T
- Status
N
norain
Guest
Does a square circle have edges?
R
ReapReason
Guest
Yes.Does a square circle have edges?
N
norain
Guest
My point is that a universe to exist must have a cause, and a cause implies purpose. A purposeless universe is not possible, like a square circle is not possible, so the question of whether it has edges or not is a meaningless one.
R
ReapReason
Guest
An intelligence Implies a purpose.
N
norain
Guest
That too.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Is the question here on (1)whether the universe has a cause or a question of whether the (2)universe was created with an intent? intent is entangled with cause, cause is not necessarily entangled with intent (ex: there could be a cause for the pile of the rocks at the bottom of the hill there’s not necessarily an intent).
Where would you classify a person that thinks that the universe has a cause that was not the result of an intent or that there was an intent but we are far removed from it?
N
norain
Guest
It seems to me your definition of intent requires sentience. Not sure how you can separate that completely. Will have to think about that one. My guess is that intent is only a higher, more complex cause-effect interaction.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I am pulling the definitions from the usages in this thread. Some times people are talking about the intent behind the creation of the universe. Sometimes people are talking about a preceeding event. So I think there may be some ambiguity. When one makes claims of a purposeless universe she may be expressing the claim that there is no sentient creator, there is no creator at all, there may be a creator but that creator has not necessarily assigned a purpose/duty to us, or some other position. I had not thought of that until i read this thread.
I now think one may need to ask further qualifying question when some one makes a purposeless universe claim to find out what she really needs.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
S
Sair
Guest
I would have thought that sentience - some form of consciousness - is essential to form any intent whatsoever. Cause is not the same as intent, which is why, as cosmologists get closer to identifying probable causes of the existence and state of the universe, it tells us nothing about any intent that may have lain behind it. It might indicate that intent is unnecessary; but what it does show is that we can’t simply assume that because the universe was caused to exist as it does, someone - that is, a conscious being - intended it to exist and ascribed a purpose to its existence.
S
Sair
Guest
The fact that they are human is an arbitrary distinction.
Why?
And so I would be none the wiser! You might consider, the next time you callously hack into a cabbage or a potato or a cauliflower in order to provide yourself with sustenance, that they are as sentient as you or I would have been in the first few months after conception.
As is yours, and that of most people who argue over such things. We all have our ideals, and the rationale to back them up.
But human persons are animals! The facts of biology dictate this. And sentient nonhuman animals are considerably closer to personhood than a nonsentient human foetus, unless you imagine that membership of the human species is a requirement for personhood.
L
Lochias
Guest
Wrong. There’s human DNA in those developing fetuses, and no amount of arguing can change that.
Because the unborn child is a human in the process of development, which is NOT an arbitrary statement. See above.
But you don’t have the right to decide what a developing life will be none the wiser of, you do. Also, you show me a potato or a cauliflower with human DNA, and I might take your utterly ridiculous and supremely tired argument a little more seriously.
Human DNA is not an ideal.
The facts of biology cannot measure morality and the sense of right and wrong. And good golly, yes, membership of the human species IS required for personhood…when is the last time someone referred to their pet dog or dairy cow as a person?
It’s arguments like this that really, really make me sick to my stomach. Comparing human fetuses to cauliflower? Really? The capacity for a person’s ability to lie to themselves never ceases to amaze me.
There is no getting around the fact that a human fetus IS A HUMAN FETUS. It doesn’t turn into a dog or a car or a*** freaking cauliflower. ***
S
Sair
Guest
Human, human, human - so what? Why is membership of the human species more important than sentience? Why should it be? Can you provide substantial reasons for valuing nonsentient human life above sentient nonhuman life? I doubt it. That is why I consider it an arbitrary distinction. I can assure you, I’m well aware that a human foetus possesses a unique combination of human DNA from the moment of conception, and is quite alive from that point. But that is not what is at issue as far as I am concerned.
If a being lacks any capacity for pleasure or pain - lacks sentience - it has no interests, and therefore no rights. Even the argument surrounding the rights of comatose individuals stands upon a different ground to that surrounding the supposed rights of a nonsentient foetus. The unconscious individual has had interests, and has had the opportunity to form relationships; what’s more, there is the consideration of the effect upon others - how many people would consent to anaesthesia for surgery, for example, or even find it easy to sleep, if they thought their lives would be at stake whilst unconscious? A newly conceived foetus, human or otherwise, has never had any interests. The only interests and rights involved are those of the people who care about bringing the foetus into existence - or otherwise. Those interests are entirely the parents’.
It is simply realistic to point out that a first-trimester human foetus has the same capacity for sentience as a cauliflower - perhaps even less. Dispassionate, certainly; but if ethical consideration is to be applied with a true sense of equality, then species membership cannot be its basis, any more than race or gender or social class can be its basis. All are arbitrary distinctions. A more solid common ground is required, and so far, sentience - the capacity to experience pleasure and pain - is the most solid ground we have.
And ask any dog- or cat-lover about the personalities of their companion animals - they will most likely talk your ear off for as long as you’re willing to listen! I won’t start on the delightful traits (and slightly troubling neuroses) of our recently-adopted rescue dog, or I will end up with far too many words for the forum’s limits…
L
Lochias
Guest
If you’re so blind that you refuse to see that a human fetus grows into a human being, with all the capacity for pain and pleasure that you could hope for, then I’ve got nothing further to say. To kill a human fetus is to kill a human being, you’re just choosing when during that human being’s development to proceed.
Also, you have a supremely well-deserved place on my ignore list, now. God Bless you, because you need it terribly.
