There are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the US where it hasn't happened either, many of which are larger than the UNAM. Yet you site a single school in Mexico as proof that gun laws in the US are the problem? What next, site the lack of poor people inside Bellas Artes as proof that there is no poverty in Mexico?
Moron.
I grew up in Mexico, and trust me, I feel a lot safer anywhere in the US than I do anywhere in Mexico city. Still that's besides the point.
Obviously, you did not learn anything about logic there. Shame, because the UNAM is a good school.
No one has presented "the disprovability" of God as an argument to believe, and no, I'm not so dense as to attempt to build on such an argument a valid case for the existance of God (hence my previous comments about your prerogative to build strawmen such as the tiny elephants).
In fact, the only argument that has been a purported way to prove or disprove anything is in your orginal post. I am merely pointing out that such an argument really proves or disproves nothing beyond refuting the flawed arguments of those few "intelligent design" proponents that also pretend to understand the nature of how God operates (hint: The idea of an intelligent designer per se assumes nothing of how God operates).
If I wanted to build a case for God there are, as I said, a number of concepts that are possible only if we assume that a God exist. There are some very compelling epistemological theories about the nature of knowledge and how it may relate to God. In additional, there are philosophical excercises such as the Pascal wager that can be used to further bolster the case for faith. But that is not the scope of this discussion, and all the arguments in the world mean little if your mind is closed anyway, hence the need for faith (open mind), but I digress once more.
The scope of this discussion is your offered "disproval" for intelligent design, which offers virtually nothing in the way of disproval to those that don't have a caricatured idea of God.
Correction: I should've said "no source is needed for anything relative" rather than a "source is not needed for anything". There are some fixed concepts that can't exist without the existance of a God, but that's a separate discussion.
I should say "no source is needed for anything relative" rather than a "source is not needed for anything". There are some fixed concepts that can't exist without the existance of a God.
I am not determined to ignore your point, a point that you made well in your second post. Your original post merely claimed that the whole concept of intelligent design is somehow invalid because of random design. When in fact, "the appearance of design" does nothing to prove or disprove if there is a designer.
As far as a "source" not being needed, one is not needed for anything. For example, you can be well behaved and moral without having a God, too. However, in my opinion the likelyhood that the majority of humanity will behave in the same way if they did not believe in a God is very unlikely. (In my opinion, the very fact that we can easily agree on the existance of the very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is unlikey without God, but I digress).
As far as your cheap shot with little elephants, surely you are well aware that little elephants can be disproven. That can't be the case with God as a source (for "random design", for morality, for the universe, etc.). As I've said before, you are very welcome to make fun by raising the argument that people simply imagine things, but that's neither here nor there in regards to faith.
The "appearance of design" is what modern random design techniques already accomplish, except of course that there is nothing random about it's functionality and goals(for example, chemicals and land use can be "designed" by more or less steering a random process). In some cases, "random design" is merely another name for the "appearance of design." In a very real sense, we can design "purposeful randomness."
The fact that we understand how random design works does nothing to invalidate the concept that the universe may be designed, complete with its "randomness." I must concede, however, that it does invalidate the traditional "intelligent design" theories that are based on a static designer (static in the sense that it just designed and created all complexity at once). What an understanding of "random design" does not tell us, is if the entire "random" creation process (e.g. evolution), does or does not have an ultimate goal and hence, it's a process designed with a purpose from the beginning. In this sense, an intelligent designer can't be proven nor disproven because once again it just becomes a matter of faith.
To put it simply, just because the theory of evolution does not require an active designer, it does not mean that the process has not been designed to yield specific goals, similarly to how we use randomness as a design tool today.
Nope, it only discredits design as far as a traditional views of what we have historically understood by design. However, our very understanding of "design" is changing. How can you prove of disprove that a "random" occurence wasn't meant to be part of the 'design'? Random techniques are used to create purposeful designs every day (an example: http://www.netsci.org/Science/Screening/feature09. html).
Unfortunately, it's a little bit too easy to commit the folly of ascribing purely human abilities to something that is by nature undefined, and that many of us call God. Hell, the very concept of 'random' in the context of someting that is undefined and infinite makes little sense. By nature, neither God nor the way he/she/it accomplishes things can be defined. That's why it's purely a matter of faith. You can certainly counter by claiming that people are imagining everything, and that's your prerogative (I happen to believe). You cannot, however, simply "dicredit" something that you can't even define by using a concept within a very limited scope (the scope of "design" as it has traditionally pertained only to human rationality).
Thanks. I knew that Bush had said several times that he had intelligence indicating that Saddam had WMDs and/or was working on them, but the "know exactly were to find them" bit threw me off.
The President also said that Iraq had vast quantities of WMDs, and that they knew exactly where they were hidden and it was just a matter of going in and getting them.
Pardon me if I take your post with a grain of salt, but could you support some evidence of this claim? In what speech did Bush came out and said "Iraq has vast quantities of WMD", or that they knew exactly where they were hidden, etc. I hear claims like this all of the time, but it would be nice if someone posted some in-context supporting quotes for a change.
For the same reason that the ACLU defends the rights of Muslims even though there are very powerful Muslim organizations in this country: It's the "C" and the "L" part of their name, which at one point in the distant past actually meant something.
The real reason they don't defend gun rights, though, has very little to do with the existence of the NRA, and a lot to do with the fact that they pick and choose which liberties they happen to believe in at any given time.
Why then did the ACLU threaten to sue the County of Los Angeles for the tiny cross in the seal? Either the cross in the seal at the top of the mission represented the religous history of the city, or an "agent" endorsement of any religion. Problem is, the goddess Pomona figures much more prominently in the seal and no fuss was made about that, so how could the cross be "an agent" endorsement of christianity but Pomona not be "an agent" endorsement of paganism?
