yes I know, which is why I linked to the reply I gave to that one. If you go to the reply I refered you to and click "parent" you will find that post.
I am suggesting that since i can't determine the principle of when a creature deserves what rights, to instead set the principle at the point where we meet the actual creature.
and I am suggesting that we define rights by species rather than developement stage, as it is far less susceptible to abuse. Indeed, if you take the view that a creature must "deserve" rights in some way, you are taking a view that is inherently in conflict with the Declaration of Independence (I am assuming you are a US citizen?). If "all men are created equal" and have "certain unalienable rights" among them being life, then surely the time to give that creature rights is the moment of "creation", most easily being understood as conception? Every other point in time is essentially a stage in developement. If you can, through reason, remove those rights from the creature from the point of conception to another arbitarily decided stage in developement, then you no longer have a firm foundation for human rights at all.
That is why people like Peter Singer and Braino420 advocate the idea that it is ok to kill children. Their reasoning is based on the idea that people are only considered "human" at a certain stage of developement. Just like you, really. Take the time to read Singer's FAQ on the page I linked, you'll find where your line of reasoning ends if taken to it's logical conclusion.
Taking the view that human rights are essentially inherited at conception allows for no erosion of human rights. Taking the view that embryo's are human, not "become" human gives protection of human rights. Taking the view that human rights are "earned" or "deserved" by reaching a stage of developement provides the basis to strip portions of the population of rights. You can say it ain't so all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
Also, humans who "don't have capacity for intelligence" may have much more intelligence then you think.
I agree entirely. Perhaps even embryos. Perhaps intelligence resides in the "spirit" and the nervous system is the means by which it is brought into the world and communicated. Even among the disabled, I have sometimes discerned a much higher intelligence than is assumed by many people (I have worked in disability services before). If capacity for intelligence is the requirement for human rights, how do we discern if someone has the intelligence capacity but not the communication capacity? And by the way, mental illness is not an intelligence problem. Many mentally ill people are highly intelligent.
Human isn't something you become, it's something you are, from beginning to end.
Take some pamphlets on mental illness, take some info on the short term effects of various recreational drugs. I'm not talking about side effects, I'm talking the effects people buy the drugs to get. There is a very large overlap. Explain: a lot of recreational drug use is in effect a short term self induced mental illness. Do it consistently, and you train you brain to operate that way. Those effects are a lot less fun when they wont stop and you can't just chill out for a few hours to get over it.
First you say that I am arguing against a straw man, and then you basically repeat what I said you were saying. Classic!
Yes, I tried to clarify to you (repeat, if you like) my point, which was quite different than what you said. You might try reading the thread again before replying. If you do, you may discover that I was proposing that we evaluate humanity (and therefore rights) based on genetic heritage rather than arbitary qualities, in this case intelligence (since then divided into intelligence capacity and intelligence level, making little or no difference to what I was saying).
I quote Jasper__unique_dammi "Admittedly it is hard to attach a creatures' right to nervous system abilities...". Did you catch that? He is proposing to evaluate eligibility for rights (humaness, if you like) according to ability (or capacity). These are his words, not mine. Now, I do understand the context in which he is saying this, and he is applying that reasoning to a specific situation. What I am saying is if that reasoning (that humaness is determined by ability or capacity) is established in law as a precedent of how to evaluate humanity and eligibility for human rights, it is dangerous.
As for Singer, I didn't misrepresent him at all. Check the FAQ on his own website. Here is a select quote for you:
"So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support - which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely."
So, killing a baby after it is born is fine if it's disabled and the parents want to, according to Peter Singer. I'm interested to have you explain how I've misrepresented him. You say:
It basically boils down to lying about his arguments, or pulling musing points made in a long philosophical digression with quite different conclusions out of context.
I have quoted him directly, therefore not lying about his arguements. Also the quote is from his FAQ, which I also gave the link for, ensuring that the context is appropriate. It is not part of a long digression leading to a different conclusion, it is a definite statement by him saying he supports the killing of disabled children subject only to the approval of the parents. Why? Basically because he is evaluating eligibility for rights (humaness, if you like) according to ability (or capacity). Also on the FAQ : "I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future."
So, Jasper__unique_dammi proposed evaluating humaness on intelligence capacity in the case of embryos, you say "You simply can't get from the idea that capacity to think or feel at all, or to have ever done so, is a necessary pre-requisite for rights to executing down syndrome kids. You just can't." and Peter Singer follows up behind you evaluating humaness on intelligence capacity and proposing the disabled kids can be killed. Not a strawman. Not even hypothetical. It is being proposed by Singer right now. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but to claim "strawman" is to show you either don't understand what I've meant (I trust this post clears that up) or you don't have a reasoned arguement against what I've said, but can't stand to say nothing.
I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, but if you agree with plunge, then I refer you to my reply.
Yes, I said we should base some laws on nervous system abilities. (like laws on abortion)
I didn't say we should enter into the law any mention of nervous system abilities. We aren't quite smart enough to oversee consequences.
Do I have this straight, you want to base laws on nervous system abilities, without mentioning nervous system abilities in law? Because you don't want the potential consequences? It seems to me that you need to have (and give) some sort of a reason to make a law. If you don't mention your reasoning on "nervous system abilities" explicitly, the reasoning will be implied, and still a part of the precedent, unless you are actively deceptive about your reasoning.
