A theological argument FOR abortion

[R_Daneel]

Just to let you know … I’ll be in Italy for two weeks (and then on the east coast for about another week). I don’t know if I’ll have ready internet access during that time.

And I apologize for not having time to respond either.

So, until then … Ciao!

Wishing you a wonderful trip and a great time! Italy is beautiful. Arrivederci.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, I don’t think that using “rationality” and “intellect” interchangably is a good idea - for obvious reasons. Besides you still did not tell me what is “thinking” and what is the “mind”?

We don’t start off knowing what thinking is. By necessity, we start off thinking. That’s all. That’s the start of any epistemology. We don’t start as a brain. We start by thinking, and then we think about the brain, or anything else for that matter. What this means is that the most basic epistemology is our thinking itself, not the specific application of this thought to any specific thing. It may be very well to apply our thought, certainly, but this doesn’t change the fact that we look outwards from the vantage point of our own thought- not from the vantage point of any specific characterized system. That all comes later.

I don’t even understand your question.

I don’t think this is going anywhere, so let’s drop it for now. Gilson has an excellent chapter on being, if you care to look it up.

One experiment? How about trillions of them every minute? You say that employing empiricism does not mean that empiricism is “true”. Why would you employ any method that does not lead to “true” results? I am saying that you and every theist uses empiricism all the time, because you know that it leads to good results. If you wish to make a philosophical underpinning, just use the simplest philosophy of all: “because it works!”.

You don’t understand what I am talking about. What do you mean when you say that empiricism “works?” You probably mean something along the lines of, say, watching a ball fall over and over leads us to believe it will fall in the future under the same conditions, which we then observe empirically. That’s all well and good, but think about what you are doing- you are making empirical observations, making conclusions, and then observing the empirical result. At no point do you leave empiricism. If you disagree with this, I challenge you to explain the point where this system of trial and error leaves the empirical level.

This isn’t what I asked for- how is it that you know that empiricism is true? I’m not asking for results within empiricism. I’m asking for evidence for empiricism as a system. As such, pointing to cause and effect within empiricism is pointless- I’m asking about empiricism itself. Saying that “empiricism works” is basically meaningless- what you are really saying is that empirical things have empirical results. That’s completely obvious and beside the point- I know empiricism is a system, but I’m asking for evidence that it is the correct system.

Here’s an analogy- consider a fundamentalist Christian. He views the Bible as the sole rule of truth. When asked for evidence that the Bible is true, he points to Old Testament prophesies fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Not very convincing I’m afraid! You are doing the exact same thing- when asked for evidence that empiricism is true, you give empirical results (such as “the ball falls under the same conditions”).

As the one making the positive assertion that empiricism is true, can you provide evidence for empiricism without relying on empiricism? If you do that, what does this bode for epistemology? Are you using non-empirical evidence?

If you cannot provide non-empirical evidence, then you will forever remain on the level of the Bible thumper- giving Biblical evidence for Biblical truth, or giving empirical evidence for empirical truth. If you use non-empirical evidence, then you de facto admit that non-empirical evidence can be valid.

Now, you may wonder how far back we can take this- after all, we have to stop at some system. Well, the best way to do this is to go as far back as possible- which takes us all the way to thought itself.

Ethics is about “ought” - which is always conditional and not absolute. “Moral” is a label you attach to something you like. “Immoral” is a label you use, when you see something you don’t like. One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”. And the stronger group will impose its views on the weaker one. Not a pretty sight, but reality is not always pretty.

So, you have admitted that atheist morality is a power play. In contrast, Catholics assert an eternal moral law rooted in existence and being itself- and this provides the means for shaping reality to its best form and holding it accountable for its shortcomings.

 

[R_Daneel]

We don’t start off knowing what thinking is. By necessity, we start off thinking. That’s all. That’s the start of any epistemology. We don’t start as a brain. We start by thinking, and then we think about the brain, or anything else for that matter. What this means is that the most basic epistemology is our thinking itself, not the specific application of this thought to any specific thing. It may be very well to apply our thought, certainly, but this doesn’t change the fact that we look outwards from the vantage point of our own thought- not from the vantage point of any specific characterized system. That all comes later.

