What is Science?

[Linusthe2nd]

Humean perspectives are quite common in the modern philosophical metagame, but the question is whether Thomians can adapt to address the presence of Humean arguments in that metagame, and also Darwinian evolution. The environment is not as hostile so as to be comparable to a street fight.

Thomism is the only answer to Hume, in my pinion and that of a great number of others.

I posted this before:

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/05/there_are_no_slippery_prior_pr.html

Well, that is a huge bite to analyise and discuss. I find nothing admirable in a philosophy that rejects all causality. It can hardly lead to any truth, it certainly cannot lead to Christianity. I did read your article. Sounds a lot like Blessed Cardinal Newman’s thinking.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Have theistic Aristotelians actually engaged in natural theology where one attempts to demonstrate “that the God [presumably one elucidated by natural theology] to which it concluded had many of the same essential characteristics of the Christian God”?

Aristotle and Aquinas did not have a " Natural Theology, " they had Metaphysics, which contained the principles which would become the subjects of discussion in the Natual Theologies which began to appear toward the end of the 19th century and still used today. These based their discussions on the Aristotelian/Thomistic paradigm of the four causes and hylemorphism of Aristotle and the concepts of bing, essence, substance and accident, supposit, person, intellect and will expounded by A/T.

I already defined “natural theology”, but perhaps you might find my own definition incomplete:

Your definition would not fit will into the A/T paradigm. Although I see some value in it. I think you should read Edward Feser’s criticism of I.D. arguments.

I specifically pointed out that the fine-tuning argument is an example of modern “natural theology” that can be confidently wielding by someone with both philosophical and technical competence. In order to engage in the enterprise of natural theology, one would need to have some basic understanding of contemporary scientific theories and how those theories informs one’s understanding of the world, since it is the fundamental premise of natural theology that one can infer the characteristics of the deity through understanding and investigating nature. One’s most veritable resource into understanding nature is, of course, scientific knowledge, since such knowledge has been systematically and rigorously derived and refined from experimenting and observing the implications and predictions of scientific theories. The conclusions of fine-tuning, as I have pointed out, are not that strong, but they can tenably defend the notion that a divine intelligence influenced the properties of the fundamental structure and processes of nature. But some far, it seems that the popular discourse between religion and science evades any serious discussion about scientific theories, but concerns the alleged eclipse of science over religion in the cultural realm or the encroachment of religion into the secular institutions of the state and education. Some do want to compromise science by saying that it should be more inclusive in order to allow the incursion of sectarian religious dogma (particularly creation myths and specious caviling about the theory of evolution) into public education, in order to give their dogma undeserved scientific legitimacy and stature in order to indoctrinate impressionable children while they are outside the jurisdiction of their parents and clergy. But I do have competence that natural theology can do better than that, instead of charging the redoubt of evolutionary theory and the separation of church and state! A recent example was the Dover Trial, which seemed to be the Pickett’s Charge of the Intelligent Design movement.

I think one answer would be to allow parents a voucher to send their children to the school of their choice. Children will be indoctrinated in any case. The question is do parents want them to be indoctrinated into a amoral, agnostic secular humanism in the state only school systems?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think the actual position of Thomians and other apologists of classical theism concerning natural theology is cynicism of its persuasive power and impact as it conclusions are rather unambitious…[snip]…

I think I have addressed this adequately. I will just say that Thomism fits nicely into the scientifice sysem, it does not oppose it in any way and it may help keep it free of fanciful conclusions.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suppose that I have demonstrated that using that particular argument of “natural theology” is rather intellectually demanding, both on the presenter and the audience. However, there does not seem to be any other significant deterrent for one to use the arguments of natural theology to argue for the existence of God, or at least to suggest it.Natural theology allows one to suggest theism by using the secular language of science, or to initiate dialogues based on science. As I suggested before, perhaps, it is Thomians and other classical theists who deem natural theology unsatisfactory since it does not inspire one to adopt the dogmatic tenets of orthodox theism or be further immersed in its culture (as opposed to being enveloped and under siege by a ruthless secular culture).

I would not refer to it as Natural Theology. Where did you get the idea it was a part of Natural Theology?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But you weren’t speaking of science there, you said of the 5 billion theists in the world “they do follow face book, youtube, newspapers, popular magazines, etc., all of whom pour out this junk - and they are influenced.”.

btw facebook isn’t for watching, it’s social networking, maybe you mixed it up with something else.

