Catholic Church does believe that “every act of sexual intercourse must be open to the possibility of reproduction”. By the way, this perspective also forbids other forms of sexual expression that don’t culminate in penetrative vaginal sexual intercourse. I do not support this perspective.

I also don’t support the Catholic Church’s position (probation) on barrier methods or the use of condoms for disease prevention.

Vasectomies and Tubal Ligation (sterilization) for couples not wishing to have children (or any more children) is fine.

IMO, the Catholic Church is not being consistent about contraception as they do allow “natural family planning” (AKA the rhythm method) so splitting hairs about “natural vs. unnatural” methods is hard to support.

I am also, no longer in “favor” of Capitol Punishment. If for no other reason than that it is not (and probably can not be) evenhandedly applied. (Think O.J. Simpson) I guess this at least makes me more “consistently” “pro-life”

Regards,

Scott

[Fish R.Ph.]

It is encouraging to me to hear people talking about and thinking through these difficult issues. Anyone who thinks they have found a simple solution to the issue of morality has simply not studied the issue very closely in my opinion.

The fact that we can discuss the "specifics" of morality, to me, again testifies to the existance of a universal moral law.

Governments pass laws. But we can stand back and evaluate a law and say "this law was GOOD or this law was BAD". Therefore, the moral law transcends the legal framework of a society.

We can look at two cultures. One tries to love their neighbor. One tries to eat their neighbor. And we can decide which culture is better or worse. The moral law transcends cultures.

We can look at the church with all her faults and history of hypocrisy and say "this position is wrong" or "this position is right". The moral law transcends religion itself.

And then we can look into our own hearts. We regret our times of selfishness or cruelty. We recognize a failure to live up to a standard written their on our hearts. The moral law transcends ourselves.

Friends, I simply see no logical and consistent answer to this question than the answer that God Himself exists, and has established this moral law in the universe...however poorly we have measured up.

Remove God from the picture, and the objective basis for morality is gone.

-Jason

[mistermikev]

wow, you have courage.
brings to mind my fav biblical wisdom: "the pages of the bible are written on the hearts of men".

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

I believe that human beings come into “existence” at the moment of fertilization.

Which is the position the Bush Administration would like to see codified into law. It is, however, a position based on a particular religion and not science. It is based on the religious concept of a soul.

It is interesting to note, as I have pointed out on two or three previous occasions in these discussions that not all Christian denominations accept this determination. Mormons certainly do not. According to the Book of Mormon, every human being exists as a separate individual soul in Heaven waiting to come down to Earth to take up residence in its body. This cannot happen until some point after the fertilized egg has implanted in the lining of the uterus and become a viable embryo. This belief allows Mormon congresspersons to be both anti-abortion and pro-stem-cell research. In fact, I read an article a couple of years ago that said that all six then current Mormon Senators (5 Rep & 1 Dem) supported stem-cell research.

It is the current dogma of the Catholic Church that life begins at conception but it has not always been this clear cut. Thomas Aquinas, the most famous Catholic theologian, was quite specific on this point and he placed it the end of the first trimester, not conception. That's because he promoted the concept of three different stages in the development of the soul. The third and final stage, which was the only one that counts as being human, was not present until about three months after conception.

I also disagree with IVF because many eggs are fertilized and only the ones that are successfully implanted (and carried to term) “live” So if you outlawed IVF, you would loose the “lets not waste blastocyst/embryos” argument.

Yes, you would lose that argument if you accept the position that the one-minute-old fertilized ovum is a person with full constitutional rights.

The Catholic Church (and other Christian Fundamentalist churches) consider the pill a potential form of abortion because in addition to its “usual” method of contraception (prevention of ovulation) it will sometimes inhibit the implantation of a fertilized egg.

In fact, it was widely advertised as preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg until it was later discovered that this rarely happened. It's effective by preventing ovulation.

The Catholic Church does believe that “every act of sexual intercourse must be open to the possibility of reproduction”. By the way, this perspective also forbids other forms of sexual expression that don’t culminate in penetrative vaginal sexual intercourse. I do not support this perspective.

The Catholic Church does not accept any interference with reproduction. So all forms of birth control are prohibited, including all forms of contraception. As far as sexual expression is concerned, it is only recently that the Church has come around to the position that it is not sinful to enjoy the act. And the Church's position of "penetrative vaginal sexual intercourse" was once much, much more restrictive than current teachings. Anything other than the standard missionary position was officially classified as sodomy. In particular, intercourse with the woman superior to the supine male was considered sodomy. The "spilling of one's seed" -- male masturbation -- was also called sodomy. You will find this prohibition in both the Bible and the Koran. Remember that at that time it was believed that life resided in the man's "seed" alone. The concept of the human egg was not yet understood.