To quote myself from another post "Currently, most people agree it (the age an embryo "becomes" human) lies somewhere between conception and birth. Any decision made about what can or can't be done is in effect narrowing this down. However, it is often not being done by addressing this particular issue directly. The effects of these decisions have far reaching consequences on how human rights are implemented though, because they take the issues from being subjective opinions to being legal and administrative realities."
I think we need to take this into account when weighing the cost/benefits of this sort of thing.
Trying to make it out that this view is tantamount to saying its okay to execute people with down syndrome is simply dishonest.
Since I didn't say that, you have your own strawman arguement. I didn't say it was the same, I said it sets up a precedent, which it does. And since you bring up the distiction between intelligence levels vs intelligence capacity, you illustrate my point nicely, as down syndrome people would usually be considered to have a much different capacity for intelligence. It is not about saying "If you want to do stem cell research you also want to kill disabled people", it's saying that if you get a decision to allow ebryonic stem cell research based on a particular line of reasoning, that line of reasoning can then be used (precendent, remember) in other decisions. It is not dishonest, it is demonstably true that people reason this way, for example, Peter Singer who indeed does have the opinion that it is ok to kill disabled children. Even if you personally don't intend that line of reasoning to be used that way, others certainly do.
You seem to be assuming that if you are responsible for somethings existence, then it has no intrinsic rights and you can destroy it at will. For an object, this is true. For a human it is not, else we all have the right to kill our children, whether they've been born yet or not. They wouldn't have existed in the first place except for us, correct? I know you don't really mean it this way, but it seems to me that is where that line of reasoning leads.
You seem to be assuming the embryos would become living human beings if they don't get harvested.
Actually, I'm proposing that we consider that embryos could be human. Essentially, that being human is a quality defined by parental lineage rather than arbitary qualities, eg: intelligence, self-awareness etc. This is the point. If an embryo is not human, there is no good reason not to do it, whether they could potentially "become" human or not. If an embryo is human, we have no right to kill them for potential medical benefits to others, especially without their consent, whether we are responsible for their existence or not.
When we have a largely agreed upon stage at which an embryo is considered to be human, much of the arguement on these issues will be dealt with. Currently, most people agree it lies somewhere between conception and birth. Any decision made about what can or can't be done is in effect narrowing this down. However, it is often not being done by addressing this particular issue directly. The effects of these decisions have far reaching consequences on how human rights are implemented though, because they take the issues from being subjective opinions to being legal and administrative realities. Do you really want your rights dependent on someone elses judgement of how human you are based on your intelligence (as judged by them), whether someones actions have contibuted to/caused your existence?
Admittedly it is hard to attach a creatures' right to nervous system abilities
yes, brings up a few problems doesn't it. Like, if we base rights (in law) on intelligence (which is basically what you are proposing) we would be setting up a pretty good legal precedent to strip stupid people of their rights. Of course, this might seem to have it's benefits:) , but the reality is that it would be taking a huge step towards a government far more oppresive than the ones we have currently in the west.
Consensus will not happen on this issue any time soon. What I think we need is an arbitary decision on when the embryo is to be considered human. This decision, by it's nature, will not be agreed upon by everyone, but it needs to be agreed upon by enough people to become law, and enough agreement to have reasonable chance of law enforcement. Not dissimilar to the arbitary desicions on voting age, age of consent etc. We already have some basis for doing this in Australia. For example, if a child is stillborn after a certain point in the pregnancy (8 months IIRC) it must be buried and given a birth and death certificate. IANAL, but I think there is a fair chance that a late term abortion could be tried as murder under our existing laws, but I don't know of any such cases.
My personal view is to base the rights to live on the species, that is to say, from conception. I am well aware that many disagree with this, and even have some quite logical arguements, but it remains my view.
Good to see that someone else can cut to the chase on this. Although you may come to a different conclusion than I do, "Is the embryo human" is the one question that if answered would render most other arguements invalid. The way I think of it is: What are the consequences if I'm wrong?"
In cricket, if there is doubt about a decision regarding a wicket being taken, the batsman is given "The benefit of the doubt", ie: since the batsman (if out) is out for the innings, but the bowler gets to bowl again, if there is uncertainty, the batsman is not out.
While cloning, stem cell research and abortion are far removed from cricket, I think using this can possibly bring a broader consensus than trying to answer that question satisfactorily.
My thoughts:
1 - on growing human embryos to harvest (kill) for stem cell research (or any other purpose) If we ban it because we judge the embryo to be human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be neglecting to persue one avenue of research (there are others) that would possibly, at some point in the future, deliver a medical benefit to some people. If we allow it because we judge the embryo to be not human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be committing mass murdur on an ongoing basis.
2 - abortion If we ban it because we judge the embryo to be human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be denying women some fairly basic rights to control their bodies and lives, certainly an important thing to consider, not to be treated lightly. (For the sake of this post, sticking to the idea of abortion on demand, which I understand to be most abortions. I do recognise that other situations would require more looking into) f we allow it because we judge the embryo to be not human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be committing mass murdur on an ongoing basis.