It isn’t good for the soul to sit in a dead church week after week, year after year, bored to death by long-winded sermons. If a church isn’t uplifting and communal, if they don’t welcome you, leave their church and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.

That’s a curious claim, especially given their views on women and slavery (for example bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml).

Sure. And Jesus has the learned priest and Levite walk on by, whereas the lowly Samaritan, without any metaphysical argument, without any knowledge of Aristotle, “as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him”.

That wasn’t the point. Pearce wants to vandalize science by scrawling his a priori metaphysics all over hypotheses non fingo.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But you weren’t speaking of science there, you said of the 5 billion theists in the world “they do follow face book, youtube, newspapers, popular magazines, etc., all of whom pour out this junk - and they are influenced.”.

I know what face book is, it is a big waste of time.

It isn’t good for the soul to sit in a dead church week after week, year after year, bored to death by long-winded sermons. If a church isn’t uplifting and communal, if they don’t welcome you, leave their church and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.

I have never been in a Catholic Church that was dead. As long as the sanctuary candle is burning, I know that Christ is physically present in the tabernacle and waiting to visit with me.

That’s a curious claim, especially given their views on women and slavery (for example bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml).

Don’t you think that is a red herring. I’m sure you realize that advocates of these thinkers don’t slavishly teach the obvious errors in their thinking. I always simile when I hear a modern speak as though their culture is absolutely superior and free of error.

Sure. And Jesus has the learned priest and Levite walk on by, whereas the lowly Samaritan, without any metaphysical argument, without any knowledge of Aristotle, “as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him”.

I assume you were trying to correct me ( you always are ) of something, but I don’t see whart.

That wasn’t the point. Pearce wants to vandalize science by scrawling his a priori metaphysics all over hypotheses non fingo.

Not at all. There is just another view point that is all. But if you want to advocate scientism that is your privilege. For myself, science can’t explain eveything and there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Newton’s Laws have causes which scienc can never explain. Ditto many other scientific laws and theories. To proscribe the creator as the cause of the natures which gave rise to those laws is nothing but prejudice.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not sure what your point is. The “three-parent” technique was developed to remove birth defects. The decision on whether to authorize its use was debated openly by elected representatives. No one is being forced to use it. You may disagree with that, but isn’t that the price of democracy?

Obviously. But such things are the source of revolutions. We don’t have to meekly accept every insanity that comes from government, even in democracies.

And that’s why these things should be openly debated by the whole of society.

And that is not likely to be allowed to happen as long as the secular humanists have control of government and the means of communication.

Well, I’ve argued on CAF that torture must never be permitted, whereas some Catholic posters have argued that while torture is evil, it’s OK to torture a terrorist to try to find where he planted a bomb, as the greater evil would be to do nothing when it may kill many people.

I think that attitude would leave one’s country and loved ones defenseless against its enemies. It also smacks of passivism. If torture cannot be engaged in, how is one justified in slaughtering enemy soldiers, many of whom may not even want to be involved in a given war? Where is the difference? It’s O.K. to blow a woman half in two with a gernade, but it is not O.K. to water board her to save one’s country? …

So I agree with you that some things should never be done. But whether we should never transplant a heart to help someone, or never transplant a body to help someone, imho is something which ought to be openly debated. I disagree that society’s morals should be dictated by scientists.

The point is that with the right education things would never have gotten this far. Also, the debate should have take place first, and it wasn’t.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. If someone has left their body to medics, enlighten me on the moral difference between transplanting their kidneys to help another, or transplanting their entire body ex head, to help another.

You mean visa versa I think. The difference is the difference between the head and the kidney. There is also the problem that some surgeons will be just a little too eager to get that healthy " dead " body for their head. And there is the great danger that this will lead to even greater body scavaging than is going on righ now. And should we even be playing God, with all this transplanting?

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I know what face book is, it is a big waste of time.

I don’t use it but a lot of friends like it for keeping in contact with others.

I have never been in a Catholic Church that was dead. As long as the sanctuary candle is burning, I know that Christ is physically present in the tabernacle and waiting to visit with me.