I'm sorry, but your definition of religious endorsement, while acceptable and reasonable, is not the ACLU's definition of religous endorsement. I wish that the ACLU thought as you did, but in reality they are rabidly anti-christian to the point of attempting to re-write history. At the same time, they do defend the rights of other religions such as Islam.
When it comes to religion, and as someone else said, gun control too, the ACLU does pick and choose their battles based on a clearly left-wing political agenda.
Why would you assume that abortion would be any different?
My point exactly. So in essence, we are talking about a law without teeth. If you want not to perform a procedure or drug, don't hire the appropiate personnel or carry the drug. I would think that you would be against such a loophole, being that you are for forcing religion out of medicine.
Your constant reference to the decision to leave religion as "brainwashing" indicates that you are too biased to have a meaningful opinion on the subject. Anything further that you write on it is just drivel.
Why wouldn't it be brainwashing? From dictionary.com:
1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.
You can see how definition no. 2 applies when you are at impressionable high-school ages and when you think you should rebel against the status quo and you think you know everything. Someone in high school does not typically know anything about religion, even those that go to church every Sunday. Don't tell me that there aren't repeated anti-religion suggestion in high school. By the same token, if you dare to speak positively about religion in high school, you are considered a pirahia at best, and disciplinary action is taken against you at worse. As you can see, such as environmen fits definition 2 of brainwashing to a tee. No one that knows an adequate amount about religion would make the terribly ignorant statement that religion has been the cause of mostly problems throughout history. Such an innacurate statement suggest that 1, you are terribly ignorant of religion (you didn't even know what role it played in the genesis of modern western culture), and that 2, you've only considered one side, perhaps because you've been exposed to only one side (see the definition of brainwashing above). This bring me to your answer about what you've read.
Since you've read everything I've mentioned, please tell me what Aquinas has to do with the modern concept of "natural law". Please also inform me of what Pascal's main argument for faith is. Please tell me what are the basis for the ethical standards behind the Catholic canon. Also, I would like to know what caused Job to fall from grace. It shouldn't be too difficult to answer those very basic questions behind the literary works that I've mentioned if you've read them.
And to answer your challenge in turn, no I haven't read the Koran but I've read fragments of the Vedas. In general, I'm more interested with the roots of western thought before the roots of eastern thought. I've also read a little bit of confuscionism and of course, the Torah. I've also read plenty on classical philosophy including Kant, Plato, Descartes, Bacon, Hume, Nietzche, Rousseau, etc. Though I'm no expert on philosophy (I was a Phil. major for only 1.5 years), I've been exposed to a few ideas, both secular and religious.
Let's cut to the chase. You think that I've been "brainwashed". You think that you have some superior insight. Present your arguments for Christianity. Right here. Right now.
Yes, as I've explained before, I think that you have been brainwashed, but I don't hold that against you. You have to consider that brainwashing is a lot more subtle than we think. Do you know that most people prefer the taste of Pepsi but buy more Coke? Brainwashing (in this case, marketing brainwashing) can have funny results like that. To this day I consider myself brainwashed to choose Coke.
As far as arguments for Christianity, You've put me on the spot with a broad and complex question, one that ultimately boils down to faith. Given the limitations of this medium, I may fail but I will give it a
The problem with this is that any medical professional can claim ethical or moral incertitude about any procedure at any time. Giving them a free reign in this regard removes necessary regulatory oversight.
Yes, they can, but if the patient is to be harmed then they are obligated to act (hence the current limits in conscientious objection laws). If they refuse to act on everything, they go out of business. If their refusal causes harm to a patient, they are liable under tort law (conscientious objection laws don't remove liability if a tort is committed). Why is there such a problem to limit "oversight" of cases where there is incertitude and no immediate threat of harm? which brings me to my next point:
I suspect we also disagree somewhat on the definition of "alternatives". For example, I don't consider carrying the child to term an alternative to the morning-after pill or abortion anymore than I would consider amputation an alternative to treating an infection with medication.
I never mentioned that carrying a child to term is an equivalent alternative to the morning after pill (it's an alternative, but by no means it's equivalent). I was referring to the pharmacy down the street, or even another pharmacist in the same store that has no problem dispensing the pill. The new law that was passed goes so far as to outlaw the act of one pharmacist asking to another to fulfill some prescriptions.
I'm not sure how much subsidizing goes on given that hospitals are profit-oriented organizations.
You'd be surprised how much good is done by Catholic charities, and by religious charities in general. But besides the good, you are speaking of removing choices from the public (There is a Catholic hospital around here that's considered one of the best in the country. I'd rather go there). You are also curtailing the freedom of organizations to run an institution as they see fit so long as it abides by universally-agreed upon medical ethical standards and does not cause meaningful harm to anyone.
Where is the evidence for your assertion that Catholic hospitals do not have any personnel capable of performing abortions as opposed to simply prohibiting the procedure?
Is a hypothetical. Surely you are familiar with that. Where is your evidence that medical personnel at a Catholic hospital are necessarily trained in the latest abortion techniques as opposed to just refusing service? My point is that if something that is controversial is not available (say a pharmacy does not carry the pill), is it right for the government to force them to carry it (or hire the appropiate personnel)?
How typical of a religious person to make a broad assumption with no basis in facts. As it happens I was raised Christian but came to my senses late in high school, well before I entered college.
Yup, the brainwashing can sometimes start in high school, but for the majority it does not happen until college. I know, I convinced some of my friends in high school to leave religion. I regret that now.
The site you quote references a biased source that provides no evidence for its assertions.