Based on the risks of being wrong, I judge in favour of the embryo's. Ban it.
The difference is that copying software isn't comparable to stealing. It's more comparable to counterfeiting. The U.S government doesn't want people countefeiting money for the same reason Microsoft doesn't want a business conterfeiting their software.
The significant difference is that money is used to exchange for something of value but software is used to produce something of value. Therefore, copying software to sell is comparable to counterfeiting, copying software to use is not really the same at all.
No country for example will allow counterfeiting of currency. Many software producers will allow copying of software, and not only F/OSS either, but shareware, freeware, and even proprietry software companies hoping to dominate new markets. Counterfeiting has never been advocated as a means to help economies, but the UN recommends and promotes open source (copying software) for the development of it's member nations. Until I see the UN advocating counterfeiting as a means of developing a nations economy, I'll consider consider copying software to be nothing at all similar to counterfeiting.
You are correct that the US President could not be sued under US law, but violating the Berne Convention would still release every other signatory of the Berne Convention from their obligation to enforce US copyrights.
When choosing hardware, I find it better to ask the lists than read blurb of the box the card is in. You will get much more reliable info from people who actually use the distro.
He didn't mention piracy. Maybe he's advocating changing the laws. IIRC copyright didn't origianlly cover music, for example. Perhaps he believes in the rule of law, and obeys it, but also believes in democracy, so works to change the law. If so, he would be far from the only one to take this stand.
By the nature of their business, construction companies must use workers on site, unlike many IT companies/departments. Cars can be imported. Much more difficult to import a skyscraper.
The problem is that in 3,000 years the people will start trying to re-intepret the original religious texts and give them meanings that didn't exist before...
You accidentaly added three zeros to that number. And you spelt days wrong.
> Questions I directed to my pastor and Sunday School teachers received unsatisfactory answers or evasive responses.
I got similar responses as a teenager when asking why shouldn't I smoke pot. Many people in general speak without knowledge. It's probably not surprising that they continue to do so if they become Christians. Unfortunately, as you pointed out before, many people believe because the Pastor told them to, so someone in this position may go for years (lifetime) without having to clarify or justify their doctrine. Especially if people who do question it leave as a result of the unsatisfactory answers.
> My question is this: How *much* of the Bible have they read?
Personally, all of it. It's not that I haven't seen inconsistencies, but many of them have been resolved for me over time. I am sure that if we were to go over them, some I could resolve to your satisfaction, others I could not. Personally, since I have found that some things which have seemed insurmountable have been resolved by just a little more knowledge or a different way of thinking, it seems likely to me that others will be solved in time. As such, again, not particularly helpful to you, but not a big problem for me. For years some passages frustrated me every time I looked at them, sometimes to be resolved very easily.
> I ended up "losing my religion."
Not a bad idea perhaps. I'm not in the religion I was brought up in either, and still don't consider myself particularly religious. Maybe other people do.
BTW, my brother in law is a software engineer and has read all the bible and believes, so being able to think logically and consistenly and biblical faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Also, consider that people in highly logical professions (engineers, physicists etc) are not generally famous for their ability to get along with people. To insist on adherence to strict logical structure wont usually get you far in relationships, particularly with women:) The bible is primarily intended to promote relationships (ie, two most important commandments, love God, love people) and as such does not place highest priority on logical consistency.
I think it was Einstein that said you can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem. Most people seek God because of a problem. If faith could be understood completely by a person with a problem without first raising the level of their thinking, according to Einstein's logic, that faith could not provide a solution to the problem. As the bible also says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." and "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." and "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
Well, it's interesting to hear (read) your view. I think we will go quite offtopic if we continue a discussion about what constitutes a true Christian and how doctrine should be taught or understood, although I'm sure it would be interesting.
Although you will probably disagree, I will offer this explanation of why many people are happy with the bible, unchanged and not newly interpreted: You said in a previous post (paraphrased) "That behind science... is the belief that there are absolute universal rules that govern all things in the universe." People who believe the bible also believe this of the "supernatural".
Science advances in the knowledge of these rules by "experimentation and observations". However, as we have noted, the supernatural does not seem to be available for such experimentation and observations, and so the laws that govern the supernatural (known as moral or spiritual law) is known primarily through revelation. People who believe the bible is that revelation, and complete, are very unlikely to change their interpretation of it in order to be seen as progressive. They may very well try to understand the differences in the culture being addressed in scripture to their own in order to understand/apply the (original) teaching correctly.
I'm sure this doesn't convince you of anything, but perhaps it will help you understand people that must seem...well... unreasonable:)
IMO, people who bring their behaviour into line with biblical teaching have a much better impact than those who change the teaching to suit their changing environment, chameleon believers, if you will. You can hear "Give to the poor, don't judge others, love your enemies..." anywhere you want to go. Seeing it in action is what will make the difference, no new doctrine required.
> coming up with a different interpretation which may get you ostricized, labeled an apostate, or persecutated for your dissentious beliefs(sound familiar?).
...don't need new interpretations for that either. A few timely quotes from scripture, or the question "Do you have a scripture reference for that?" in response to being told some acceptable thing is usually sufficient.