I suggest that many people need something more. For instance catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-catholic-answers-guide-to-finding-a-parish

*Don’t you think that is a red herring. I’m sure you realize that advocates of these thinkers don’t slavishly teach the obvious errors in their thinking. I always simile when I hear a modern speak as though their culture is absolutely superior and free of error. *

Your claim was that “if Aristotle and Aquinas were studied more in the colleges and universities more Doctors and scientists would try to help the disadvantaged”. But now you’re saying that doesn’t include women or slaves. What good is a philosophy which makes obvious errors about half of society and about something as basic as slavery?

I assume you were trying to correct me ( you always are ) of something, but I don’t see whart.

Not trying to correct you. Jesus uses the priest and Levite, men respected by His audience, to teach that learning can get in the way of helping the disadvantaged (they pass on by, legalistically unwilling to become unclean). Whereas Jesus uses a lowly Samaritan to teach that even someone from a tribe reviled by His audience can have mercy and do what is right.

*Not at all. There is just another view point that is all. But if you want to advocate scientism that is your privilege. For myself, science can’t explain eveything and there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Newton’s Laws have causes which scienc can never explain. Ditto many other scientific laws and theories. To proscribe the creator as the cause of the natures which gave rise to those laws is nothing but prejudice.
*

I’m not advocating scientism, just saying that science is successful because it doesn’t make unfalsifiable claims about causes.

But that apart, as soon as we say “God done it”, we stop exploring. It’s a dangerous road to go down. Cure for ibola? No sirree, God done it and it’s not for us to mess with His plan.

But that apart, I personally believe that Thomas’ unmoved mover trivializes Almighty God, and the very idea of turning God into a scientific hypothesis is anathema to me.

I see no merit whatsoever in Pearce’s notion, it’s an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t use it but a lot of friends like it for keeping in contact with others.

O.K.

I suggest that many people need something more. For instance catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-catholic-answers-guide-to-finding-a-parish

Everyone likes a friendly, chummy group of friends. In Catholicism we distinguish between worship and socializing.

Your claim was that “if Aristotle and Aquinas were studied more in the colleges and universities more Doctors and scientists would try to help the disadvantaged”. But now you’re saying that doesn’t include women or slaves. What good is a philosophy which makes obvious errors about half of society and about something as basic as slavery?

Come now, are we to discard all the great thinkers of the past because they were wrong on a couple of things? After all, when Aristotle and Aquinas are taught today, no one is defending their obvious errors, let alone suggesting that they be replicated today. In your view, we would have to abandon most of the great men of the past. Even the great Newton and Einstein had obvious flaws, at least in their personalities. .

Not trying to correct you. Jesus uses the priest and Levite, men respected by His audience, to teach that learning can get in the way of helping the disadvantaged (they pass on by, legalistically unwilling to become unclean). Whereas Jesus uses a lowly Samaritan to teach that even someone from a tribe reviled by His audience can have mercy and do what is right

There is absolutely no connection between learning and lack of charity. The Catholic clergy and religious are highly educated, yet their good works are widely known. And the greatest charity is to silently sit and listen to someone’s laundry list of sins and give advice and absolution.

I’m not advocating scientism, just saying that science is successful because it doesn’t make unfalsifiable claims about causes.

Could have fooled me.

But that apart, as soon as we say “God done it”, we stop exploring. It’s a dangerous road to go down. Cure for ibola? No sirree, God done it and it’s not for us to mess with His plan.

Is it better to say that God doesn’t do anything?

But that apart, I personally believe that Thomas’ unmoved mover trivializes Almighty God, and the very idea of turning God into a scientific hypothesis is anathema to me.

And that is a fault. God is the author of all truth, why should we despise something just because it doesn’t fit into a particular secular interpretation of how truth is to be judged. According to your view there would be no true knowledge of God available, because, you see, Revelation and Faith are unfalsifiable and therefore have no truth value.

I see no merit whatsoever in Pearce’s notion, it’s an unmitigated disaster.

Linus2md

 

[inocente]

Obviously. But such things are the source of revolutions. We don’t have to meekly accept every insanity that comes from government, even in democracies.

I’m still unclear on why you think the three-parent technique, or the open discussion process by which it was authorized in the UK, are a priori immoral. On what basis do you think A & TA prohibit it, or is this something where they don’t have a view either way?

And that is not likely to be allowed to happen as long as the secular humanists have control of government and the means of communication.

Are you saying that these naughty secular humanists of yours have rigged the system in the UK? Do you have evidence for that?