Well then, where did modern science originate? And please don't tell me that it was the Greeks or Chinese. The Greeks died out millenia before modern science, and though their surviving philosophies did contribute to science, the right climate had to exist for science to develop. The Chinese did not produce that much meaningful science until their contact with the west.
Notice that the site you link to indicates that this "Protestant work ethic" that Weber writes about applies to non-Christians as well. What was your point again?
Of course it applies to non-Christians because socially-beneficial traits tend to spread out accross cultures. Please read on the subject and not just attack a single line out of context. The whole point is that the West's rise is in large part the result of Christianity and Judaism.
I understand religion in general and Christianity in particular, probably better than you. Having an outside perspective tends to do that for you. Don't let that get in the way of your ignorant judgement of me though.
As a matter of fact, I grew up as an atheist. Have you read Aquinas? Weber? Pascal? The Catholic cannon? The whole Bible?
Religious beliefs are not a valid factor in making medical decisions because they are not objective facts.
That would be fine and dandy if medicine and ethics could be divorced from each other. The reality, however, is that medical decisions often rely on interpretation of facts. A person may find the interpreation of the facts surrounding abortion differently than another. The person's religion, may merely confirm this. Often, the facts are not sufficient.
If you are now claiming to agree that the pharmacist cannot refuse to give back the prescription or refuse to fill the prescription if he is the only pharmacist in the area then I'm not sure we disagree as much as you might think.
No, we don't disagree as much (apart from the nature and impact of religion, that is). The main crux of our disagreement is in the balance of rights. You belive that the patient's rights superseed the medical professional's rights in all cases. I believe that in some cases, the medical professional's rights can be preserved, in particular, when dealing with ethical or moral incertitude. My attitude allows for religious groups to subsidize medical care, such as in the case of Catholic hospitals. Your attitude prevents religious groups from subsidizing medicine at all because a government law would force them to act against their core morality for every case where that morality should come into play.
I am not arguing that the welfare of the patient shouldn't come first. I am arguing that when the welfare of the patient is not emminently threatened (such as in the case where alternatives exist), then the law shouldn't threaten the religious convictions of medical personnel either.
This is a stupid question that is already answered in my previous response.
No you haven't. You said that if the institution has trained medical personnel for a procedure, it shouldn't refuse it. Well, what if there is no trained personnel (as in Catholic hospitals in regards to abortion)? Should the hospital be forced to hire medical personnel to give out abortions?
This is false. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves otherwise that the United States was not founded on christianity. The Constitution and the writings of the founders provide additional edification if you're interested (and I'm sure you're not).
No. The Treaty of Triopoli proves nothing but a good move in international relations by Humphrey, written decades after the founding of the country (not a founding father, nor a constitutional scholar). The US is based on divine-origin rights ("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" ). The divine-origin rights mean that the country is founded on theist beliefs. Secular systems don't allow for unalienable rights. Though the Government itself is religion-neutral (what the Treaty you mentioned tries to make clear), the government nonetheless is based on the most basic principle of religion: The belief on a God. The vast majority of Americans, too, are of Judeo-Christian background
Religion has been the enemy of enlightenment and progress throughout history.
Just as I suspected: A bigot. I don't blame you. College tends to brainwash you because the typical professor holds the popular but erroneous belief that reason and religion are at odds (the reason is simple: it makes them, the so-called proponents of reason, feel more important). That's also why Slashdot seems to have somewhat of a hive mentality. Most people here still haven't grown up to see past their ego. It took me a decade to get over that brainwashing. To start, modern science would not have been possible without religion (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_or igin.html). Are you saying that no good came from science? The US's tremendous economic growth, too, has in large part been attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic of most of it's people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber).
Until now, I haven't taked much about religion per se, but now I can pity you. You are blind and you think that you can see everything. I hope to God that you get past your blind hate of things you do not understand.
I point out that you agree with me that we are not limited to just those rights mentioned in the Constitution. You claim to interpret this to mean that I think that the Constitution specifically mentions a right to the morning after pill. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you're not a troll.
So? I agree that there are rights not mentioned in the constitution but what does that have to do with anything? Does that mean that there is also a right to the pill?
They do not have the right to stop other people from taking it. I don't think we'd be having this argument if the pharmacist was a Christian Scientist and refused to give out any medication at all.
Agreed. They don't have the right to stop people from taking it. That's why refusing to give back a prescription is wrong. Refusing to dispense a drug however, does not mean preventing others from taking it unless we're talking about the only pharmacist in the region (this is part of the limitation issue that I believe should exist for religion within medicine). The law however, makes no such distinctions and just comes down on against the pharmacist's freedom of religion and of self determination.
Not allowing a person to get medicine that their doctor has prescribed to them is definitely "meaningful".
Agreed. However as I said before, the law forces pharmacists to dispense "medicine" (and go against his/her beliefs) even in cases where someone else in the same pharmacy could do it, or where another pharmacy exists accross the street.
There are agreements in the medical community. The drug is safe and legal.
Of course it's safe and legal. That's besides the point. We are talking about the ethics of the issue, not it's legality. When there is no ehtical consensus, the medical community allows the medical personnel's right to self-determination come into play. There is no consensus as to the ethics of dispensing the drug just like there is no consensus as to the ethics of circumcision (again, if you ask me to help you in seeing the parallel between both cases, I give up).
My point is that there are limits on these freedoms when applied to the medical profession and that the limit to freedom of religion is that you can't force yours on other people.
I agree with that statement. However, that's not what you've been saying. You've mentioned that religion has no place in medicine. That is a far cry from saying that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. Make up your mind. Is this about forcing beliefs, or about removing religion from medicine? If the issue is about forcing beliefs, then religious people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs either. It's a thin line, but one that allows for religion within medicine.
I've answered the question. Any institution licensed as a hospital should be required to perform any legal medical procedure for which they have qualified personnel.
