Pro life thought experiment

[Gorgias]

An adult who is 40 years old, but mentally retarded is not a moral agent.

Actually, he is… although he might be less culpable for his decisions and actions wrt morality.

The number of repetitions does not help you. It only shows that you have no arguments.

No… it just shows that you can’t find a way to refute my argument – all you can do is point to different people and say “not a moral agent!”. We’ve finally found one whom you can’t denigrate… so you’re done.

Even if God is much more knowledgeable and more powerful than we are, it does NOT give him a “carte blanche” get-out-of-jail card.

That’s not my argument. My argument is that his perspective is greater than ours, so it’s the height of hubris to attempt to judge him.

And - as usual - I don’t get any answers.

No. More like “as usual, you don’t like the answers you’ve gotten.” Big difference.

When I asked where can I find that frequency, you said that I know where it is, effectively calling me a liar.

No, not a liar. Just intransigent.

The church’s use of “absolute morality” is a meaningless word salad. Absolute means “under any and all circumstances”. Relative means “under some, but not all circumstances”. This is not semantics, or hair splitting, it is having a coherent communication. If these words are used differently, then the person talks gibberish - like saying “relatively absolute”.

sigh.
No – in the realm of moral theology, when we talk about a morality that’s “absolute”, it means that the determination of moral acts does not depend on circumstances (and when we talk about a morality that’s “relative”, we’re talking about a determination of moral acts in which the moral character of the act does depend on the circumstances). It’s called a “term of art”, and just because it’s used in a particular context in a particular way, doesn’t mean that it’s gibberish. (After all, you’ll get a far different reaction when you mention “TD” to a football fan than to a soldier. And, it would be you who is unreasonable if you told the soldier “you’re wrong! TD means touchdown, not temporary duty assignment!!!” )

 

[Scowler]

Actually, he is… although he might be less culpable for his decisions and actions wrt morality.

Curiousier and curiousier said Alice… So now the deciding factor to declare someone a “moral agent” is simply the age. An arbitrary declaration of “X” years separates the moral agents from the others - not the ability to discern right from wrong. Oh well.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Actually, he is… although he might be less culpable for his decisions and actions wrt morality.

Curiousier and curiousier said Alice… So now the deciding factor to declare someone a “moral agent” is simply the age. An arbitrary declaration of “X” years separates the moral agents from the others - not the ability to discern right from wrong. Oh well.

No, and it’s particularly disappointing that you’re going there, since you’re the one who brought up the factor of the “age of reason”. Literally, you said:

As soon as that child exhibits the signs of really KNOWING good from evil, then we do and must accept him as a moral agent, and treat him accordingly.

And that’s correct. However, one would never suggest that you have the moral capacities of a ten-year-old, or an 18-year-old, or a 40-year-old with disabilities. Nevertheless, we would recognize that the quality of “moral agent” exists in all of you, even if with varying degrees of ability (and corresponding degrees of culpability for your acts).

We’ve gone far, far beyond the scope of the topic of this thread, though. If you’d like to start another thread, discussing “culpability for moral acts”, or “moral agents”, or even your take on “absolute vs relative morality”, I’d love to discuss them with you there. I think I’m done with this particular rabbit hole on this particular thread, though…

 

[jcm2017]

Idle speculation is the tool of the devil. It leads to no good, literally, and since morality always points to the good, idle speculation is not good, ie evil. There is a difference between speculation that leads to some good and speculation that is idle, or even ill intended.
We do not have a god of the philosophers. We have a living God that is real (Pascal), and so morality is grounded in reality not thought experiments.

 

[Scowler]

And that’s correct. However, one would never suggest that you have the moral capacities of a ten-year-old, or an 18-year-old, or a 40-year-old with disabilities.

Having limited abilities is not the same as having no abilities at all. A moral agent is a binary phenomenon, one is either a moral agent or not.

