E
estesbob
Guest
One only need you posts to see the dangers inherent in making science your ‘god’ Knowledge without God leads to arrogaance,emptiness, sorrow, and disregard for ones fellow man.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
Following a self-created god leads to conceit,emptiness, sorrow, and disregard for ones fellow man.
R
ribozyme
Guest
grunts. How predictable it is for me not to come up with an alternative consistent system that emphasizes humanity’s ontological worth within a secular morality system. The Catholic Church does it so easily; they state that humanity is created in the image of God and that God commands us to treat humanity with dignity. Of course, a secular moral system cannot use recource to a deity. But what does the secular point of view say about humanity’s worth:
From here: equip.org/free/DD801.htm
Well, I see life as a natural phenomenon… The formation of life might have been a rare event, but like all other observed events, it was natural. Nice is nothing special; it is merely a natural phenomenon that is pointless. Acknowledge that, we have to acknowledge that humanity has no innate ontological worth as we are merely the products of evolution, a natural phenomenon. However, we have to create a false sense of ontological worth. The criterion that I have attempted here failed.
Estebob, I ask again? How is your God much better than science? Has he cured cancer or any disease? Or is it diligent scientists who have conducted research to find viable treatments.
S
st_lucy
Guest
I am always reminded of a cartoon I saw a while back. There was a man so angry with God for not finding a cure for cancer or aids. On the next scene you see Gods response, I have given you many cures for cancer and aids but you keep killing them.
Now this is something to wonder about, instead of wondering is good enough to live why don’t we give them a chance to live and contribute to our world.
God is Science. God created everything. What has science created without God?
R
ribozyme
Guest
I must add this… I stated I dislike abortion, but I should also add that my opinion is an opinion; it is merely my personal preference. My opinion about abortion has no worth as humans do not have any innate ontological worth in a secular morality system.
H
hasikelee
Guest
estes and ribozyme,
You guys are about to go up a tree here. It really doesn’t make sense. Other than a name alluding to science and one observational post regarding RU486, nothing in ribozyme’s posts are relevant to science or medicine.
Science is not ribozyme’s God.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well he says it is. He even asked me what was wrong with having Science as god. I am begining to think, however, that his god is BIG WORDS!
R
ribozyme
Guest
H
hasikelee
Guest
Yes, my response was more directed to estes in (hopefully charitably) pointing out to him that you are coming from an anti-scientific stance, thus his argument about science as your god was missing the point.
I can’t answer your question regarding who is your god as it is not specific. Besides I do not have enough information for an unbiased evaluation and would merely be speculating. By your god, do you refer to whom you worship? An idea you promote?
All I know is what is on this thread. Your posts do not have a scientific approach or medical basis. This is not a criticism or mocking of any kind; it simply is. Some people argue with an emotional approach, some with a financial, others with a philosophical mindset and some bang the bible over heads. Your approach is not yet defined.
The most I could possibly concede from your presence on this thread is that you are leaning towards relativism. But nothing is very clear as this point because you make an appearance as if to be ignorant about the specifics of the topic at hand. (E.g. by confusing legal and medical terms and applying irrelevant and/or arbitrary qualifications without defining an argument.)
As far as we have come on this thread, I am purely interested in learning more about your position on this, and I hope that you remain long enough to delve into your own thoughts. Perhaps more development of yourself and the knowledge you have so far is called for, and this thread may be an opportunity of growth for you. We are not masters in ever realm, right?
R
ribozyme
Guest
Yeah, I did not attempt to define “human” in the scientific sense, but I borrowed from Singer’s definition. It is not derived from science, though, as he is a preference utilitarian. Of course, it is not prudent for one to heavily rely on science to derive morality. I also challenge you to support your assertion that I am coming from an anti-scientific stance.
Although I find abortion distasteful, I will say this though. Singer is being consistent; in contrast, I was not being consistent during most of the duration of this thread. Posters in this thread correctly pointed out the vacuousness of my concept of “potentiality”. I will also add that under a secular moral system, abortion is morally acceptable as there is no intrinsic value to human life. Utilitarianism does not assign intrinsic value, but it is based on characteristics. So I should accept that abortion is morally acceptable to be consistent. Of course, I will not be a stauch pro-choice activist as I do not see abortion as a laudable action, but this is a natural consequence for a secular moral system.
I am not promoting abortion, but I am saying that it is morally acceptable under utilitarian ethics. If anyone disagrees with the conclusion, I would appreciate your imput.
H
Holly3278
Guest
The pill itself is not immoral. It is the use behind the pill which is or is not immoral. I say that if you are celibate and are not pregnant and have cancer then go ahead and use the pill as a treatment if it becomes a treatment. If you are not celibate or are pregnant then do not use the pill because you could cause the murder of your unborn child.
H
hasikelee
Guest
Actually, although I do agree that history has shown again and again what happens when the supernaturally objective law of human dignity is removed, I do disagree that abortion is acceptable under a utilitarian government.
If secularists were entirely consistent and logical, they could not deny when a human being comes into existence. In the absence of religious or ethical laws, there are still the laws of science. And science has show without dispute that at one time a human being does not exist, and then under specific instances a human being comes into existence. To be consistently secular, one would have to allow for rights of every human being simply on the basis of humanity.
And yet when a supernatural reason for protecting life is removed, instead of a human justification for life, we see the richer, the stronger, the smarter, the healthier, whatever the group may be at the time, deny the humanity of those who are smaller, poorer, blacker, sicker, and otherwise helpless to protect themselves.
And so we see those with Jewish beliefs denied humanity and unable to fight against it, those with different skin colors denied humanity and unable to fight for themselves, those in a different tribe denied humanity and in a civil war at a grave disadvantage, those with disabilities denied humanity and unable to fend for themselves, those in the womb denied humanity and unable to cry out as they are ripped apart.
Secular humanism in its true form can’t accept abortion as a legitimately approved behavior anymore than it can accept racism, rape, pedophilia or theft. What you are really talking about here isn’t a utilitarian or secular society; you are talking about relativism being used to justify abhorrent acts against other humans. The two are antithetical to each other, but, again, as history proves, one can usually trigger the other.
M
magician
Guest
“I am not promoting abortion, but I am saying that it is morally acceptable under utilitarian ethics. If anyone disagrees with the conclusion, I would appreciate your imput.”
Ribo, this requires an explanation! What is “utilitarian ethics”? In other words, what you’re saying is that a useful purpose as defined by whomever, is justification enough for abortion? Please explain.
I find your posts rather confusing and self serving - you have yet to give a reasonable explanation for your stance on the original post.
Ribo, this requires an explanation! What is “utilitarian ethics”? In other words, what you’re saying is that a useful purpose as defined by whomever, is justification enough for abortion? Please explain.
I find your posts rather confusing and self serving - you have yet to give a reasonable explanation for your stance on the original post.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Have you ever met a person who wasn’t a human?
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Under whose utilitarian ethics shall abortion be morally acceptable? Who decides who lives and dies?
Thanks for being open to discussion.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I abandoned that position in the opening post. No, I was saying that there is no major ontological difference between a fetus and a colony Eschericia coli under utilitarian ethics. This alone undercuts the sanctity of life arguments against abortion. Because there is no such thing as “sanctity of life” in utilitarian ethics, a utilitarian ethicist would be correct in saying that abortion is morally acceptable.
There is an argument that is compatible with utilitarian ethics that argues that abortion is immoral. It does not rely on the sanctity of human life. Want to discuss this further, there is a thread in the “Moral Theology” forum?
- Status