A "Yes" would've work, but I like this answer better. What if a Catholic hospital does not have qualified personnel for dispensing abortions?
It's funny to watch you complain about me introducing new situations to the conversation (rape victims) and then go and introduce your own (late-term abortions). It's very hypocritical of you. My amusement, of course, is irrelevant to the fact that there is no connection between circumcision and abortion. It is a fallacy to assume that objections to one necessitate objections to another.
No it's not hipocrisy. Since you've demonstrated to have problems with general questions, I've tried to make the question more specific. However, the connection between circumcision and abortion is clear: There is professional disagreement as to the ethics of either case, and though they are also different, it's medical disagreement that's at the heart of conscientious objections. It's funny that I have to spell out things for you. Cant' you think for yourself?
Actually, religion isn't any more helpful in providing ethical guidance than reading any other book or talking to any other people. There's nothing special about religious texts or religious leaders.
Just as I suspected: Ignorance of religion. What is America based on if not on the belief of a creator and a Judeo-christian background? But beyond that, go ahead and talk to any other people to get your ethical guidelines. The human origin of ethics and human-derived rights (as opposed to divine-derived rights) were the main principles behind communism, facism and nazism. By contrast, the vast majority of those that have changed the world for the better have been religious. Study some history. Study some religious texts. Open your mind.
This question appears to be a non sequiter. We're talking about a specific situation (or two, or three, or as many as you bring up in an apparent attempt to dodge the question).
Is not a non-sequitur. You are the one claiming that the status quo (religion in medicine) should change. It's your burden of proof, not mine. But still, if you believe it's a non-sequitur, it should be easy to deal with, right? Humor me and answer it.
I do like your mention of the right to privacy though. I'll take it as read, then, that you agree with me that we are not limited to those rights explicitly described in the Constitution (like you tried to claim earlier with regards to the morning after pill). It's nice to see that I'm getting through to some extent.
So there is a right to the morning after pill that can be derived from the constitution?
Are you attempting to find some problem with writing new laws to deal with new situations? I'm having trouble believing that you really believe this in principle and not simply for this specific case.
No, I have problems with laws that are over-reaching. Refusing to give a prescription back should be illegal. Refusing to act against one's own ethical beliefs shouldn't. I would agree with a law that posed stiffer penalties to pharmacists that refuse to give a prescription back. The law that was passed as a result of this case forces pharmacists to surrender their religious freedoms. That's a big difference.
The alternative is that they NOT BE A PHARMACIST. I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. You claim that this is government "control" but you seem to not understand that the government DOES REGULATE the medical profession.
Agreed. The operative word is "regulate." This is not the same thing as total control. Within the medical profession, there are often no consensus in many areas, and allowances are made for the doctor's personal liberties so long as they don't conflict with the patients in any meaningful way. That's why alternative course of treatment exist, and why clinics can refuse to give abortions, circumcision, etc. You seem to be confusing "regulation" with "total dictatorship control." When there are no agreements within the very professionals that make up the community, who decides but the government and how is this different from state dictatorship?
As for your other rights, let's take a look, shall we? I believe in free speech. I do not believe in the right of doctors to give patients information or advice that is false. And make no mistake, lying is not against the law. But a doctor lying to his patient sure as hell should be.
Freedom of the press? Freedom to assemble? Why don't you explain how they apply to medical treatment and I'll tell you what I think.
So you seem to be saying that within limits, these freedoms do apply to doctors. Why is then, that the only freedom (within limits as well) that does not apply at all is religion?
My point is that an institution should not be licensed as a hospital if it is going to refuse to perform certain procedures based on religion.
So, is that a yes, or a no? Please answer the question.
On another note, circumcision is often cited as an example of conscientious objection because there is a disagreement on the medical community of whether or not is beneficial, and therefore, whether or not it should be performed. If there is no medical concensus about the ethics and the need for something as simple as circumcision, religion aside, how can you have a concensus in more complex and controversial procedures such as late-term abortions? Religion is often very helpful in providing guidance to ethically-murky situations. Are there no ethically-murky situations in medicine?
Who's talking about rape victims? The question is about abortions in general. Should Catholic hospitals be forced to perform general abortions? What about late-term abortions? If you answer yes, please point to me exactly where in the constitution does the government gets its power to force abortions on all medical personnel.
What kind of ridiculous non sequiter is this? A circumcision is not an operation that has to be performed within a limited window and a doctor's refusal to perform the operation does not stop the operation being performed elsewhere.
Same with the morning after pill. Is not a non-sequitur. Circumcision is often cited as an example of conscientious objection.
When the pharmacist refuses to return the prescription there is no alternative way to get the drugs in time.
You know what? You are right. In this case the pharmacist deserved to get fired and I had made that claim from my very first post on the issue. However, rather than letting the store owner handle it (or the local police if that fails), the people seeking the prescription chose to involve the state government and seek legislation. How is that not overstepping the boundaries of the established law?
Here's what I think based on your messages so far: You believe people should not be allowed to avoid pregnancy, either through birth control or abortion. You believe that anything that stops people from avoiding pregnancy is ethical. That's why you ignore the facts of what the pharmacists are doing and argue that their actions are the result of a superior morality that should not be interfered with. I may be wrong about you but that's the impression you're giving.
Yes you are wrong. You ignore my comments that I have made severan times that the person should have gotten fired, my mention that preventive contraceptives are OK (in fact, I use them), and that, though I disagree with the philosophy behind the "morning after" pill (on the basis that it tends to weaken the impression of responsibility, for example, to engage in safer sex), I don't believe that it should be recalled outright. It seems that you want to paint me as a rabid, religious fanatic. My primary problem is about government over-reaching its power. Like it or not, religion is a source of morality to over half the country, and it is even to doctors and other professionals. You would normally refer to someone that would force you to act against your morality as a tyrant, but yet you ask others to act against their morality when there clearly are alternatives that don't require them to do so.