I am still wondering what kind of being are you talking about? Humans do not start off thinking - they start off with an almost clean slate, and their only ability is an affinity to be able to think. Humans start off having their nerve ends stimulated, which they do not understand, to which stimuli they respond instinctively. When a small insect is approaching our eyes, we do not “think”, our reflexes take over, and we blink. There is no conscious thought involved, much less abstract thoughts.

I am still wondering about your use of the word “mind”.

You don’t understand what I am talking about. What do you mean when you say that empiricism “works?” You probably mean something along the lines of, say, watching a ball fall over and over leads us to believe it will fall in the future under the same conditions, which we then observe empirically. That’s all well and good, but think about what you are doing- you are making empirical observations, making conclusions, and then observing the empirical result. At no point do you leave empiricism. If you disagree with this, I challenge you to explain the point where this system of trial and error leaves the empirical level.

We went through this before. Every system must have a starting point – which is NOT subject to further “verification”.

This isn’t what I asked for- how is it that you know that empiricism is true? I’m not asking for results within empiricism. I’m asking for evidence for empiricism as a system.

See above. And before you say “aha!”, just contemplate, how can you decide that your “thought-based” system is true - without referring to it?

Now, you may wonder how far back we can take this- after all, we have to stop at some system. Well, the best way to do this is to go as far back as possible- which takes us all the way to thought itself.

Not to “abstract” thoughts. Animals have no abstract thoughts, and they rely on “implicit” empiricism.

So, you have admitted that atheist morality is a power play. In contrast, Catholics assert an eternal moral law rooted in existence and being itself- and this provides the means for shaping reality to its best form and holding it accountable for its shortcomings.

You misunderstand me. I say that the propostions “action X is moral” or “action Y is immoral” are simply expressing your personal preference. They are labeling an existing action. Now, on the other hand, an ethical system is different from labeling an action, it deals with “ought” statements, or hypothetical actions. You base yours on your perception of of what God commanded you to value, I base mine on fully secular precondictions. (They may arrive at the same result, in certain cases.)

 

[Sarpedon]

I am still wondering what kind of being are you talking about? Humans do not start off thinking - they start off with an almost clean slate, and their only ability is an affinity to be able to think. Humans start off having their nerve ends stimulated, which they do not understand, to which stimuli they respond instinctively. When a small insect is approaching our eyes, we do not “think”, our reflexes take over, and we blink. There is no conscious thought involved, much less abstract thoughts.

How do you know that you have nerve ends, or that your surprise is triggered by an insect? Through the application of your intellect. We start off as thinking creatures. We don’t know what we are, or what we have, or why we think, or anything else for that matter. We simply think. With time, we apply our thought to various particular things and form conclusions about who we are, what we have, and what we do based on that application of our ability. These are still conclusions, which are distinct from the simple ability of thought itself. This distinction may seem trivial, but it is vital because it forms the furthest back we can go- precisely before we begin to characterize the application of our thought as “science” or “theology” or “art” or any other particular discipline.

We went through this before. Every system must have a starting point – which is NOT subject to further “verification”.

Indeed, and I challenge your position that empiricism must be the starting point. In contrast, I argue that our thought itself must be the starting point, which we then turn outwards.

See above. And before you say “aha!”, just contemplate, how can you decide that your “thought-based” system is true - without referring to it?

I can’t verify my thought, because I can’t not think about it. That’s what I’ve been explaining since the start of this thread. Our thought itself is the furthest back we can go. We must think before we can think about science. I’m not saying that no system can serve as the reference point. I’m saying that our system must be as fundamental as possible- and our own thought forms that basis.