Nevertheless, we would recognize that the quality of “moral agent” exists in all of you, even if with varying degrees of ability (and corresponding degrees of culpability for your acts).

What the heck is the “QUALITY of moral agent”? Is it the potential to become a moral agent? Whatever that is, does it exist in a newborn? Or in a zygote?

The definition of “moral agent” is really simple, and it has been presented several times. A moral agent can discern right from wrong and acts accordingly. That requires some high level thinking and understanding. Whether it is a super-intelligent mutant 5 years old child, or an adult, or God, or a super-duper space alien, if they can tell right from wrong, they are moral agents, and must be evaluated accordingly. There is no reason to beat this dead horse any more.

But I want to reply to your idea that God has a better perspective than we do and therefore is above criticism. You assume that God’s value system is the same as ours, and there is no reason for this assumption. We do not have any access to God’s value system (because God does NOT communicate it - no matter how many times you repeat this), all we can do is make some educated guess about it by observing the reality. And the observation clearly shows that God is either indifferent, or malevolent, but definitely not “loving”. Therefore it is dumb to say: “God knows best what is good for us”. God may know better, what is best for him. Who knows, maybe he loves stench of the burning flesh, and the screams of the damned?

 

[Gorgias]

But I want to reply to your idea that God has a better perspective than we do and therefore is above criticism.

It’s not that God is above criticism… it’s that we don’t have the perspective to offer a critique at this point.

You assume that God’s value system is the same as ours, and there is no reason for this assumption. We do not have any access to God’s value system (because God does NOT communicate it - no matter how many times you repeat this)

No matter how many times you repeat “God does not communicate with us”, I will respond, “He already has, in his self-revelation, which we find in Scripture and in Apostolic Teaching.” Since God has revealed himself to us, we already know his values: he wishes all to come to accept him and share eternal life with him.

all we can do is make some educated guess about it by observing the reality.

And if you can’t realize that “observations of reality” are insufficient for reaching conclusions, then we’re done here. After all, if you have never seen a hippo, do you conclude “hippos do not exist”? Yet, that would be your conclusion if it’s based purely on empirical observation! Yet, knowing that your observations are limited and insufficient for reaching a valid conclusion, you nevertheless jump to conclusions about God. (And they call us irrational… )

 

[Scowler]

No matter how many times you repeat “God does not communicate with us”, I will respond, “He already has, in his self-revelation, which we find in Scripture and in Apostolic Teaching.” Since God has revealed himself to us, we already know his values: he wishes all to come to accept him and share eternal life with him.

That is pure mythology, nothing else. Not to mention, that you use past tense, and not present tense. Millions of people ask for communication, and nothing happens. All those atheists pray: “Please help me my unbelief” and they are left without any help. Both the scripture and the apostolic teaching are human concoctions, and there is not the slightest sign that they come from “divine source”. If you would realize this, you would take a huge step toward rationality. Why don’t you try it?

And if you can’t realize that “observations of reality” are insufficient for reaching conclusions, then we’re done here. After all, if you have never seen a hippo, do you conclude “hippos do not exist”?

Let’s substitute that “hippo” for “leprechaun”, after all I have seen hippos. Since neither I nor you, nor anyone else has ever seen a leprechaun, we base our life on the assumption that leprechauns do NOT exist. However, we are willing to accept that leprechauns MIGHT exist, and we are willing to “eat that humble pie” if only someone can present evidence that leprechauns actually exist. (This is called intellectual honesty.) But all you can say, that a few thousand years ago a “leprechaun” manifested itself to some unknown people, and some other unknown people wrote about it a few dozen (hundred?) years later, and that is sufficient evidence for YOU. Fine… but not for others, even though that “leprechaun” promised in no uncertain terms that “ask and you will be answered”, and “knock and the door will be opened”… no amount of “asking” and “knocking” will bring forth any result. And those promises come from that “Sacred Scripture” - which you believe is a direct revelation from God. At least be somewhat consistent!