But since ad-hominems are in fashion, let me jump in the band-wagon. What other right guaranteed on the constitution do you believe has no place in medicine? Do you seriously think that rights guaranteed by government can be banned outright because there is disagreement? Would you ban free speech from medicine? What about freedom of the press? What about freedom to assemble? What about rights to privacy? If you answer no to all those but yes to banning freedom of religion, then I suggest that you take a look about your pre-conceptions of religion. The word "bigot" comes to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
There are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the US where it hasn't happened either, many of which are larger than the UNAM. Yet you site a single school in Mexico as proof that gun laws in the US are the problem? What next, site the lack of poor people inside Bellas Artes as proof that there is no poverty in Mexico?
Moron.
I grew up in Mexico, and trust me, I feel a lot safer anywhere in the US than I do anywhere in Mexico city. Still that's besides the point.
Obviously, you did not learn anything about logic there. Shame, because the UNAM is a good school.
No one has presented "the disprovability" of God as an argument to believe, and no, I'm not so dense as to attempt to build on such an argument a valid case for the existance of God (hence my previous comments about your prerogative to build strawmen such as the tiny elephants).
In fact, the only argument that has been a purported way to prove or disprove anything is in your orginal post. I am merely pointing out that such an argument really proves or disproves nothing beyond refuting the flawed arguments of those few "intelligent design" proponents that also pretend to understand the nature of how God operates (hint: The idea of an intelligent designer per se assumes nothing of how God operates).
If I wanted to build a case for God there are, as I said, a number of concepts that are possible only if we assume that a God exist. There are some very compelling epistemological theories about the nature of knowledge and how it may relate to God. In additional, there are philosophical excercises such as the Pascal wager that can be used to further bolster the case for faith. But that is not the scope of this discussion, and all the arguments in the world mean little if your mind is closed anyway, hence the need for faith (open mind), but I digress once more.
The scope of this discussion is your offered "disproval" for intelligent design, which offers virtually nothing in the way of disproval to those that don't have a caricatured idea of God.
Correction: I should've said "no source is needed for anything relative" rather than a "source is not needed for anything". There are some fixed concepts that can't exist without the existance of a God, but that's a separate discussion.
I should say "no source is needed for anything relative" rather than a "source is not needed for anything". There are some fixed concepts that can't exist without the existance of a God.
I am not determined to ignore your point, a point that you made well in your second post. Your original post merely claimed that the whole concept of intelligent design is somehow invalid because of random design. When in fact, "the appearance of design" does nothing to prove or disprove if there is a designer.
As far as a "source" not being needed, one is not needed for anything. For example, you can be well behaved and moral without having a God, too. However, in my opinion the likelyhood that the majority of humanity will behave in the same way if they did not believe in a God is very unlikely. (In my opinion, the very fact that we can easily agree on the existance of the very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is unlikey without God, but I digress).
As far as your cheap shot with little elephants, surely you are well aware that little elephants can be disproven. That can't be the case with God as a source (for "random design", for morality, for the universe, etc.). As I've said before, you are very welcome to make fun by raising the argument that people simply imagine things, but that's neither here nor there in regards to faith.The "appearance of design" is what modern random design techniques already accomplish, except of course that there is nothing random about it's functionality and goals(for example, chemicals and land use can be "designed" by more or less steering a random process). In some cases, "random design" is merely another name for the "appearance of design." In a very real sense, we can design "purposeful randomness."
The fact that we understand how random design works does nothing to invalidate the concept that the universe may be designed, complete with its "randomness." I must concede, however, that it does invalidate the traditional "intelligent design" theories that are based on a static designer (static in the sense that it just designed and created all complexity at once). What an understanding of "random design" does not tell us, is if the entire "random" creation process (e.g. evolution), does or does not have an ultimate goal and hence, it's a process designed with a purpose from the beginning. In this sense, an intelligent designer can't be proven nor disproven because once again it just becomes a matter of faith.
To put it simply, just because the theory of evolution does not require an active designer, it does not mean that the process has not been designed to yield specific goals, similarly to how we use randomness as a design tool today.
Nope, it only discredits design as far as a traditional views of what we have historically understood by design. However, our very understanding of "design" is changing. How can you prove of disprove that a "random" occurence wasn't meant to be part of the 'design'? Random techniques are used to create purposeful designs every day (an example: http://www.netsci.org/Science/Screening/feature09. html).
Unfortunately, it's a little bit too easy to commit the folly of ascribing purely human abilities to something that is by nature undefined, and that many of us call God. Hell, the very concept of 'random' in the context of someting that is undefined and infinite makes little sense. By nature, neither God nor the way he/she/it accomplishes things can be defined. That's why it's purely a matter of faith. You can certainly counter by claiming that people are imagining everything, and that's your prerogative (I happen to believe). You cannot, however, simply "dicredit" something that you can't even define by using a concept within a very limited scope (the scope of "design" as it has traditionally pertained only to human rationality).
Thanks. I knew that Bush had said several times that he had intelligence indicating that Saddam had WMDs and/or was working on them, but the "know exactly were to find them" bit threw me off.
Pardon me if I take your post with a grain of salt, but could you support some evidence of this claim? In what speech did Bush came out and said "Iraq has vast quantities of WMD", or that they knew exactly where they were hidden, etc. I hear claims like this all of the time, but it would be nice if someone posted some in-context supporting quotes for a change.
It's a shame the didn't look up the words "law", "religion" and "establishment", or "not" and "infringed" for that matter.