I’m not taking a purely idealist approach. Our thought naturally must be directed outwards to learn of things outside our own thought. The order, though is still critical- you will get different results if you start out with an explanation and then seek the cause of that explanation, than if you start out with an ability and then seek to explain that ability.

Note that I am not explaining my intellect- it simply is there, and I cannot explain it. You are doing the same thing, but using empiricism as the unexplainable principal. The basic problem with this is that empiricism is not the furthest back you can go- the ability of our thought must exist prior to any conception of science and empiricism. Therefore, using science as the foundational principal is wrong precisely because it relies on further principals, multiplying unexplained aspects. That’s never a good idea.

You misunderstand me. I say that the propostions “action X is moral” or “action Y is immoral” are simply expressing your personal preference. They are labeling an existing action. Now, on the other hand, an ethical system is different from labeling an action, it deals with “ought” statements, or hypothetical actions. You base yours on your perception of of what God commanded you to value, I base mine on fully secular precondictions. (They may arrive at the same result, in certain cases.)

That’s an utterly pointless distinction. Sure, you can define “morality” as referring to actual actions, and “ethics” as referring to future actions, but the worth of both is still rooted in personal preference. You may prefer some current act, or prefer some hypothetical act, thereby granting them your moral/ethical approval, but you are still basing the nature of morality and ethics on your personal preference. That much is unavoidable. In an atheist system, all morals and ethics must be rooted in individual preferences, viewed from the perspective of either the individual or the herd. There is no other way to do it, because there is no teleology present in nature itself.

In contrast, Catholic morals and ethics are based on the principal of cause and effect within teleology. While it is true that God commands morals, this is beside the point- God commands them precisely because they have naturally good consequences in light of our teleology. Since our teleology is objective, and the natural consequences of actions are objective, Catholic morals and ethics are rooted in objectivity. By its direct rejection of teleology, atheism denies itself any ability to make objective moral rules. Sure, the much acclaimed atheistic “personal teleology” (we set our own goals) may enable ethics and morals relative to that personal teleology, but such a system is still entirely rooted in the individual goals and preferences. Therefore, there is no objective way to condemn or elevate certain preferences over others, no matter what they are- morality simply becomes “fulfill your own personal goals and preferences.” And sometimes that leads to problems.

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Areopagite
Maybe. I guess. Now … what’s your point, exactly? Are you saying that all discourse is futile? Are these flirtations with misology, skepticism, or deconstructionism? I don’t know how to respond to this.

Huh? So you like futile pursuits, discourse is a ‘guilty pleasure’ for you or something? Would you mind elaborating on what you mean here?

 

[Betterave]

How do you know that you have nerve ends, or that your surprise is triggered by an insect? Through the application of your intellect. We start off as thinking creatures. We don’t know what we are, or what we have, or why we think, or anything else for that matter. We simply think. With time, we apply our thought to various particular things and form conclusions about who we are, what we have, and what we do based on that application of our ability. These are still conclusions, which are distinct from the simple ability of thought itself. This distinction may seem trivial, but it is vital because it forms the furthest back we can go- precisely before we begin to characterize the application of our thought as “science” or “theology” or “art” or any other particular discipline.

Indeed, and I challenge your position that empiricism must be the starting point. In contrast, I argue that our thought itself must be the starting point, which we then turn outwards.

I can’t verify my thought, because I can’t not think about it. That’s what I’ve been explaining since the start of this thread. Our thought itself is the furthest back we can go. We must think before we can think about science. I’m not saying that no system can serve as the reference point. I’m saying that our system must be as fundamental as possible- and our own thought forms that basis.

I’m not taking a purely idealist approach. Our thought naturally must be directed outwards to learn of things outside our own thought. The order, though is still critical- you will get different results if you start out with an explanation and then seek the cause of that explanation, than if you start out with an ability and then seek to explain that ability.

Note that I am not explaining my intellect- it simply is there, and I cannot explain it. You are doing the same thing, but using empiricism as the unexplainable principal. The basic problem with this is that empiricism is not the furthest back you can go- the ability of our thought must exist prior to any conception of science and empiricism. Therefore, using science as the foundational principal is wrong precisely because it relies on further principals, multiplying unexplained aspects. That’s never a good idea.