It's turned rather offtopic I think you'll agree. I'm quite happy to continue, but perhaps it would be best over email if you want to discuss this further. rwharbor-subs at yahoo dot com dot au
> I never said a scientist can't be religious. But in science, one must rule out the supernatural.
Ok, I see your point and I suppose we're on a similar track, I guess I would say science doesn't acknowledge the supernatural. Ruling it out is making a decision about it without evidence, which I regard as contrary to science. I would say that the supernatural is by nature the unseen, while science deals with the observable. Therefore science should have nothing to say about the supernatural, either to rule it out or rule it in (for want of a better term). So with the example you gave of the dinosaur bone at 2,256 meters, science would IMO not rule out supernatural explanation, nor investigate, suggest or otherwise mention supernatural explanation. No ruling out required, the supernatural is not what science is about. It's a bit like saying mathematics should rule out emotion: it doesn't need to, it's irrelevant.
> Many past scientists/philosophers, such as Renee Descartes, have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the two beliefs
Not surprising. The bible itself says "for we walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7, that is to say, the things of Christian faith are as a rule not observed. How many people do you know that claim to have observed a resurrection? Yet it would be considered by most Christians to be central to their faith. Biology though, has nothing to say about it. It is simply not necessary for a biologist to rule out the possibility of resurrection based on the observation of the bodies of dead Christians, it is outside the scope of science. I don't think I would take a biologist seriously if they wrote in a paper either "This dead body is now prepared for resurrection (being dead)" or "This body won't be resurrected as it is putrifying (or similar comment, I'm sure you get the idea)". Also consider the biblical story of Abraham (makes no difference if you believe it or not, I'm making a point about faith not being observable reality). Abraham means "father of many" a name Abraham took (according to the story) before he had any children at all. Not exactly about science, I know, but still a case of faith being in direct conflict with observable reality.
> Most progressive individuals don't take the Bible literally these days anyways.
All this means is that you don't consider people who take the bible literally to be progressive:)
I don't consider myself religious as such, but I do have supernatural beliefs. I just don't expect or need my spiritual beliefs to be in agreement with observable reality, neither do I need to deny observable reality if it appears to conflict with my faith. Again in Proverbs 3:5 (Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And don't lean on your own understanding.) a statement essentially the requirement of Christian/Jewish faith will be in defiance of logic/reason, ie: the things of faith are neither logical nor reasonable nor observable, which is to say, not science. Science has no more to say about faith than it does about poetry.
The problem as I see it arises when: 1) People try to say faith is science (In direct contradition to the bible at least, I haven't studied other religious books enough to know what they say about it); 2) People try to say Science (observation) is THE determiner of truth (faith) (eg: ruling out supernatural causes when there is no evidence or necessity to do so) 3) People try to eradicate faith through natural (observable) means, eg oppresion of religion by other religions/communists etc. 4) People try to enforce faith by natural means (force of arms, political power etc)
According to the bible, biblical faith is considered to be foolish by those who don't believe it. I conclude therefore, that any attempt to make it seem reasonable will be either unsuccessful, or a departure from authentic biblical faith (or a conversion, resulting in a brand new unreasonable person:) I am sure the same would apply to most supernatural beliefs.
Any attempt to rule out a belief that is by it's very nature illogical, unreasonable, unobservable and foolish by using science... well, need I say more?
Actually, I think it's you who doesn't get it. If, as you say, the concept of the supernatural is completely useless to science (which I suspect wouldn't get an arguement from most people), it is surely also of no effect on science, provided one bases science on evidence. There have been too many scientists over history who have held various religious beliefs for a rational person to say that belief in the supernatural prevents good science. It just doesn't agree with known facts to state such a thing. You can study the effects of gravity, for example, equally well as a Christian, Muslim, Buddist, atheist or any other belief or lack of it. It is simply a denial of reality to say that only people who rule out supernatural belief can be true scientists. History disagrees with you.
Saying "I don't rule out supernatural causes for some phenomena" is quite different to attributing those phenomena to the supernatural, ie: this phenomena IS caused by (insert your supernatural preference here).
Also, many reports of "supernatural" activity do not by their nature rule out logical and scientific expanations, for example, the well known story of David and Goliath (whether you believe it or not). It would seem fairly obvious that the rock embedded in Goliath's forehead would be sufficient explanation for his death, yet it does not disprove supernatural explanation. The attribution of David's victory to God didn't mean he hadn't practised alot with that sling.
From the motivation of wanting to advance scientific enquiry, it would be better to neither dismiss or depend on supernatural explanations, as it would seem that the supernatural does not seem inclined to present itself for scientific investigation, and can therefore neither be proved or disproved by science. So, check out that sling (so to speak) whether or not you attribute the outcome to supernatural events or not. Claiming supernatural causes is not science, and neither is denying them.
...and without evidence to the contrary they should establish that as a scientific theory?
That's not what Flimzy said at all. Read the post.
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
Having said that, that doesn't mean we need to _assume_ these things exist, either.
Waiting on evidence before making a decision is hardly unscientific. The whole idea that something should not be regarded as possibly real until it can be scientifically observed flies in the face of scientific advancement. By this thinking, atoms only became real quite recently, and creationism was true until Darwin made his observations (or at least, evolution hadn't happened until the observations were made, at which point it became true).