I think that attitude would leave one’s country and loved ones defenseless against its enemies. It also smacks of passivism. If torture cannot be engaged in, how is one justified in slaughtering enemy soldiers, many of whom may not even want to be involved in a given war? Where is the difference? It’s O.K. to blow a woman half in two with a gernade, but it is not O.K. to water board her to save one’s country? …

I think A & TA have sent you awry.

*'The Holy Father asked “that the common commitment of institutions and citizens be able to completely eliminate this intolerable violation of human rights, radically contrary to the dignity of man.”

On the occasion of the U.N. day, the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT) emphasized that torture is prohibited under international law in all circumstances.’ - zenit.org/en/articles/john-paul-ii-assails-torture-as-intolerable*

‘The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”’ - w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

The point is that with the right education things would never have gotten this far. Also, the debate should have take place first, and it wasn’t.

But that’s not the case. Over the years, separate doctors have independently developed various procedures to correct various different disorders. Then a scientist has observed that if some of these procedures were put together, it might be possible to transplant a head to another body, and he has opened up this possibility for debate. So the debate is taking place first. What are you saying should have been different?

*You mean visa versa I think. The difference is the difference between the head and the kidney. There is also the problem that some surgeons will be just a little too eager to get that healthy " dead " body for their head. And there is the great danger that this will lead to even greater body scavaging than is going on righ now. And should we even be playing God, with all this transplanting? *

I don’t think anyone is suggesting cutting off a live person’s head and throwing it away, and then transplanting the head of a dead person onto the live person’s body, thus killing the live person’s body too. That sounds like a low-budget horror flick.

The suggestion is instead to replace a live person’s body with the body of a dead person, in the same manner as replacing a live person’s kidney with that of a dead person.

If “scavenging” is a problem in the US, you could always learn from Spain (a Catholic country, remember), which has the highest organ donation rate in the world. Do you think the US would have more or less donors if scientists studied A & TA?

I don’t see how or why transplanting is “playing God”. Medics, including transplant doctors, already swear by the Hippocratic Oath, which in modern form often includes the line “Above all, I must not play at God”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m still unclear on why you think the three-parent technique, or the open discussion process by which it was authorized in the UK, are a priori immoral. On what basis do you think A & TA prohibit it, or is this something where they don’t have a view either way?

I don’t know what you mean by a priori here but this technique is gravely evil in itself for several reasons. 1. If God had intended men to have more than two biological parents, he would have arranged his creation differently. 2. In the process of perfecting this technique many embryos ( human beings ) will be treated as test subjects and deemed expendible for the sake of " scientific progress. " 3. The means of obtaining the raw material for the embryos are themselves inherently immoral. 4. The process commonly used in invetro fertalization is itself immoral, because more than one embryo is used and then after a certain stage of development all but one or two are usually destroyed ( aborted ). 5. There are bound to be " unfortunate " mistakes in the beginning, which will lead to more abortions. 6. No one knows or can know what the long term effects this will have on future generations. The sin here is that, once again, we are trying to play God. In my view it is a sin even to discuss or consider such practices.

I don’t really know how Aristotle or Thomas would have handled this issue or issues similar. I do know that Thomas would have condemned it outright, though he would have had a long argument full of close reasoning and supported by Scriptual references and references to the Saints of the Church.

Are you saying that these naughty secular humanists of yours have rigged the system in the UK? Do you have evidence for that?

Hey, it started in England and the Continent, remember the Enlightenment?

I think A & TA have sent you awry.

No, it is the kind of choice one must make in time of personal or national peril. What is your answer?

'The Holy Father asked “that the common commitment of institutions and citizens be able to completely eliminate this intolerable violation of human rights, radically contrary to the dignity of man.”

I understand what he said. How does that detract from anything Pearce said, or that I said?

On the occasion of the U.N. day, the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT) emphasized that torture is prohibited under international law in all circumstances.’ - zenit.org/en/articles/john-paul-ii-assails-torture-as-intolerable

I understand that gratuitous torture is wrong. That is not what I am talking about.

*'The Second Vatican Council itself,…[snip]… *

Agreed. But the question of inducing distress to a captive for the sake of saving hundreds or thousands of innocent lives is what I want to know about. As yet all we have had is a lot of generalities. Waterboarding does not seem all that extreme. In fact Navy seals undergo the same treatment as a part of their training. But I can tell you one thing. Every country will use some form of torture when its back is against the wall. You just will not hear about it. Now if the U.N. or the Vatican, or modern ethicists want to come right out and say that even to save one’s own wife, child, or country, one may not waterboard, then I will submit. So far none of them have done nothing but give generalities. Now it should not be too difficult to be specific. So why aren’t they?