That’s an utterly pointless distinction. Sure, you can define “morality” as referring to actual actions, and “ethics” as referring to future actions, but the worth of both is still rooted in personal preference. You may prefer some current act, or prefer some hypothetical act, thereby granting them your moral/ethical approval, but you are still basing the nature of morality and ethics on your personal preference. That much is unavoidable. In an atheist system, all morals and ethics must be rooted in individual preferences, viewed from the perspective of either the individual or the herd. There is no other way to do it, because there is no teleology present in nature itself.

In contrast, Catholic morals and ethics are based on the principal of cause and effect within teleology. While it is true that God commands morals, this is beside the point- God commands them precisely because they have naturally good consequences in light of our teleology. Since our teleology is objective, and the natural consequences of actions are objective, Catholic morals and ethics are rooted in objectivity. By its direct rejection of teleology, atheism denies itself any ability to make objective moral rules. Sure, the much acclaimed atheistic “personal teleology” (we set our own goals) may enable ethics and morals relative to that personal teleology, but such a system is still entirely rooted in the individual goals and preferences. Therefore, there is no objective way to condemn or elevate certain preferences over others, no matter what they are- morality simply becomes “fulfill your own personal goals and preferences.” And sometimes that leads to problems.

You’re repeating yourself a lot here, but only because it’s necessary in the circumstances. In any case, very nice explanation.

 

[R_Daneel]

How do you know that you have nerve ends, or that your surprise is triggered by an insect? Through the application of your intellect. We start off as thinking creatures.

We have been through too many times. We are not thinking creatures when we are born. How can you say otherwise? Also I asked a few times now about your remark about the mind. You said that thinking is the activity of the mind. What is the “mind” in your parlance?

Just a little tidbit. There is a psychological test, of putting someone into lukewarm salted water, putting a mask over their face so they are deprived of their sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. In a few hours (at most) their mind goes completely berserk. The mind cannot live without outside stimuli. There is no “disembodied” thinking - which is the basis of your starting point.

Note that I am not explaining my intellect- it simply is there, and I cannot explain it.

But we can. Intellect is the activity of the brain. Depending on the complexity of the brain, depending upon the number of neurons and their interconnectedness the “intellect” is either “primitive” or sophisticated. Sure, there is thinking, even abstract thinking. But it cannot be separated from “what is the ‘stuff’ that does the thinking?”. What you say sounds like to proclaim an abstract “walking” without making any suggestion to legs and feet. We certainly use our thinking to connect the physical foundation to its activity. But that “thinking” does not occur in thin air, does it?

The trouble with your line of reasoning is that you attempt to disconnect “intellect” from its foundation, and argue about it as if it were some disembodied phenomenon, unconnected to anything else. Maybe you don’t mean this, but this is my impression, since you never answered my basic question: “what is the mind?”.

That much is unavoidable. In an atheist system, all morals and ethics must be rooted in individual preferences, viewed from the perspective of either the individual or the herd. There is no other way to do it, because there is no teleology present in nature itself.

Not “or”, rather both. It is a delicate balancing act, to accommodate personal aims with the needs of others.

While it is true that God commands morals, this is beside the point- God commands them precisely because they have naturally good consequences in light of our teleology.

Hard to imagine how can a full-scale genocide be considered “moral”, even if God commands it. What kind of “telos” will come out from slaughtering all men women and children along with all the animals of some people, who “offended” God by worshipping false “gods”.

Therefore, there is no objective way to condemn or elevate certain preferences over others, no matter what they are- morality simply becomes “fulfill your own personal goals and preferences.”

You characterization is incorrect. If you had added: “…while respecting others’ similar goals and preferences”, you would be perfectly correct.

And sometimes that leads to problems.