Slashdot Mirror
and I am suggesting that we define rights by species rather than developement stage, as it is far less susceptible to abuse. Indeed, if you take the view that a creature must "deserve" rights in some way, you are taking a view that is inherently in conflict with the Declaration of Independence (I am assuming you are a US citizen?). If "all men are created equal" and have "certain unalienable rights" among them being life, then surely the time to give that creature rights is the moment of "creation", most easily being understood as conception? Every other point in time is essentially a stage in developement. If you can, through reason, remove those rights from the creature from the point of conception to another arbitarily decided stage in developement, then you no longer have a firm foundation for human rights at all.
That is why people like Peter Singer and Braino420 advocate the idea that it is ok to kill children. Their reasoning is based on the idea that people are only considered "human" at a certain stage of developement. Just like you, really. Take the time to read Singer's FAQ on the page I linked, you'll find where your line of reasoning ends if taken to it's logical conclusion.
Taking the view that human rights are essentially inherited at conception allows for no erosion of human rights. Taking the view that embryo's are human, not "become" human gives protection of human rights. Taking the view that human rights are "earned" or "deserved" by reaching a stage of developement provides the basis to strip portions of the population of rights. You can say it ain't so all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
I agree entirely. Perhaps even embryos. Perhaps intelligence resides in the "spirit" and the nervous system is the means by which it is brought into the world and communicated. Even among the disabled, I have sometimes discerned a much higher intelligence than is assumed by many people (I have worked in disability services before). If capacity for intelligence is the requirement for human rights, how do we discern if someone has the intelligence capacity but not the communication capacity? And by the way, mental illness is not an intelligence problem. Many mentally ill people are highly intelligent.
Human isn't something you become, it's something you are, from beginning to end.
doh!
;-)
Take some pamphlets on mental illness, take some info on the short term effects of various recreational drugs. I'm not talking about side effects, I'm talking the effects people buy the drugs to get. There is a very large overlap. Explain: a lot of recreational drug use is in effect a short term self induced mental illness. Do it consistently, and you train you brain to operate that way. Those effects are a lot less fun when they wont stop and you can't just chill out for a few hours to get over it.
Quote from GP: I just read "The Omega-3 connection" by Andrew Stoll.
1 90808-3286323?v=glance&n=283155
but just to help out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684871386/104-9
Yes, I tried to clarify to you (repeat, if you like) my point, which was quite different than what you said. You might try reading the thread again before replying. If you do, you may discover that I was proposing that we evaluate humanity (and therefore rights) based on genetic heritage rather than arbitary qualities, in this case intelligence (since then divided into intelligence capacity and intelligence level, making little or no difference to what I was saying).
I quote Jasper__unique_dammi "Admittedly it is hard to attach a creatures' right to nervous system abilities...". Did you catch that? He is proposing to evaluate eligibility for rights (humaness, if you like) according to ability (or capacity). These are his words, not mine. Now, I do understand the context in which he is saying this, and he is applying that reasoning to a specific situation. What I am saying is if that reasoning (that humaness is determined by ability or capacity) is established in law as a precedent of how to evaluate humanity and eligibility for human rights, it is dangerous.
As for Singer, I didn't misrepresent him at all. Check the FAQ on his own website. Here is a select quote for you:
"So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support - which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely."
So, killing a baby after it is born is fine if it's disabled and the parents want to, according to Peter Singer. I'm interested to have you explain how I've misrepresented him. You say:
I have quoted him directly, therefore not lying about his arguements. Also the quote is from his FAQ, which I also gave the link for, ensuring that the context is appropriate. It is not part of a long digression leading to a different conclusion, it is a definite statement by him saying he supports the killing of disabled children subject only to the approval of the parents. Why? Basically because he is evaluating eligibility for rights (humaness, if you like) according to ability (or capacity). Also on the FAQ : "I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future."
So, Jasper__unique_dammi proposed evaluating humaness on intelligence capacity in the case of embryos, you say "You simply can't get from the idea that capacity to think or feel at all, or to have ever done so, is a necessary pre-requisite for rights to executing down syndrome kids. You just can't." and Peter Singer follows up behind you evaluating humaness on intelligence capacity and proposing the disabled kids can be killed. Not a strawman. Not even hypothetical. It is being proposed by Singer right now. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but to claim "strawman" is to show you either don't understand what I've meant (I trust this post clears that up) or you don't have a reasoned arguement against what I've said, but can't stand to say nothing.
Do I have this straight, you want to base laws on nervous system abilities, without mentioning nervous system abilities in law? Because you don't want the potential consequences? It seems to me that you need to have (and give) some sort of a reason to make a law. If you don't mention your reasoning on "nervous system abilities" explicitly, the reasoning will be implied, and still a part of the precedent, unless you are actively deceptive about your reasoning.
To quote myself from another post "Currently, most people agree it (the age an embryo "becomes" human) lies somewhere between conception and birth. Any decision made about what can or can't be done is in effect narrowing this down. However, it is often not being done by addressing this particular issue directly. The effects of these decisions have far reaching consequences on how human rights are implemented though, because they take the issues from being subjective opinions to being legal and administrative realities."