Yet, that would be your conclusion if it’s based purely on empirical observation! Yet, knowing that your observations are limited and insufficient for reaching a valid conclusion, you nevertheless jump to conclusions about God.

Really? Don’t you rely on your observations about reality? Everyone does, all the time. When you see a car speeding toward you, don’t you jump aside - trusting your observation? And when the road is empty - no traffic at all, do you not go and cross the street confidently? Are you afraid that there might be a car coming toward you, just because someone, a few years ago said that he saw a car on that road?

You trust mythology, but don’t trust your senses. And that is “irrational” in its purest form.

 

[Gorgias]

That is pure mythology, nothing else.

That’s your opinion. I respect your right to your personal opinion… but, as an opinion (not a fact), I’ll reserve to reject it out of hand.

Not to mention, that you use past tense, and not present tense.

I absolutely, unapologetically, unequivocally agree. God has revealed himself and we, as Christians, believe that no further revelation is forthcoming: God has already revealed everything we need to know for the sake of salvation. Now, the onus is upon us: do we accept what God has revealed, or do we reject it?

Millions of people ask for communication, and nothing happens.

The problem is that those who feel slighted aren’t expressing their displeasure at a lack of revelation – rather, it’s an expression of displeasure that their personally-dictated mode of communication has received no response.

All those atheists pray: “Please help me my unbelief” and they are left without any help.

No. If what they mean is “help me… as long as you do it my way”, then they’ll be disappointed – along with every believer who makes these kinds of demands on God. If, on the other hand, they’re willing to accept God on His terms, not their own, then they’ll not be disappointed.

Both the scripture and the apostolic teaching are human concoctions, and there is not the slightest sign that they come from “divine source”. If you would realize this, you would take a huge step toward rationality. Why don’t you try it?

Because that assertion, itself, is irrational.

 

[Scowler]

That’s your opinion. I respect your right to your personal opinion… but, as an opinion (not a fact), I’ll reserve to reject it out of hand.

I wonder if you realize that you also reject all the other mythologies. And you reject them, because they are not based upon facts. That is why they are not in the history books. There is no difference between your myths and the ones about Zeus or Jupiter, or any other mythological beings.

I absolutely, unapologetically, unequivocally agree. God has revealed himself and we, as Christians, believe that no further revelation is forthcoming: God has already revealed everything we need to know for the sake of salvation.

Obviously it is NOT sufficient for those who do not YET believe. So you cannot say that God revealed “everything” that is needed. And you keep forgetting that any communication MUST be conducted on the level of those to whom the communication is directed. It is ludicrous to perform some communication that the recipient is unable to understand, or even recognize that some communication is taking place.

Now, the onus is upon us: do we accept what God has revealed, or do we reject it?

How can we “accept” it, if we are unable to recognize that something was “revealed”? Of course it would require the blind acceptance of the word of others, who only claim to be authority, but cannot give evidence for it.

The problem is that those who feel slighted aren’t expressing their displeasure at a lack of revelation – rather, it’s an expression of displeasure that their personally-dictated mode of communication has received no response.

Obviously, and they have every right to complain. If a teacher comes to the classroom, and only speaks a distorted version of kitchen-Klingon, and then demands that the students answer the exam questions correctly (on penalty of eternal torture, no less!), then that teacher is a failure, someone who must be kicked out of the classroom for outrageous incompetence. Use the language of the students, AND give evidence for what you say - that is the BARE minimum for every “teacher”, allegorical or otherwise.

I cannot fail to observe that you neglected the other two paragraphs of my post, especially about the acceptance of our observations.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

That’s your opinion. I respect your right to your personal opinion… but, as an opinion (not a fact), I’ll reserve to reject it out of hand.

I wonder if you realize that you also reject all the other mythologies.

Atheist Playbook 101. Do you have any original ideas to share with us, or perhaps you want to point us to your inspired scriptures?

Obviously it is NOT sufficient for those who do not YET believe. So you cannot say that God revealed “everything” that is needed.