When we talk about the Church's teachings on sexual intercourse, let's not forget that the Church teaches that the highest form of sexual intercourse is absolute abstinence. In fact, to achieve perfection, the Church, and the Bible, teaches that one should perform the act of self-castration, if one "can accept it." And St. Paul was quite clear that celebacy was the ideal way to go through life.

I also don’t support the Catholic Church’s position (probation) on barrier methods or the use of condoms for disease prevention.

Vasectomies and Tubal Ligation (sterilization) for couples not wishing to have children (or any more children) is fine.

IMO, the Catholic Church is not being consistent about contraception as they do allow “natural family planning” (AKA the rhythm method) so splitting hairs about “natural vs. unnatural” methods is hard to support.

The Catholic Church has never given unconditional approval to abstinence (rythym method) as a means of birth control. Pope Pius XI released Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930 setting out the official church position on sexual intercourse. Prior to this encyclical, it was held by many Catholic theologians that the only purpose of sexual intercourse was procreation. Even coitus interruptus was prohibited. Actually coitus interruptus is still considered an unacceptable method of birth control but I'm sure it's something they would rather not have to discuss now that they have given conditional approval to the rythym method.

In Casti Connubii, the Church reiterates its long held postion against any form of birth control:

"...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

The Church in Casti Connubii acknowledges for the first time that there are other aspects to sexual intercourse besides procreation, such as the "cultivating of mutual love." It also specifically gave permission for older women and infertile couples to engage in intercourse even though there is no possibility of children resulting from the act.

"Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."

The 'natural reasons of time or of certain defects' refers to menopause and infertility. It was never intended to cover abstinence during those days in a woman's cycle when she is fertile. This is clear from the admonition that the couple must consider "the primary end" and "the intrinsic nature of the act."

However, many Catholics chose to read this as permitting natural family planning -- limiting sexual relations to the infertile phase of a woman's menstrual cycle -- and Pope Pius XII in 1951 recognized this as a viable option where sufficient reason exists to avoid or postpone pregnancy. It was not fully addressed until 1968 with the release of Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, which allowed the rythym method because it takes advantage of "a faculty provided by nature." However, it is still the position of the Church that "sufficient reason" must exist to allow the couple to choose abstinence as a way of avoiding or postponing pregnancy.

The Catholic Church is boxed in on the subject of contraception because it's position is firmly rooted in 'infallible' dogma. Obviously they will never approve of contraception for unmarried couples because extra-marital sexual intercourse is prohibited. If they ever approve of the use of condoms as a method of preventing the spread of disease, it will have to be for married couples only.

I am also, no longer in “favor” of Capitol Punishment. If for no other reason than that it is not (and probably can not be) evenhandedly applied. (Think O.J. Simpson) I guess this at least makes me more “consistently” “pro-life”

I'm against capital punishment because I don't think it's morally acceptable but I have to agree that I have a hard time holding this conviction in some cases. I can't imagine how anyone can support capital punishment for a 15-yr-old and claim to be a Christian but a lot of Christians do. I have no trouble at all being against capital punishment for minors no matter what the crime but I freely admit that I am tempted to approve of it for some older murderers.

[mistermikev]

soul is recognised by science: philosophy.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

Remove God from the picture, and the objective basis for morality is gone.

Not really. It's still there whether one believes in God or not. Einstein was certainly a moral person and yet he didn't believe in God in any sense that would be acceptable to any of the Christian denominations. He didn't believe in hell either and yet I don't recall him ever being arrested for stealing other people's property, which is what many fundamentalist Christian preachers would have us believe must inevitably happen if we are allowed to suspend believe in eternal damnation and suffering in hell for our evil deeds.

Morality is not dependent on a belief in God and a belief in God does not guarantee a moral character. Christianity teaches that we can only be 'saved' if we believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. If God exists, it is much more important at the time of judgment that He believes in us. 'Blind faith' is of little value and contrary to our supposedly God-given ability to engage in rational thought. If God exists, which I seriously doubt, I'm sure He will be capable of sorting out the 'good' from the 'bad.'

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

In my opinion, all the classical arguments for the existence of God fall far short of the persuasive power of this argument: the sense of moral law, right and wrong, good and evil. It is a sort of evidence for God's existence we all carry around inside us.

I think you can argue that the sense of moral law is not innate, but rather a product of one's experiences, upbringing, and societal norms.

Or that it has a subconscious evolutionary biological basis, i.e. if I treat others well it will benefit me in the long run.

Do we know that every person has this sense of moral law? What about sociopaths?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by mistermikev

soul is recognised by science: philosophy.

Philosophy is not science in the usual meaning of the word. We usually use the word 'science' to mean the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena through systematic observation and experimentation. Neither philosophy nor theology meet that definition.

The concept of the soul is strictly a religious concept based on faith. It can be neither proved nor disproved and is therefore not subject to the scientific method.