S
Sair
Guest
As you wish. I don’t disagree that killing a human foetus is still killing a human being, but you have completely failed to offer actual reasons for your position that this is unacceptable, sentience notwithstanding. I presume you would apply the same strictures to euthanasia, despite the desire of the person involved to end their own life once the pain of terminal illness had become intolerable…
T
tonyrey
Guest
P
Portofino
Guest
Aristotle himself seems to have had trouble differentiating between causality and intention, at least per some accounts I’ve read of his understanding of falling bodies.
For example, in the book “Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition,” I found the following passage:
“Aristotle did notice that falling bodies accelerate as they fall. He explained this anomaly by invoking the qualitative understanding of matter connected to the theory that elements have natural homes and are eager to return to them. The stone, thus, accelerates as it nears the earth because it is happy to arrive at its natural home, as a horse or a dog would be. This ‘psychologizing’ of matter reflects the belief that elements act in accordance with their innate dispositions.”
Laypersons who believe in evolution and are not creationists, also tend to ascribe intentionality to evolution itself. For example, “we evolved such and such a trait so that we could…” They are Darwinians who tend to understand evolution in more Lamarckian terms.
Voltaire’s Candide (through the views of the character Dr. Pangloss), takes this ascribing of intentionality a step further, and in a quite humorous vein:
“It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for all being created for an end, all is necessarily for the best end. Observe, that the nose has been formed to bear spectacles—thus we have spectacles. Legs are visibly designed for stockings—and we have stockings. Stones were made to be hewn, and to construct castles—therefore my lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Pigs were made to be eaten—therefore we eat pork all the year round. Consequently they who assert that all is well have said a foolish thing, they should have said all is for the best.”
P
Portofino
Guest
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote an essay on “Compensation” – this “push and pull” between positive and negative, in everything in the universe – and I tend to believe the same thing exists with regards to “religion” and “irreligion.”
First, a common sense example – “I’m working hard so that I can make more money for my family; as a result, however, I’m spending less quality time with my family. My children barely see me.” This relates to the classic “cost-benefit” analysis of decision-making. There is no such thing (perhaps) as gaining something, without giving up something else.
The dangers of irreligion are well-sounded, and have to do with nihilism. Thus, saying, “nothing is true, everything is permitted”; or saying “human beings are disposable meat machines”; or saying, “why should I prefer the slightest discomfort in my little finger, to the destruction of all of humanity?”
But there are also dangers – from a humanistic standpoint – with religious belief itself; for example:
*“God is above the moral law; so that, if God commands us, we are above the moral law” (Abraham’s willingness to kill his newborn son was righteous)
*“God is ultimately more important than humanity, so a crime against God – which is an offense worse than murder – can justify crimes against man” (the Old Testament is replete with this thinking)
*“the afterlife is ultimately more important than this life, and spiritual harm is worse than mere physical harm; therefore, it is justified to take the lives of others – or to cause physical harm to them – if doing so will prevent spiritual harm. It is justified to kill the body, in order to save the soul, or to kill the body of those who endanger the souls of others.” This was the justification for killing heretics – they were endangering the eternal salvation of countless other individuals, which made them worse than murderers of the body. Physical harm was a merely relative evil; spiritual harm, an absolute one.
*our Scripture is infallible so that, if such and such behavior was either enjoined or permitted in Scripture, it cannot be wrong (at worst, this faith – which would have itself as the foundation of all morality – can lead to moral blindness). The same, frankly, can operate based on appeals to Tradition.
Then there is the fact that a strong sense of morality can itself be a double-edged sword, psychologically – it can make people both more principled, and more judgmental. It can make them more humble, in one sense --more arrogant, in another; more submissive, in one sense – in another, more domineering. There is indeed a psychological danger in feeling able to say, “if you disagree with me, you’re disagreeing with God. Therefore, I have the right to insist that you agree with me.”
P
Portofino
Guest
This was in response to Sair’s “none the wiser” comment, regarding never having been born.
But there is a paradox at the heart of a Christian belief in the afterlife, vis-a-vis abortion, and it has to do with the question of the fate of the unborn.
Namely:
Scenario 1:
*the unborn are not permitted entrance into heaven, because they were not baptized
This would be very difficult for a believer to accept, within the context of a merciful and loving God.
Scenario 2:
*the unborn are in heaven, which they will enjoy for all eternity
In that case, the fact of being born adds only one thing to one’s existence, and that is potential damnation, given a lifetime of opportunity to sin (and the need to repent for that sin). Not having been born has just guaranteed that child’s salvation, for all eternity. If the unborn are in heaven, then – by being born – I have everything to lose, nothing to gain. Having been conceived, but never born, is a “safer” route to eternal salvation. And it is a legitimate route, because it was not my choice, but those of my parents.
I’m not drawing any ultimate conclusions from this thinking, merely pointing out what I see as a paradox when the difference between life and death is the difference between earth and heaven. With Scenario 2, one could still say, “it was God’s will that they be born, and you circumvented that will, even if they will spend an eternity in heaven. You have still committed the worst of all crimes, in taking a life, which you had no right to do.”
This would then be similar to the crime of Judas in betraying Christ – it was the worst of crimes, and yet it led to the crucifixion of Christ, which was necessary for our eternal salvation. There is a paradox, there, even with Judas’ betrayal of Christ. In theory, Judas’ betrayal of Christ could have been tantamount to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
J
JDaniel
Guest
RR:
Respectfully, I’d say it was the other way around: purpose implies an intelligence.
God bless,
jd
- Status