Yes, I can. However, I also assert that there are those who do not accept the body of evidence that is provided. Surely you can perceive the difference between “evidence” and “acceptance of evidence”, right?

And you keep forgetting that any communication MUST be conducted on the level of those to whom the communication is directed. It is ludicrous to perform some communication that the recipient is unable to understand

Again, “atheist playbook 101”. Yes, I recognize that communication must be conducted at a level at which recipients are capable of understanding. Umm… you’re capable of reading a text, right?

I cannot fail to observe that you neglected the other two paragraphs of my post, especially about the acceptance of our observations.

Yes. I’m pretty much spending most of my time trying to unroll my eyes from the back of my head…

 

[Scowler]

Surely you can perceive the difference between “evidence” and “acceptance of evidence”, right?

Not just that, but I can tell the difference between “alleged” evidence and “real” evidence.

Umm… you’re capable of reading a text, right?

If you accept that a fairy tale is the sufficient evidence for the existence of leprechauns, then you are even more irrational than I thought you were. But, of course you don’t. Unfortunately you think that we, skeptics should be dumb, and should not apply our faculties to distinguish between reality and fairy tales and accept any texts you try to present.

However, God does not write texts. Moreover, not even the apologists assert that the biblical texts were actually written by God. (unlike the Muslims, who say that Allah directly dictated the texts to Mohammed). So the texts you refer to were all written by humans. And no, I don’t accept anything uncritically, even if that text was supposed to be “inspired” by God. (Whatever “inspired” might mean).

Yes. I’m pretty much spending most of my time trying to unroll my eyes from the back of my head…

Very sad. You believe what your senses tell you, and act accordingly. But you don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You do not accept the words of some con-artists, but demand real evidence, but denigrate those people who apply the same assurance for your claims.

This is getting nowhere. You don’t have the integrity to admit that there is no direct communication from God. All you can say that “once upon a time” some people asserted that God communicated with them. They did not leave any evidence for that claim. If believers accept it as sufficient evidence, that is their problem. But it is not sufficient for skeptics, and not because the skeptics have a “hardened heart”. Rather because there is absolutely no evidence for your claims.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Plus this is propaganda inspired from an article by Ben Shapiro who of course doesn’t know what to answer because it’s a tricksy idea.

Shapiro did answer this.

If the Church has a better answer, fine, but Shapiro’s answer is the most reasoned I’ve seen so far.

 

[Mary888]

Shapiro’s response is close to mine I think, I agree with him in full - the experiment is pointless, what is its purpose? I admit this is not solving the ‘equation’ of the experiment, but I fail to see why should I solve it - in abstract since it involves a very physical and emotional situation. It is not like adding numbers, we are talking about people. Just like Shapiro, I also think that the Left propaganda especially today, always takes human lives in abstract, like a game of chess, then claims moral superiority over any other idea opposing them.

I am not sure if the Church must always answer any question someone asks her…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I wonder if you realize that you also reject all the other mythologies. And you reject them, because they are not based upon facts. That is why they are not in the history books. There is no difference between your myths and the ones about Zeus or Jupiter, or any other mythological beings.

We have the testimony of the martyrs. St. Bartholomew, for example, allowed himself to be skinned alive rather than renounce his faith. We have an unbroken string of such martyrs going back to the actual witnesses of the events of first century Palestine, and continuing right through to the present day. There is no comparable record of martyrs for belief in Leprechauns or Zeus. If the first century disciples had concocted the whole thing, then when they were threatened with death by the Romans, somebody would have admitted the fraud and led the Romans to where they hid the body of Jesus to save his own skin. None did. People just don’t act like that for a prank. From that time the number of witnesses to new miracles confirming the story grew exponentially. They too were killed. For the first three centuries of Christianity it was very dangerous to be a Christian. Yet many continued to give their lives up rather than renounce their beliefs.