You do know that the Catholic Church condemns the use of weapons of mass destruction ( i.e. nuclear weapons, various gasses, etc. ) don’t you? And I agree. And that is a real conundrum given the age we live in, don’t you agree?

cont.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Innocente cont.

But that’s not the case. Over the years, separate doctors have independently developed various procedures to correct various different disorders. Then a scientist has observed that if some of these procedures were put together, it might be possible to transplant a head to another body, and he has opened up this possibility for debate. So the debate is taking place first. What are you saying should have been different?

I am saying it should not even be discussed. And remember, there will be mistakes, some heads will die. Besides, this represents the kind of extreme measure that should never be permitted for any reason. We are just playing God again.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting cutting off a live person’s head and throwing it away, and then transplanting the head of a dead person onto the live person’s body, thus killing the live person’s body too. That sounds like a low-budget horror flick.

The suggestion is instead to replace a live person’s body with the body of a dead person, in the same manner as replacing a live person’s kidney with that of a dead person.

This too sounds like a horror flick. Just as horrible as changing ones sexual parts.

If “scavenging” is a problem in the US, you could always learn from Spain (a Catholic country, remember), which has the highest organ donation rate in the world. Do you think the US would have more or less donors if scientists studied A & TA?

I don’t know if one should call Spain a Catholic country any more. Anyway, where immortality is promised, or a few more years. there will always be scavenging. It is taking place now in China, and no doubt in North Korea. If A and TA were studied as diligently as the agnostic, atheistic, secular humanist ideologies at today’s colleges and universities, it might lead to a culture where people were more reluctance to play God.

I didn’t say that all forms of transplanting are evil. Assuming the donor was fully responsible when making that election, and assuming the doctors don’t rush the procedure there is nothing wrong with the normal kinds of transplants. Though there is evidence that some doctors do rush things ( i.e., take a part before the donor is actually dead ). There is also the question of whether, from a financial view point, whether they are justified. After all it is the insurance subscribers and the government which pays for this things. And health care systems are going broke. In light of that, how can they be justified.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Innocente cont.

But that’s not the case. Over the years, separate doctors have independently developed various procedures to correct various different disorders. Then a scientist has observed that if some of these procedures were put together, it might be possible to transplant a head to another body, and he has opened up this possibility for debate. So the debate is taking place first. What are you saying should have been different?

I am saying it should not even be discussed. And remember, there will be mistakes, some heads will die. Besides, this represents the kind of extreme measure that should never be permitted for any reason. We are just playing God again.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting cutting off a live person’s head and throwing it away, and then transplanting the head of a dead person onto the live person’s body, thus killing the live person’s body too. That sounds like a low-budget horror flick.

The suggestion is instead to replace a live person’s body with the body of a dead person, in the same manner as replacing a live person’s kidney with that of a dead person.

This too sounds like a horror flick. Just as horrible as changing ones sexual parts.

If “scavenging” is a problem in the US, you could always learn from Spain (a Catholic country, remember), which has the highest organ donation rate in the world. Do you think the US would have more or less donors if scientists studied A & TA?

I don’t know if one should call Spain a Catholic country any more. Anyway, where immortality is promised, or a few more years. there will always be scavenging. It is taking place now in China, and no doubt in North Korea. If A and TA were studied as diligently as the agnostic, atheistic, secular humanist ideologies at today’s colleges and universities, it might lead to a culture where people were more reluctance to play God.

I didn’t say that all forms of transplanting are evil. Assuming the donor was fully responsible when making that election, and assuming the doctors don’t rush the procedure there is nothing wrong with the normal kinds of transplants. Though there is evidence that some doctors do rush things ( i.e., take a part before the donor is actually dead ). There is also the question of whether, from a financial view point, whether they are justified. After all it is the insurance subscribers and the government which pays for this things. And health care systems are going broke. In light of that, how can they be justified.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Everyone likes a friendly, chummy group of friends. In Catholicism we distinguish between worship and socializing.

Perhaps you personally might, but your concern was with “empty churches around the world”, and I said churches which can’t radiate encouragement and enthusiasm are best left empty.