You are right that “sometimes it can lead to problems”. No kidding. What about a nice, full scale theocracy, where everyone follows whatever the current “authority” proclaims to be God’s “telos”? That cannot lead to problems? Jonestown comes to mind…

 

[Sarpedon]

We have been through too many times. We are not thinking creatures when we are born. How can you say otherwise? Also I asked a few times now about your remark about the mind. You said that thinking is the activity of the mind. What is the “mind” in your parlance?

You are viewing the issue in terms of categories- what we have, what it is, etc.

That’s not what I’m talking about. Starting from ground zero, we have consciousness and its accompanying thought. That’s all we have. We don’t know any more than that. Using what we already have, i.e. our conscious thought, we can then apply our thought and say things like “we are creatures.”

In reference to being born, that’s another example of your approach- you are holding on to your presuppositions that you have deduced from the first principals. We start as thinking, conscious individuals, and then we ask ourselves “where did we come from?” For various reasons, we posit our own development, and I think there are good reasons for doing so. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is deduced from our first ability. That’s the case with everything. If we did not first have consciousness and its thought, we could not characterize our own development or our own brain. It is necessary to apply our consciousness to deduce things like our own development or our own body. Therefore, our consciousness and its associated thought form the framework that is the furthest back that we can go. This has numerous implications, which we can discuss once we get this foundation down.

Just a little tidbit. There is a psychological test, of putting someone into lukewarm salted water, putting a mask over their face so they are deprived of their sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. In a few hours (at most) their mind goes completely berserk. The mind cannot live without outside stimuli. There is no “disembodied” thinking - which is the basis of your starting point.

This is completely irrelevant because it is based on an already applied intellect. I am not talking about positively 'disembodied" intellect. Rather, I am talking about the basic consciousness that necessarily precedes any conception. Surely you can’t disagree on that? Would it be possible to know anything if you were not already conscious?

But that “thinking” does not occur in thin air, does it?

You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. I am not saying that a brain positively does not exist. I’m saying that any knowledge of a “brain” is necessarily the product of an already used ability. We could only describe a brain if we have descriptive powers, which we do. Note, however, that those powers are more fundamental than our descriptions. All particular disciplines are descriptions of things using abilities we already have. Those abilities are primary, and their application second. While is can be difficult to see, pure ability in this sense, divorced from its applications, would exist by itself since naturally it has not been applied to anything yet.

what is the mind?

Definitions could go either way. I am not saying that our mind is disembodied at all. Rather, I am saying that our intellectual ability precedes the application of that ability. Particulated knowledge is necessarily secondary to the ability itself. If we could not think, could we think of a brain? Could we think without thinking of a brain? The basic framework is our unexplained abilities, which we then extrapolate from and devise the enormous explanations that we use. Naturally, we have differing views on how to do this.

Not “or”, rather both. It is a delicate balancing act, to accommodate personal aims with the needs of others.

That’s a nice sentiment, but it’s just your preference, eh?

Hard to imagine how can a full-scale genocide be considered “moral”, even if God commands it. What kind of “telos” will come out from slaughtering all men women and children along with all the animals of some people, who “offended” God by worshipping false “gods”.

For several reasons, one of which is that death itself is not immoral, and secondly because humanity had not developed enough to the point where it could practice morality as we practice today.

You characterization is incorrect. If you had added: “…while respecting others’ similar goals and preferences”, you would be perfectly correct.

Why is that? Why am I obligated to respect others? Is that your opinion, or is it demonstrable fact?

You are right that “sometimes it can lead to problems”. No kidding. What about a nice, full scale theocracy, where everyone follows whatever the current “authority” proclaims to be God’s “telos”? That cannot lead to problems? Jonestown comes to mind…

Just because morality is objective does not mean that it cannot be misunderstood. I would argue that those people misunderstood the true objectively good course of action. The distinction here is not between understanding and misunderstanding- rather, it is between objective and subjective. People can understand or misunderstand regardless of whether or not morality is objective or subjective. However, if morality is objective, then it can be binding on all. If morality is subjective, then it can’t be binding on all and it’s whatever people want it to be.