How can we “accept” it, if we are unable to recognize that something was “revealed”? Of course it would require the blind acceptance of the word of others, who only claim to be authority, but cannot give evidence for it.

If those witnesses were describing a repeatable law of physics, it would be reasonable to go beyond their word and test their theory yourself. But if those witnesses are describing a unique one-time event, you can try to find corroborating physical evidence, but failing to find such evidence, you have only the choice to either believe them or not believe them. For the reasons I described above, I choose to believe them.

Obviously, and they have every right to complain. If a teacher comes to the classroom, and only speaks a distorted version of kitchen-Klingon, and then demands that the students answer the exam questions correctly…

…silly analogy that has no applicability to the relationship between God and Man.

 

[runningdude]

This scenario shows exactly one of the reasons why IVF is immoral, because saving the embryos over the child is an impossible choice. Since the choice can never be made, it is an unacceptable to risk creating the situation.

No one is forced to freeze embryos, and this creates an unnatural situation. A Catholic is not required to allow a child to scream and cry and die a painful death; the duty to rescue the child is clear. The doctor and parents who froze the embryos are guilty of the evil of placing the embryos in a position where they cannot be rescued.

It further uncertain whether the embryos are even alive. The doctors who placed the children in the freezer may very well have killed them in the process (unfrozen, it may be an identical twin sibling newly concieved).

The natural parental instinct to rescue the clearly living child child prevails here. This in no way denies the humanity of the embryos if still living, but rather highlights the inhumanity of placing them in a freezer to begin with.

Since this scenario is meant to cause the pro-lifer to panic, the pro-lifer should instead learn to use it to illustrate the grave evils surrounding IVF.

 

[Scowler]

We have the testimony of the martyrs.

Maybe. Those events were not substantiated properly - just part of the hearsay. But, what the heck, let’s accept them. Their actions only proved that they honestly believed what they believed. That belief has no bearing on the validity of what they believed. There were always people who sacrificed themselves for an “ideal”. The latest ones were the people who blew up the Twin Towers along with themselves. I bet you don’t accept their “testimony” as a proof of their beliefs.

If those witnesses were describing a repeatable law of physics, it would be reasonable to go beyond their word and test their theory yourself. But if those witnesses are describing a unique one-time event, you can try to find corroborating physical evidence, but failing to find such evidence, you have only the choice to either believe them or not believe them. For the reasons I described above, I choose to believe them.

There are millions of stories describing miraculous healings. When the experiment is repeated under controlled circumstances, the result is always negative. Don’t forget the pertinent verses from the bible: “ask you will receive”, and “knock and the door will be opened”. Millions of people ask and knock, and nothing happens. That leads to the next nonsense: “You cannot put God to the test”. Why not? If the test would be positive, it would be wonderful. But it is not.

…silly analogy that has no applicability to the relationship between God and Man.

Not so fast. The analogy describes the church and the unbelievers. I pointed out that God is silent. Gorgias retorted that God is not silent, and the fault lies with me, because I refuse to listen to the correct frequency. (Remember, the fault ALWAYS lies with the skeptic!) When I said that I have no idea, what that frequency might be, his response was that “I know fully well, just don’t want to admit it”. He added that God speaks to us through the church and the bible and the sacred tradition. So the analogy may be silly but certainly applicable. God is silent, no matter how hard we try to communicate with him. The church asserts that it is the appointed substitute teacher, but has no evidence for that claim. You see, I am willing to listen to God, but not the self-appointed substitutes, who don’t have the answers in the first place.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We have the testimony of the martyrs.

That belief has no bearing on the validity of what they believed. There were always people who sacrificed themselves for an “ideal”. The latest ones were the people who blew up the Twin Towers along with themselves. I bet you don’t accept their “testimony” as a proof of their beliefs.