I think we need to take this into account when weighing the cost/benefits of this sort of thing.
Since I didn't say that, you have your own strawman arguement. I didn't say it was the same, I said it sets up a precedent, which it does. And since you bring up the distiction between intelligence levels vs intelligence capacity, you illustrate my point nicely, as down syndrome people would usually be considered to have a much different capacity for intelligence. It is not about saying "If you want to do stem cell research you also want to kill disabled people", it's saying that if you get a decision to allow ebryonic stem cell research based on a particular line of reasoning, that line of reasoning can then be used (precendent, remember) in other decisions. It is not dishonest, it is demonstably true that people reason this way, for example, Peter Singer who indeed does have the opinion that it is ok to kill disabled children.
Even if you personally don't intend that line of reasoning to be used that way, others certainly do.
Thank you for being so honest about your opinion and stating yourself so clearly.
You seem to be assuming that if you are responsible for somethings existence, then it has no intrinsic rights and you can destroy it at will. For an object, this is true. For a human it is not, else we all have the right to kill our children, whether they've been born yet or not. They wouldn't have existed in the first place except for us, correct? I know you don't really mean it this way, but it seems to me that is where that line of reasoning leads.
You seem to be assuming the embryos would become living human beings if they don't get harvested.
Actually, I'm proposing that we consider that embryos could be human. Essentially, that being human is a quality defined by parental lineage rather than arbitary qualities, eg: intelligence, self-awareness etc. This is the point. If an embryo is not human, there is no good reason not to do it, whether they could potentially "become" human or not. If an embryo is human, we have no right to kill them for potential medical benefits to others, especially without their consent, whether we are responsible for their existence or not.
When we have a largely agreed upon stage at which an embryo is considered to be human, much of the arguement on these issues will be dealt with. Currently, most people agree it lies somewhere between conception and birth. Any decision made about what can or can't be done is in effect narrowing this down. However, it is often not being done by addressing this particular issue directly. The effects of these decisions have far reaching consequences on how human rights are implemented though, because they take the issues from being subjective opinions to being legal and administrative realities. Do you really want your rights dependent on someone elses judgement of how human you are based on your intelligence (as judged by them), whether someones actions have contibuted to/caused your existence?
Admittedly it is hard to attach a creatures' right to nervous system abilities
:) , but the reality is that it would be taking a huge step towards a government far more oppresive than the ones we have currently in the west.
yes, brings up a few problems doesn't it. Like, if we base rights (in law) on intelligence (which is basically what you are proposing) we would be setting up a pretty good legal precedent to strip stupid people of their rights. Of course, this might seem to have it's benefits
Consensus will not happen on this issue any time soon. What I think we need is an arbitary decision on when the embryo is to be considered human. This decision, by it's nature, will not be agreed upon by everyone, but it needs to be agreed upon by enough people to become law, and enough agreement to have reasonable chance of law enforcement. Not dissimilar to the arbitary desicions on voting age, age of consent etc. We already have some basis for doing this in Australia. For example, if a child is stillborn after a certain point in the pregnancy (8 months IIRC) it must be buried and given a birth and death certificate. IANAL, but I think there is a fair chance that a late term abortion could be tried as murder under our existing laws, but I don't know of any such cases.
My personal view is to base the rights to live on the species, that is to say, from conception. I am well aware that many disagree with this, and even have some quite logical arguements, but it remains my view.
Good to see that someone else can cut to the chase on this. Although you may come to a different conclusion than I do, "Is the embryo human" is the one question that if answered would render most other arguements invalid. The way I think of it is: What are the consequences if I'm wrong?"
In cricket, if there is doubt about a decision regarding a wicket being taken, the batsman is given "The benefit of the doubt", ie: since the batsman (if out) is out for the innings, but the bowler gets to bowl again, if there is uncertainty, the batsman is not out.
While cloning, stem cell research and abortion are far removed from cricket, I think using this can possibly bring a broader consensus than trying to answer that question satisfactorily.
My thoughts:
1 - on growing human embryos to harvest (kill) for stem cell research (or any other purpose)
If we ban it because we judge the embryo to be human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be neglecting to persue one avenue of research (there are others) that would possibly, at some point in the future, deliver a medical benefit to some people.
If we allow it because we judge the embryo to be not human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be committing mass murdur on an ongoing basis.
2 - abortion
If we ban it because we judge the embryo to be human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost?
We would be denying women some fairly basic rights to control their bodies and lives, certainly an important thing to consider, not to be treated lightly. (For the sake of this post, sticking to the idea of abortion on demand, which I understand to be most abortions. I do recognise that other situations would require more looking into)
f we allow it because we judge the embryo to be not human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be committing mass murdur on an ongoing basis.
Based on the risks of being wrong, I judge in favour of the embryo's. Ban it.
...die early from sickness. And then produce more sick babies.
Ha ha, are there many people who have produced sick babies after dying? Care to provide a link?
The difference is that copying software isn't comparable to stealing. It's more comparable to counterfeiting.
The U.S government doesn't want people countefeiting money for the same reason Microsoft doesn't want a business conterfeiting their software.