[mistermikev]

there are many scientific theorums that cannot be proven or unproven... yet.
like the bible "science" is constantly in contridiction of itself. Remember that whole "we thought the universe revolved around the earth" thing? My whole problem with science is it is often proven wrong, given time. Don't get me wrong I believe the earth goes round the sun. Therefore I am a believer.
AFA not a science: Replication is the defense you are looking for, I believe. Philosophy has no repeatable results. All scientific study starts with a theory... whether it is proven or not doesn't neccessarily make it more or less scientific.
The soul is not merely a religous entity as it is studied by philosophy. That is my whole point. It does exist beyond religion if only in the minds of men.
One more thing... what if we are all just brains in jars??? hmmm? LOL

[mistermikev]

ps math is not a science because it exists only in the minds of men. We cannot prove that there are infinite primes but we believe it... why? Because you yourself have seen infinity and proven that there are primes out there? or because there is a theorum that suggests that there are infinitely many prime numbers.

[Ninong]

It is the scientific method that distinguishes science from philosophy or theology. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. The scientific method constantly corrects previous positions by integrating new knowledge based on new observations and empirical evidence. Disproving something is a very important part of the scientific method.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by mistermikev

All scientific study starts with a theory...

You meant to say "hypothesis." Your use of the word "theory" in this context does not agree with its scientific definition.

[mistermikev]

theory, hypothesis, whos counting? Either is a guess when it all boils right down to it. BTW we can prove that 1=2. We can also prove that 1 != 2. You can replicate both results.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by mistermikev

theory, hypothesis, whos counting? Either is a guess when it all boils right down to it.

No, that's not correct. A scientific theory is NOT a guess.

[mistermikev]

in general terms... a hypothesis is a "guess" about how something might work. A theory, if you will, about a result or outcome of a method.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by mistermikev

A theory, if you will, about a result or outcome of a method.

Your useage of the word "theory" is not the same as mine. When I use the word "theory," I use it only in it's strict scientific definition.

[Fish R.Ph.]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Not really. It's still there whether one believes in God or not. Einstein was certainly a moral person and yet he didn't believe in God in any sense that would be acceptable to any of the Christian denominations. He didn't believe in hell either and yet I don't recall him ever being arrested for stealing other people's property, which is what many fundamentalist Christian preachers would have us believe must inevitably happen if we are allowed to suspend believe in eternal damnation and suffering in hell for our evil deeds.

This is a good observation, however the point is not whether morality requires belief in God, but only whether an objective basis for morality exists in the absence of a transcendent moral law giver.

The fact that we can look at Einstein and say that his life was "good", and at the same time look at a religous charlatan who steals and lies and say his life is "bad" argues again that we accept an absolute universal moral law, the origins of which have no objective, consistent, logical ground apart from the belief in God. I, at least, cannot see a rational foundation for it.

If we say it comes from ourselves, then it begs the question of where we got it from. And it is only moving the argument in circles to say society, culture, history, etc.

Again, I respect those who are not equally persuaded by this line of reasoning.

-Jason

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

If we say it comes from ourselves, then it begs the question of where we got it from.

Not really. Your argument is the same as one of Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God, which he adapted from Aristotle's Metaphysics.

We're back to the concept of a Prime Mover again. This is a religious concept based on faith more than logic. I believe Aristotle used the Greek word logos, which Aquinas adopted in teaching that there exists in us a sense of logos that is intrinsic to our being. The Greek word logos appears in the Bible and in that context it is usually translated as "word" -- "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Artistotle and Aquinas used it to mean "reason." If you change the translation to "reason" instead of "Word," you end up with a summation of your argument for the existence of God. The concept of morality is tied to the concept of reason. A rational being is a moral being, if in proper working order. You and Aquinas offer this as a proof for the existence of God.

You know, some people use the Big Bang Theory as confirmation of the existence of God, too, and yet Stephen Hawking doesn't quite look at it that way because he looks at it as change and not creation, or, to use Aquinas' phrase creatio ex nihilo and as Aquinas would say, "creatio non est mutatio." Hawking doesn't view it as creation from nothing, he views it as change to a pre-existing condition with no beginning. Depending on your perspective, it's either simply a matter of semantics or a basic disagreement over the fundamental concept of God. I don't see any of the logical arguments as proof for the concept of God as defined by Christianity or any of the other religions for that matter. We could come closer to agreement if you removed about 99% of the excess stuff that has been tacked on over the years. I used to have trouble accepting the concept of infinite time until I read Hawking's explanation that time and space are intrinsically joined and time cannot exist without space. In other words, without something to measure, time does not exist.

The arguments against the existence of God as defined by the Church are more convincing that the arguments in favor, but this is a matter that cannot be proved or disproved, so we are all free to believe what we will.