For the same reason that the ACLU defends the rights of Muslims even though there are very powerful Muslim organizations in this country: It's the "C" and the "L" part of their name, which at one point in the distant past actually meant something. The real reason they don't defend gun rights, though, has very little to do with the existence of the NRA, and a lot to do with the fact that they pick and choose which liberties they happen to believe in at any given time.
I'm sorry, but your definition of religious endorsement, while acceptable and reasonable, is not the ACLU's definition of religous endorsement. I wish that the ACLU thought as you did, but in reality they are rabidly anti-christian to the point of attempting to re-write history. At the same time, they do defend the rights of other religions such as Islam.
Here's a URL of their anti-christian tendencies:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprag er/2004/11/16/13670.html
And a URL of their pro-muslim tendencies:
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/fre emanrelease052703.cfm
When it comes to religion, and as someone else said, gun control too, the ACLU does pick and choose their battles based on a clearly left-wing political agenda.
OK, then. If you ever find yourself under sniper fire, YOU try to make a relationship with that sniper, genius.
I think that's enough. Muskie keep making bad puns?
My point exactly. So in essence, we are talking about a law without teeth. If you want not to perform a procedure or drug, don't hire the appropiate personnel or carry the drug. I would think that you would be against such a loophole, being that you are for forcing religion out of medicine.
Your constant reference to the decision to leave religion as "brainwashing" indicates that you are too biased to have a meaningful opinion on the subject. Anything further that you write on it is just drivel.
Why wouldn't it be brainwashing? From dictionary.com:
You can see how definition no. 2 applies when you are at impressionable high-school ages and when you think you should rebel against the status quo and you think you know everything. Someone in high school does not typically know anything about religion, even those that go to church every Sunday. Don't tell me that there aren't repeated anti-religion suggestion in high school. By the same token, if you dare to speak positively about religion in high school, you are considered a pirahia at best, and disciplinary action is taken against you at worse. As you can see, such as environmen fits definition 2 of brainwashing to a tee. No one that knows an adequate amount about religion would make the terribly ignorant statement that religion has been the cause of mostly problems throughout history. Such an innacurate statement suggest that 1, you are terribly ignorant of religion (you didn't even know what role it played in the genesis of modern western culture), and that 2, you've only considered one side, perhaps because you've been exposed to only one side (see the definition of brainwashing above). This bring me to your answer about what you've read.
Since you've read everything I've mentioned, please tell me what Aquinas has to do with the modern concept of "natural law". Please also inform me of what Pascal's main argument for faith is. Please tell me what are the basis for the ethical standards behind the Catholic canon. Also, I would like to know what caused Job to fall from grace. It shouldn't be too difficult to answer those very basic questions behind the literary works that I've mentioned if you've read them.
And to answer your challenge in turn, no I haven't read the Koran but I've read fragments of the Vedas. In general, I'm more interested with the roots of western thought before the roots of eastern thought. I've also read a little bit of confuscionism and of course, the Torah. I've also read plenty on classical philosophy including Kant, Plato, Descartes, Bacon, Hume, Nietzche, Rousseau, etc. Though I'm no expert on philosophy (I was a Phil. major for only 1.5 years), I've been exposed to a few ideas, both secular and religious.
Let's cut to the chase. You think that I've been "brainwashed". You think that you have some superior insight. Present your arguments for Christianity. Right here. Right now.
Yes, as I've explained before, I think that you have been brainwashed, but I don't hold that against you. You have to consider that brainwashing is a lot more subtle than we think. Do you know that most people prefer the taste of Pepsi but buy more Coke? Brainwashing (in this case, marketing brainwashing) can have funny results like that. To this day I consider myself brainwashed to choose Coke.
As far as arguments for Christianity, You've put me on the spot with a broad and complex question, one that ultimately boils down to faith. Given the limitations of this medium, I may fail but I will give it a
Yes, they can, but if the patient is to be harmed then they are obligated to act (hence the current limits in conscientious objection laws). If they refuse to act on everything, they go out of business. If their refusal causes harm to a patient, they are liable under tort law (conscientious objection laws don't remove liability if a tort is committed). Why is there such a problem to limit "oversight" of cases where there is incertitude and no immediate threat of harm? which brings me to my next point:
I suspect we also disagree somewhat on the definition of "alternatives". For example, I don't consider carrying the child to term an alternative to the morning-after pill or abortion anymore than I would consider amputation an alternative to treating an infection with medication.
I never mentioned that carrying a child to term is an equivalent alternative to the morning after pill (it's an alternative, but by no means it's equivalent). I was referring to the pharmacy down the street, or even another pharmacist in the same store that has no problem dispensing the pill. The new law that was passed goes so far as to outlaw the act of one pharmacist asking to another to fulfill some prescriptions.
I'm not sure how much subsidizing goes on given that hospitals are profit-oriented organizations.
You'd be surprised how much good is done by Catholic charities, and by religious charities in general. But besides the good, you are speaking of removing choices from the public (There is a Catholic hospital around here that's considered one of the best in the country. I'd rather go there). You are also curtailing the freedom of organizations to run an institution as they see fit so long as it abides by universally-agreed upon medical ethical standards and does not cause meaningful harm to anyone.
Is a hypothetical. Surely you are familiar with that. Where is your evidence that medical personnel at a Catholic hospital are necessarily trained in the latest abortion techniques as opposed to just refusing service? My point is that if something that is controversial is not available (say a pharmacy does not carry the pill), is it right for the government to force them to carry it (or hire the appropiate personnel)?
How typical of a religious person to make a broad assumption with no basis in facts. As it happens I was raised Christian but came to my senses late in high school, well before I entered college.