The significant difference is that money is used to exchange for something of value but software is used to produce something of value. Therefore, copying software to sell is comparable to counterfeiting, copying software to use is not really the same at all.
No country for example will allow counterfeiting of currency. Many software producers will allow copying of software, and not only F/OSS either, but shareware, freeware, and even proprietry software companies hoping to dominate new markets. Counterfeiting has never been advocated as a means to help economies, but the UN recommends and promotes open source (copying software) for the development of it's member nations. Until I see the UN advocating counterfeiting as a means of developing a nations economy, I'll consider consider copying software to be nothing at all similar to counterfeiting.
You are correct that the US President could not be sued under US law, but violating the Berne Convention would still release every other signatory of the Berne Convention from their obligation to enforce US copyrights.
When choosing hardware, I find it better to ask the lists than read blurb of the box the card is in. You will get much more reliable info from people who actually use the distro.
He didn't mention piracy. Maybe he's advocating changing the laws. IIRC copyright didn't origianlly cover music, for example. Perhaps he believes in the rule of law, and obeys it, but also believes in democracy, so works to change the law. If so, he would be far from the only one to take this stand.
I presume from the context that the GP is referring to the National Rifle Association, whose page is www.nra.org, not www.nra.com
$ host www.nra.org
www.nra.org has address 64.29.201.96
$ httptype 64.29.201.96
Microsoft-IIS/6.0
By the nature of their business, construction companies must use workers on site, unlike many IT companies/departments. Cars can be imported. Much more difficult to import a skyscraper.
The problem is that in 3,000 years the people will start trying to re-intepret the original religious texts and give them meanings that didn't exist before...
You accidentaly added three zeros to that number. And you spelt days wrong.
that's a funny link, thanks.
:) The bible is primarily intended to promote relationships (ie, two most important commandments, love God, love people) and as such does not place highest priority on logical consistency.
> Questions I directed to my pastor and Sunday School teachers received unsatisfactory answers or evasive responses.
I got similar responses as a teenager when asking why shouldn't I smoke pot. Many people in general speak without knowledge. It's probably not surprising that they continue to do so if they become Christians. Unfortunately, as you pointed out before, many people believe because the Pastor told them to, so someone in this position may go for years (lifetime) without having to clarify or justify their doctrine. Especially if people who do question it leave as a result of the unsatisfactory answers.
> My question is this: How *much* of the Bible have they read?
Personally, all of it. It's not that I haven't seen inconsistencies, but many of them have been resolved for me over time. I am sure that if we were to go over them, some I could resolve to your satisfaction, others I could not. Personally, since I have found that some things which have seemed insurmountable have been resolved by just a little more knowledge or a different way of thinking, it seems likely to me that others will be solved in time. As such, again, not particularly helpful to you, but not a big problem for me. For years some passages frustrated me every time I looked at them, sometimes to be resolved very easily.
> I ended up "losing my religion."
Not a bad idea perhaps. I'm not in the religion I was brought up in either, and still don't consider myself particularly religious. Maybe other people do.
BTW, my brother in law is a software engineer and has read all the bible and believes, so being able to think logically and consistenly and biblical faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Also, consider that people in highly logical professions (engineers, physicists etc) are not generally famous for their ability to get along with people. To insist on adherence to strict logical structure wont usually get you far in relationships, particularly with women
I think it was Einstein that said you can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem. Most people seek God because of a problem. If faith could be understood completely by a person with a problem without first raising the level of their thinking, according to Einstein's logic, that faith could not provide a solution to the problem. As the bible also says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." and "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." and "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
Well, it's interesting to hear (read) your view. I think we will go quite offtopic if we continue a discussion about what constitutes a true Christian and how doctrine should be taught or understood, although I'm sure it would be interesting.
... is the belief that there are absolute universal rules that govern all things in the universe." People who believe the bible also believe this of the "supernatural".
Science advances in the knowledge of these rules by "experimentation and observations". However, as we have noted, the supernatural does not seem to be available for such experimentation and observations, and so the laws that govern the supernatural (known as moral or spiritual law) is known primarily through revelation. People who believe the bible is that revelation, and complete, are very unlikely to change their interpretation of it in order to be seen as progressive. They may very well try to understand the differences in the culture being addressed in scripture to their own in order to understand/apply the (original) teaching correctly.
...well... unreasonable :)
..." anywhere you want to go. Seeing it in action is what will make the difference, no new doctrine required.
Although you will probably disagree, I will offer this explanation of why many people are happy with the bible, unchanged and not newly interpreted: You said in a previous post (paraphrased) "That behind science
I'm sure this doesn't convince you of anything, but perhaps it will help you understand people that must seem
IMO, people who bring their behaviour into line with biblical teaching have a much better impact than those who change the teaching to suit their changing environment, chameleon believers, if you will. You can hear "Give to the poor, don't judge others, love your enemies
> coming up with a different interpretation which may get you ostricized, labeled an apostate, or persecutated for your dissentious beliefs(sound familiar?).
...don't need new interpretations for that either. A few timely quotes from scripture, or the question "Do you have a scripture reference for that?" in response to being told some acceptable thing is usually sufficient.