In short, morality is either objective or subjective. Objective morality forms the basis for justice under a universal law, while subjective morality necessarily means that there is no universal law that judges everyone equally. Whether or not anyone understands either of these possibilities is beside the point.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

It is very simple and straightforward.

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus.

In biology the zygote isn’t impregnated, the female is.

 

[Betterave]

lol!

 

[white_sheep]

You may not do evil so that good may come of it. -Catholic teaching

Humans have a sex from the moment of conception. Just thought I’d point that out.

 

[tonyrey]

You may not do evil so that good may come of it. -Catholic teaching

If you are compelled to choose the lesser of two or more evils you have no option!

 

[JackVk]

This is a stupid and relativist argument. If what you’re saying is true (which it isn’t), I could stand outside of a confessional with a gun and shoot people as they come out because they will go to Heaven. The ends do not justify the means. I am not doing something benevolent by doing something evil.

 

[tonyrey]

This is a stupid and relativist argument.

In that case Catholic teaching is stupid and relativist!

If what you’re saying is true (which it isn’t), I could stand outside of a confessional with a gun and shoot people as they come out because they will go to Heaven.

To shoot a person is evil and not shooting is not evil. So it is not the lesser of two evils. There is not even any guarantee people will go to heaven after going to confession.

The ends do not justify the means. I am not doing something benevolent by doing something evil.

So you would let a person be killed rather than tell a lie?

 

[JackVk]

In that case Catholic teaching is stupid and relativist!

To shoot a person is evil and not shooting is not evil. So it is not the lesser of two evils. There is not even any guarantee people will go to heaven after going to confession.

So you would let a person be killed rather than tell a lie?

There is no guarantee that an aborted baby will go to Heaven. There is no guarantee that ANYONE will go the Heaven. We can only pray that God has mercy on the aborted child.

A woman doesn’t abort her child because she wants it to go to heaven. She aborts him or her because she can’t afford it, doesn’t want the responsibility, or is pressured by her husband or boyfriend. By the same token, murderers don’t kill because they want to send someone to Heaven. They kill because of revenge, pride, anger, or just plain sick pleasure.

Can you imagine someone with a gun to your head, telling you to say your prayers? He’s not doing you a favor, he’s mocking you.

As for lying to save someone’s life, you are comparing apples to oranges. Relativism is hard to define. I would lie to protect someone, but I wouldn’t kill someone to send them to Heaven. That sounds like something a psychotic murderer would say. Maybe the ends do justify the means sometimes. A lie is a lesser evil than a murder.

If you think this lunatic argument justifies abortion, you’re a disgrace to call yourself a Catholic.

 

[BettyM]

It is very simple and straightforward.

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus. According to the theists, it (definitely not a “he” or a “she”) is already a “human being”. It never gets implanted into the uterus wall, just gets flushed out from the woman’s system. What will be its fate? Will it get into heaven, or will be sent to @#!% ? The limbo is no longer an offical doctrine - so we can leave that out from consideration. Surely it will not get to @#!% , not even the most conservative Catholic would assert that. So it will go into heaven, in some capacity. There are some people who say that it will not get to the beatific vision (whatever that means). But even a “low-level” heaven is pretty good.

Now, the second possibility is that the zygote gets implanted into the uterus wall, but for some reason or another, it gets spontaneously aborted. The result is the same, it will get into heaven. Good outcome.

Suppose that the abortion is not spontaneous, it is volitional. For the fetus the outcome is not diifferent, still a nice, cozy, warm place in heaven. Good outcome again. So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, abortion is good. No risk of @#!*% , only an assured place on God’s bosom.