Yup, the brainwashing can sometimes start in high school, but for the majority it does not happen until college. I know, I convinced some of my friends in high school to leave religion. I regret that now.
The site you quote references a biased source that provides no evidence for its assertions.
Well then, where did modern science originate? And please don't tell me that it was the Greeks or Chinese. The Greeks died out millenia before modern science, and though their surviving philosophies did contribute to science, the right climate had to exist for science to develop. The Chinese did not produce that much meaningful science until their contact with the west.
Notice that the site you link to indicates that this "Protestant work ethic" that Weber writes about applies to non-Christians as well. What was your point again?
Of course it applies to non-Christians because socially-beneficial traits tend to spread out accross cultures. Please read on the subject and not just attack a single line out of context. The whole point is that the West's rise is in large part the result of Christianity and Judaism.
I understand religion in general and Christianity in particular, probably better than you. Having an outside perspective tends to do that for you. Don't let that get in the way of your ignorant judgement of me though.
As a matter of fact, I grew up as an atheist. Have you read Aquinas? Weber? Pascal? The Catholic cannon? The whole Bible?
That would be fine and dandy if medicine and ethics could be divorced from each other. The reality, however, is that medical decisions often rely on interpretation of facts. A person may find the interpreation of the facts surrounding abortion differently than another. The person's religion, may merely confirm this. Often, the facts are not sufficient.
If you are now claiming to agree that the pharmacist cannot refuse to give back the prescription or refuse to fill the prescription if he is the only pharmacist in the area then I'm not sure we disagree as much as you might think.
No, we don't disagree as much (apart from the nature and impact of religion, that is). The main crux of our disagreement is in the balance of rights. You belive that the patient's rights superseed the medical professional's rights in all cases. I believe that in some cases, the medical professional's rights can be preserved, in particular, when dealing with ethical or moral incertitude. My attitude allows for religious groups to subsidize medical care, such as in the case of Catholic hospitals. Your attitude prevents religious groups from subsidizing medicine at all because a government law would force them to act against their core morality for every case where that morality should come into play.
I am not arguing that the welfare of the patient shouldn't come first. I am arguing that when the welfare of the patient is not emminently threatened (such as in the case where alternatives exist), then the law shouldn't threaten the religious convictions of medical personnel either.
No you haven't. You said that if the institution has trained medical personnel for a procedure, it shouldn't refuse it. Well, what if there is no trained personnel (as in Catholic hospitals in regards to abortion)? Should the hospital be forced to hire medical personnel to give out abortions?
This is false. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves otherwise that the United States was not founded on christianity. The Constitution and the writings of the founders provide additional edification if you're interested (and I'm sure you're not).
No. The Treaty of Triopoli proves nothing but a good move in international relations by Humphrey, written decades after the founding of the country (not a founding father, nor a constitutional scholar). The US is based on divine-origin rights ("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" ). The divine-origin rights mean that the country is founded on theist beliefs. Secular systems don't allow for unalienable rights. Though the Government itself is religion-neutral (what the Treaty you mentioned tries to make clear), the government nonetheless is based on the most basic principle of religion: The belief on a God. The vast majority of Americans, too, are of Judeo-Christian background
Religion has been the enemy of enlightenment and progress throughout history.
Just as I suspected: A bigot. I don't blame you. College tends to brainwash you because the typical professor holds the popular but erroneous belief that reason and religion are at odds (the reason is simple: it makes them, the so-called proponents of reason, feel more important). That's also why Slashdot seems to have somewhat of a hive mentality. Most people here still haven't grown up to see past their ego. It took me a decade to get over that brainwashing. To start, modern science would not have been possible without religion (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_or igin.html). Are you saying that no good came from science? The US's tremendous economic growth, too, has in large part been attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic of most of it's people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber).
Until now, I haven't taked much about religion per se, but now I can pity you. You are blind and you think that you can see everything. I hope to God that you get past your blind hate of things you do not understand.
So? I agree that there are rights not mentioned in the constitution but what does that have to do with anything? Does that mean that there is also a right to the pill?
They do not have the right to stop other people from taking it. I don't think we'd be having this argument if the pharmacist was a Christian Scientist and refused to give out any medication at all.
Agreed. They don't have the right to stop people from taking it. That's why refusing to give back a prescription is wrong. Refusing to dispense a drug however, does not mean preventing others from taking it unless we're talking about the only pharmacist in the region (this is part of the limitation issue that I believe should exist for religion within medicine). The law however, makes no such distinctions and just comes down on against the pharmacist's freedom of religion and of self determination.
Not allowing a person to get medicine that their doctor has prescribed to them is definitely "meaningful".
Agreed. However as I said before, the law forces pharmacists to dispense "medicine" (and go against his/her beliefs) even in cases where someone else in the same pharmacy could do it, or where another pharmacy exists accross the street.
There are agreements in the medical community. The drug is safe and legal.
Of course it's safe and legal. That's besides the point. We are talking about the ethics of the issue, not it's legality. When there is no ehtical consensus, the medical community allows the medical personnel's right to self-determination come into play. There is no consensus as to the ethics of dispensing the drug just like there is no consensus as to the ethics of circumcision (again, if you ask me to help you in seeing the parallel between both cases, I give up).
My point is that there are limits on these freedoms when applied to the medical profession and that the limit to freedom of religion is that you can't force yours on other people.
I agree with that statement. However, that's not what you've been saying. You've mentioned that religion has no place in medicine. That is a far cry from saying that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. Make up your mind. Is this about forcing beliefs, or about removing religion from medicine? If the issue is about forcing beliefs, then religious people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs either. It's a thin line, but one that allows for religion within medicine.
A "Yes" would've work, but I like this answer better. What if a Catholic hospital does not have qualified personnel for dispensing abortions?