It's turned rather offtopic I think you'll agree. I'm quite happy to continue, but perhaps it would be best over email if you want to discuss this further. rwharbor-subs at yahoo dot com dot au
> I never said a scientist can't be religious. But in science, one must rule out the supernatural.
:)
:) I am sure the same would apply to most supernatural beliefs.
... well, need I say more?
Ok, I see your point and I suppose we're on a similar track, I guess I would say science doesn't acknowledge the supernatural. Ruling it out is making a decision about it without evidence, which I regard as contrary to science. I would say that the supernatural is by nature the unseen, while science deals with the observable. Therefore science should have nothing to say about the supernatural, either to rule it out or rule it in (for want of a better term). So with the example you gave of the dinosaur bone at 2,256 meters, science would IMO not rule out supernatural explanation, nor investigate, suggest or otherwise mention supernatural explanation. No ruling out required, the supernatural is not what science is about. It's a bit like saying mathematics should rule out emotion: it doesn't need to, it's irrelevant.
> Many past scientists/philosophers, such as Renee Descartes, have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the two beliefs
Not surprising. The bible itself says "for we walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7, that is to say, the things of Christian faith are as a rule not observed. How many people do you know that claim to have observed a resurrection? Yet it would be considered by most Christians to be central to their faith. Biology though, has nothing to say about it. It is simply not necessary for a biologist to rule out the possibility of resurrection based on the observation of the bodies of dead Christians, it is outside the scope of science. I don't think I would take a biologist seriously if they wrote in a paper either "This dead body is now prepared for resurrection (being dead)" or "This body won't be resurrected as it is putrifying (or similar comment, I'm sure you get the idea)". Also consider the biblical story of Abraham (makes no difference if you believe it or not, I'm making a point about faith not being observable reality). Abraham means "father of many" a name Abraham took (according to the story) before he had any children at all. Not exactly about science, I know, but still a case of faith being in direct conflict with observable reality.
> Most progressive individuals don't take the Bible literally these days anyways.
All this means is that you don't consider people who take the bible literally to be progressive
I don't consider myself religious as such, but I do have supernatural beliefs. I just don't expect or need my spiritual beliefs to be in agreement with observable reality, neither do I need to deny observable reality if it appears to conflict with my faith. Again in Proverbs 3:5 (Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And don't lean on your own understanding.) a statement essentially the requirement of Christian/Jewish faith will be in defiance of logic/reason, ie: the things of faith are neither logical nor reasonable nor observable, which is to say, not science. Science has no more to say about faith than it does about poetry.
The problem as I see it arises when: 1) People try to say faith is science (In direct contradition to the bible at least, I haven't studied other religious books enough to know what they say about it); 2) People try to say Science (observation) is THE determiner of truth (faith) (eg: ruling out supernatural causes when there is no evidence or necessity to do so) 3) People try to eradicate faith through natural (observable) means, eg oppresion of religion by other religions/communists etc. 4) People try to enforce faith by natural means (force of arms, political power etc)
According to the bible, biblical faith is considered to be foolish by those who don't believe it. I conclude therefore, that any attempt to make it seem reasonable will be either unsuccessful, or a departure from authentic biblical faith (or a conversion, resulting in a brand new unreasonable person
Any attempt to rule out a belief that is by it's very nature illogical, unreasonable, unobservable and foolish by using science
Actually, I think it's you who doesn't get it. If, as you say, the concept of the supernatural is completely useless to science (which I suspect wouldn't get an arguement from most people), it is surely also of no effect on science, provided one bases science on evidence. There have been too many scientists over history who have held various religious beliefs for a rational person to say that belief in the supernatural prevents good science. It just doesn't agree with known facts to state such a thing. You can study the effects of gravity, for example, equally well as a Christian, Muslim, Buddist, atheist or any other belief or lack of it. It is simply a denial of reality to say that only people who rule out supernatural belief can be true scientists. History disagrees with you.
Saying "I don't rule out supernatural causes for some phenomena" is quite different to attributing those phenomena to the supernatural, ie: this phenomena IS caused by (insert your supernatural preference here).
Also, many reports of "supernatural" activity do not by their nature rule out logical and scientific expanations, for example, the well known story of David and Goliath (whether you believe it or not). It would seem fairly obvious that the rock embedded in Goliath's forehead would be sufficient explanation for his death, yet it does not disprove supernatural explanation. The attribution of David's victory to God didn't mean he hadn't practised alot with that sling.
From the motivation of wanting to advance scientific enquiry, it would be better to neither dismiss or depend on supernatural explanations, as it would seem that the supernatural does not seem inclined to present itself for scientific investigation, and can therefore neither be proved or disproved by science. So, check out that sling (so to speak) whether or not you attribute the outcome to supernatural events or not. Claiming supernatural causes is not science, and neither is denying them.
...and without evidence to the contrary they should establish that as a scientific theory?
That's not what Flimzy said at all. Read the post.
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
Having said that, that doesn't mean we need to _assume_ these things exist, either.
Waiting on evidence before making a decision is hardly unscientific. The whole idea that something should not be regarded as possibly real until it can be scientifically observed flies in the face of scientific advancement. By this thinking, atoms only became real quite recently, and creationism was true until Darwin made his observations (or at least, evolution hadn't happened until the observations were made, at which point it became true).