Sure, people sacrifice themselves in war quite frequently. But they do it in the hopes of achieving a practical and visible goal - and in many cases they do achieve it - even if the basis of their morality and the motivation for desiring that goal is flawed. The Japanese kamikaze pilots come to mind. But the testimonies of Christian martyrs were given for the sole purpose of testifying to the truth of events they had witnessed. The hypothesis of mass delusion on such a scale over such a simple fact is frankly more unbelievable than the resurrection story as told by these witnesses.

There are millions of stories describing miraculous healings. When the experiment is repeated under controlled circumstances, the result is always negative.

I’m not sure what you mean by “controlled conditions.” You cannot control the conditions that lead to a miracle. That is the definition of a miracle.

Don’t forget the pertinent verses from the bible: “ask you will receive”, and “knock and the door will be opened”. Millions of people ask and knock, and nothing happens.

Nothing happens that they recognize as answer to prayer, perhaps. God is not a miracle vending machine.

That leads to the next nonsense: “You cannot put God to the test”. Why not?

because that is the nature of God - a nature you simple refuse to accept. As long as you can only see God as a kind of Star Trek ET, like Q, your analyses are going to fail.

Not so fast. The analogy describes the church and the unbelievers. I pointed out that God is silent. Gorgias retorted that God is not silent, and the fault lies with me, because I refuse to listen to the correct frequency. (Remember, the fault ALWAYS lies with the skeptic!) When I said that I have no idea, what that frequency might be, his response was that “I know fully well, just don’t want to admit it”. He added that God speaks to us through the church and the bible and the sacred tradition. So the analogy may be silly but certainly applicable.

A school teacher, even though in a position of authority over the students, is nothing like the relationship between God and Man. That is why the analogy is inapplicable.

God is silent, no matter how hard we try to communicate with him. The church asserts that it is the appointed substitute teacher, but has no evidence for that claim. You see, I am willing to listen to God, but not the self-appointed substitutes…

…except that God appointed the Church to lead the people with authority.

 

[Scowler]

I’m not sure what you mean by “controlled conditions.” You cannot control the conditions that lead to a miracle. That is the definition of a miracle.

No, a miracle is something that cannot be explained by natural means. And people pray for them all the time. Some claim success, too. The controlled conditions are these: “Pick a large number of people with well-known incurable conditions (Amputated limbs would work just fine). Split them into two groups. Send one group to Lourdes, and also appoint a group to pray for them”. After a certain - predetermined - time, check if there is a significant difference (chi-square test) between the two groups. It would be an excellent indication that “prayer works” - which is claimed all the time. We use the same method to find out if a new medication has the desired effect. The actual experiment has been performed many times. The result: “prayer does NOT work”.

Nothing happens that they recognize as answer to prayer, perhaps. God is not a miracle vending machine.

Except that the bible claims God’s words to the contrary.

…except that God appointed the Church to lead the people with authority.

And that is what the church CLAIMS. There is no evidence outside the claim. Moreover, the church has NO answers to many very important problems. It cannot even p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment of “ensoulment” - which is supposed to separate a “human” from an “animal”. The church is not an authority.

 

[Kei]

As in, currently growing babies?
That’s a thousand vs one… I think I’d choose the embryos to be honest, IF I could be sure my saving them doesn’t hurt/kill them (how am I saving them?)

BUT, as we are PRO LIFE, we wouldn’t want the deaths of ANY of them. And, this “thought experiment” is stupid on multiple levels: when you DON’T abort a child, are you killing a five year old?! What’s that, no? When you don’t abort a child, usually no one dies because of it. So really it’s a nonsequitur.

 

[Kei]

There are multiple tests that have been done and they show the opposite: prayer does work to show a small but statistically significant difference.
Source: Hodge, D.R. 2007. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187

Also, the Church has historical claims, etc. etc. Ultimately if you don’t believe in Christ you won’t believe in the Church, which is His Body.

Also, miracles aren’t just unexplained things. They usually show something about the Church or some religious reason. For instance, the Tilma served the purpose of:1) mass conversion 2) showing that iconoclasts are in error.