__________________________________________________ _______


"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." -Hippocrates

[Fish R.Ph.]

Originally Posted by Ninong

You know, some people use the Big Bang Theory as confirmation of the existence of God, too, and yet Stephen Hawking doesn't quite look at it that way because he looks at it as change and not creation, or, to use Aquinas' phrase creatio ex nihilo and as Aquinas would say, "creatio non est mutatio." Hawking doesn't view it as creation from nothing, he views it as change to a pre-existing condition with no beginning. Depending on your perspective, it's either simply a matter of semantics or a basic disagreement over the fundamental concept of God. I don't see any of the logical arguments as proof for the concept of God as defined by Christianity or any of the other religions for that matter.

Yes, the very fact that men of such brilliance as Stephen Hawking (on the agnostic side) and John Polkinghorn (on the theistic side) can come to opposite conclusions should teach us to tread lightly.

Another way to approach the dilema is from the angle of "meaning" or "purpose" in life. Kant tried to establish a moral law theory purely from reason, but admitted he did so only after deriving a theory of meaning beforehand. Therefore, morality is determined based on its consistency with our purpose. Of course, he was working within a theistic framework.

But I do wonder if my friends from an agnostic or atheistic conviction can articulate a personal sense of meaning and purpose for life, along with the basis upon which this purpose is grounded. I have a hard time seeing how matter plus time plus chance can provide a basis for meaning and purpose. I'm not saying that an atheist cannot live a nobel life. They can and do. But why?

Respectfully,
Jason

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

But I do wonder if my friends from an agnostic or atheistic conviction can articulate a personal sense of meaning and purpose for life, along with the basis upon which this purpose is grounded.

You don't have to believe in an afterlife to believe that life is worth living and worth living well.

I have a hard time seeing how matter plus time plus chance can provide a basis for meaning and purpose. I'm not saying that an atheist cannot live a nobel life. They can and do. But why?

Why not? And you should avoid the use of the word "chance" because it has a certain unsavory connotation in that it is frequently used by people who have no concept whatsoever of the workings of evolution.

All of the moralistic arguments for the existence of God begin with the assumption that God exists and then set about trying to support that assumption. There is a certain similarity between all religions, both past and present, because they are all based on the same human fears and uncertainties. I wonder how many planets Jesus was crucified on? Surely God would want to treat each of His creations equally? Of the two or three hundred billion galaxies in the current known universe, each having anywhere from 100 billion to 2 trillion stars with an untold number of planets, I wonder how many of them are populated with advanced species in the image and likeness of God deserving of redemption? Or maybe they didn't need to be redeemed?

The questions may sound silly but that's only because all of our religions are based on an incredibly arrogant view of our own position on our own little planet. Of course, it wasn't that long ago that you could get burned at the stake for even hinting that the Earth wasn't all there was. And all of this was based on a collection of works of unknown authorship. Even the New Testament is a collection of assorted writings that are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but there is no real proof who wrote them. We do know, for instance, that the Gospel attributed to Mark, which is the oldest, stopped at 16:8. The resurrection scene (9-20) was added late in the second century when the Church was trying to get the four gospels that were selected to make up the New Testament to agree with each other. The earliest copies of Mark do not contain 16:9-20. It still amazes me that Revelation was included at all. Was John the Divine on acid? Revelation is weird enough without adding to it but many fundamentalist Christians have added something called the Rapture. There is nothing in the Book of Revelation about a Rapture. That was added in the 19th century by someone with an overactive imagination.

And why is it that every one of the major religions thinks it necessary to insist that their particular holy book is divinely inspired? Could they all be divinely inspired? What about the 30 or more gospels that were not included in the New Testament? Were they divinely inspired? How did the Church know which four were divinely inspired? The Church has been rewriting the Bible since the second century. And even the Anglicans were shrewd enough to know that they should insist that their revision of the Bible (King James version) was divinely inspired. How is this any different than the popes claiming infallibility when speaking ex cathedra? Speaking of which, it has always amazed me that Pope Pius XII in 1950 should decide that the Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God, was an indisputable fact and from that point on official dogma of the Catholic Church. How come no one else thought to make that a requirement of belief earlier? As late as 56 years ago we had a Pope who believed in Heaven as a physical place up in the clouds somewhere. Does that mean that the body of the Mother of Jesus (assuming Jesus was crucified on all the other trillions of planets) was assumed into Heaven on each of those other planets, too? And did Jesus have a different Mother for each planet? You can't have a different Jesus for each planet because that would violate the doctrine of the Trinity of God. I guess that would require that he have the same Mother on each planet? How is this different than a belief that Santa Claus visits every house on the planet on Christmas Eve? I believed that up until about the age of seven.

When you think about it, religion really does require a lot of faith.