It's funny to watch you complain about me introducing new situations to the conversation (rape victims) and then go and introduce your own (late-term abortions). It's very hypocritical of you. My amusement, of course, is irrelevant to the fact that there is no connection between circumcision and abortion. It is a fallacy to assume that objections to one necessitate objections to another.
No it's not hipocrisy. Since you've demonstrated to have problems with general questions, I've tried to make the question more specific. However, the connection between circumcision and abortion is clear: There is professional disagreement as to the ethics of either case, and though they are also different, it's medical disagreement that's at the heart of conscientious objections. It's funny that I have to spell out things for you. Cant' you think for yourself?
Actually, religion isn't any more helpful in providing ethical guidance than reading any other book or talking to any other people. There's nothing special about religious texts or religious leaders.
Just as I suspected: Ignorance of religion. What is America based on if not on the belief of a creator and a Judeo-christian background? But beyond that, go ahead and talk to any other people to get your ethical guidelines. The human origin of ethics and human-derived rights (as opposed to divine-derived rights) were the main principles behind communism, facism and nazism. By contrast, the vast majority of those that have changed the world for the better have been religious. Study some history. Study some religious texts. Open your mind.
This question appears to be a non sequiter. We're talking about a specific situation (or two, or three, or as many as you bring up in an apparent attempt to dodge the question).
Is not a non-sequitur. You are the one claiming that the status quo (religion in medicine) should change. It's your burden of proof, not mine. But still, if you believe it's a non-sequitur, it should be easy to deal with, right? Humor me and answer it.
So there is a right to the morning after pill that can be derived from the constitution?
Are you attempting to find some problem with writing new laws to deal with new situations? I'm having trouble believing that you really believe this in principle and not simply for this specific case.
No, I have problems with laws that are over-reaching. Refusing to give a prescription back should be illegal. Refusing to act against one's own ethical beliefs shouldn't. I would agree with a law that posed stiffer penalties to pharmacists that refuse to give a prescription back. The law that was passed as a result of this case forces pharmacists to surrender their religious freedoms. That's a big difference.
The alternative is that they NOT BE A PHARMACIST. I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. You claim that this is government "control" but you seem to not understand that the government DOES REGULATE the medical profession.
Agreed. The operative word is "regulate." This is not the same thing as total control. Within the medical profession, there are often no consensus in many areas, and allowances are made for the doctor's personal liberties so long as they don't conflict with the patients in any meaningful way. That's why alternative course of treatment exist, and why clinics can refuse to give abortions, circumcision, etc. You seem to be confusing "regulation" with "total dictatorship control." When there are no agreements within the very professionals that make up the community, who decides but the government and how is this different from state dictatorship?
As for your other rights, let's take a look, shall we? I believe in free speech. I do not believe in the right of doctors to give patients information or advice that is false. And make no mistake, lying is not against the law. But a doctor lying to his patient sure as hell should be. Freedom of the press? Freedom to assemble? Why don't you explain how they apply to medical treatment and I'll tell you what I think.
So you seem to be saying that within limits, these freedoms do apply to doctors. Why is then, that the only freedom (within limits as well) that does not apply at all is religion?
So, is that a yes, or a no? Please answer the question.
On another note, circumcision is often cited as an example of conscientious objection because there is a disagreement on the medical community of whether or not is beneficial, and therefore, whether or not it should be performed. If there is no medical concensus about the ethics and the need for something as simple as circumcision, religion aside, how can you have a concensus in more complex and controversial procedures such as late-term abortions? Religion is often very helpful in providing guidance to ethically-murky situations. Are there no ethically-murky situations in medicine?
Who's talking about rape victims? The question is about abortions in general. Should Catholic hospitals be forced to perform general abortions? What about late-term abortions? If you answer yes, please point to me exactly where in the constitution does the government gets its power to force abortions on all medical personnel.
Same with the morning after pill. Is not a non-sequitur. Circumcision is often cited as an example of conscientious objection.
When the pharmacist refuses to return the prescription there is no alternative way to get the drugs in time.
You know what? You are right. In this case the pharmacist deserved to get fired and I had made that claim from my very first post on the issue. However, rather than letting the store owner handle it (or the local police if that fails), the people seeking the prescription chose to involve the state government and seek legislation. How is that not overstepping the boundaries of the established law?
Here's what I think based on your messages so far: You believe people should not be allowed to avoid pregnancy, either through birth control or abortion. You believe that anything that stops people from avoiding pregnancy is ethical. That's why you ignore the facts of what the pharmacists are doing and argue that their actions are the result of a superior morality that should not be interfered with. I may be wrong about you but that's the impression you're giving.
Yes you are wrong. You ignore my comments that I have made severan times that the person should have gotten fired, my mention that preventive contraceptives are OK (in fact, I use them), and that, though I disagree with the philosophy behind the "morning after" pill (on the basis that it tends to weaken the impression of responsibility, for example, to engage in safer sex), I don't believe that it should be recalled outright. It seems that you want to paint me as a rabid, religious fanatic. My primary problem is about government over-reaching its power. Like it or not, religion is a source of morality to over half the country, and it is even to doctors and other professionals. You would normally refer to someone that would force you to act against your morality as a tyrant, but yet you ask others to act against their morality when there clearly are alternatives that don't require them to do so.
But since ad-hominems are in fashion, let me jump in the band-wagon. What other right guaranteed on the constitution do you believe has no place in medicine? Do you seriously think that rights guaranteed by government can be banned outright because there is disagreement? Would you ban free speech from medicine? What about freedom of the press? What about freedom to assemble? What about rights to privacy? If you answer no to all those but yes to banning freedom of religion, then I suggest that you take a look about your pre-conceptions of religion. The word "bigot" comes to mind.