But, what about the woman who makes this decision? Well, it depends on her intent. Catholics, (unlike some Protestants) take the intent into consideration, and not just the act itself. If her intent is to assure a place in heaven, she acts out of love, performing an act in the fetus’s best interest. Furthermore, she sacrifices herself, her future place in heaven, which is the highest form of love. So, she is not a criminal, she does not sin, she puts the well-being of the fetus in front of her own. Thus she is to be praised and a self-sacrificing person, who risks everything just to assure the fetus’s place.

Moreover, she prevents the possible “slip” of her child, who might commot some mortal sin and consequently would be confined to eternal damnation. From a simple risk-benefit analysis, it is her optimal solution. The fetus will get an assured place in heaven. Her fate is also assured, as a self-sacrificing person, who exhibits the highest form of love. Surely God will take her intent into consideration.

So, go and abort all your children. It is in the best interest of the child, and in the best interest of the mother. Be careful, however, not to be selfish, and do not perform the abortion for some temporal gain. Always cast your eyes on the heaven. God will understand your motive, and will reward for it.

I think this is a terrible post. The Catholic Church is one of the hardest working churches fighting against abortion. All life comes from God and no matter how you look at it abortion is wrong and I believe the person who started this post knows it and is just trying to find someway to justify something that is wrong so to have a defense.

All life comes from God and only God has the right to take life. From the moment of conception growth and life takes place and it is never our right to end that life for it is made in the image of God.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no guarantee that an aborted baby will go to Heaven. There is no guarantee that ANYONE will go the Heaven. We can only pray that God has mercy on the aborted child.

A woman doesn’t abort her child because she wants it to go to heaven. She aborts him or her because she can’t afford it, doesn’t want the responsibility, or is pressured by her husband or boyfriend. By the same token, murderers don’t kill because they want to send someone to Heaven. They kill because of revenge, pride, anger, or just plain sick pleasure.

Can you imagine someone with a gun to your head, telling you to say your prayers? He’s not doing you a favor, he’s mocking you.

As for lying to save someone’s life, you are comparing apples to oranges. Relativism is hard to define. I would lie to protect someone, but I wouldn’t kill someone to send them to Heaven. That sounds like something a psychotic murderer would say. Maybe the ends do justify the means sometimes. A lie is a lesser evil than a murder.

If you think this lunatic argument justifies abortion, you’re a disgrace to call yourself a Catholic.

I don’t know what you’re referring to. I have **never **justified abortion.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s not what I’m talking about. Starting from ground zero, we have consciousness and its accompanying thought. That’s all we have. We don’t know any more than that. Using what we already have, i.e. our conscious thought, we can then apply our thought and say things like “we are creatures.”

But this is not ground zero. This is way into the process. When we are born, all we have is a bunch of physical experiences and absolutely no abstract thoughts, like “I am”. This is the point where we disagree. The whole thinking process is “tainted” by the experiencing process - in a very positive way, of course.

I disagree with the “model” you propose, namely that we are thinking creatures. It is incorrect. We are experiencing and thinking creatures. The two sides cannot be separated just for the sake of a model.

 

[Sarpedon]

But this is not ground zero. This is way into the process. When we are born, all we have is a bunch of physical experiences and absolutely no abstract thoughts, like “I am”. This is the point where we disagree. The whole thinking process is “tainted” by the experiencing process - in a very positive way, of course.

How do you have knowledge about your own development?

The only way you can have this knowledge is by applying your consciousness to the outside world. We can’t start by assuming that we develop as we postulate. We start with self awareness, and then we turn that self awareness outwards to develop theories about things outside of ourselves. I’m not saying that we have no experiences. I’m saying that self conscious intelligence is necessary before that outside world can be understood. You try to refute this by appealing to generally accepted facets of human development, but the fact of the matter is that such facets are simply the theories developed by applying our self-concious intelligence to our own bodies and physical context. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s vital to understand that such a characterization stems from our intelligence first, not our experiences regardless of our intelligence. An experience is worthless unless we already have an intelligence to understand it. Therefore, intelligence necessarily operates on a deeper level than experiences, since intelligence is necessary to understand experiences in the first place.