Come now, are we to discard all the great thinkers of the past because they were wrong on a couple of things? After all, when Aristotle and Aquinas are taught today, no one is defending their obvious errors, let alone suggesting that they be replicated today. In your view, we would have to abandon most of the great men of the past. Even the great Newton and Einstein had obvious flaws, at least in their personalities.

But you didn’t make a general claim about all thinkers of the past. You made the very specific claim that “if Aristotle and Aquinas were studied more in the colleges and universities more Doctors and scientists would try to help the disadvantaged”, and I said that cannot be right given their views on women and slavery,

My issue here is Pearce’s obsession with A & TA to the exclusion of all other great thinkers.

Perhaps taking a class on morality would be good for undergraduates in all faculties, but it would need to include Plato, consequentialism and deontology, and even then would be western imperialist without Confusius, Siddhartha Gautama and Muslim moral thinkers, and don’t get me started on why you excluded Jesus and Paul when it comes to great thinkers on helping the disadvantaged.

There is absolutely no connection between learning and lack of charity. The Catholic clergy and religious are highly educated, yet their good works are widely known. And the greatest charity is to silently sit and listen to someone’s laundry list of sins and give advice and absolution.

Then you’ve changed your mind. Earlier, you claimed that “if Aristotle and Aquinas were studied more in the colleges and universities more doctors and scientists would try to help the disadvantaged”.

Whereas now you say “There is absolutely no connection between learning and lack of charity”.

QED.

Could have fooled me.

Then name a scientific theory which does make unfalsified claims about causes.

Is it better to say that God doesn’t do anything?

Msgr. Georges Lemaître can answer that, as I’ve not quoted him for a while - “He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.”

And that is a fault. God is the author of all truth, why should we despise something just because it doesn’t fit into a particular secular interpretation of how truth is to be judged. According to your view there would be no true knowledge of God available, because, you see, Revelation and Faith are unfalsifiable and therefore have no truth value.

That still sounds like scientism. We cannot test God, and if you believe it has to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis, then what’s that but scientism? Explain yourself young man.

 

[inocente]

I don’t know what you mean by a priori here but this technique is gravely evil in itself for several reasons. 1. If God had intended men to have more than two biological parents, he would have arranged his creation differently. 2. In the process of perfecting this technique many embryos ( human beings ) will be treated as test subjects and deemed expendible for the sake of " scientific progress. " 3. The means of obtaining the raw material for the embryos are themselves inherently immoral. 4. The process commonly used in invetro fertalization is itself immoral, because more than one embryo is used and then after a certain stage of development all but one or two are usually destroyed ( aborted ). 5. There are bound to be " unfortunate " mistakes in the beginning, which will lead to more abortions. 6. No one knows or can know what the long term effects this will have on future generations. The sin here is that, once again, we are trying to play God. In my view it is a sin even to discuss or consider such practices.

By a priori I mean you appear to think that everyone should conclude the technique is immoral by reasoning alone. But for example, your first point relies on a belief in ID rather than evolution, your second point is an assertion which may or may not be well founded, and so on. Fine, that’s your opinion, but a lot of people (in the UK) obviously disagree with you and you would appear to deny them even the right to discussion.

I don’t really know how Aristotle or Thomas would have handled this issue or issues similar. I do know that Thomas would have condemned it outright, though he would have had a long argument full of close reasoning and supported by Scriptual references and references to the Saints of the Church.

Well, this is the numb of it. If we don’t know how A & TA would handle modern moral issues, then getting scientists to study A & TA will be pointless, even if we were to accept the notion that we should give over decisions on morality to scientists, which I think is a very strange idea.

Hey, it started in England and the Continent, remember the Enlightenment?

So you’re saying a conspiracy of secularists have secretly controlled the UK for the last three hundred years. < sigh >

No, it is the kind of choice one must make in time of personal or national peril. What is your answer?

My answer is that torture is so abhorrent that it is never justified. The Church takes the same line, and so do secularists - UDHR Art. 5 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

I remember reading of discussions about prosecuting the US at the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity. Don’t know whether that is progressing.

*I understand what he said. How does that detract from anything Pearce said, or that I said?

I understand that gratuitous torture is wrong. That is not what I am talking about. *

Neither the Church nor the UDHR add any get-out clauses in the small print - all torture is categorically prohibited, period.

*Agreed. But the question of inducing distress to a captive for the sake of saving hundreds or thousands of innocent lives is what I want to know about. As yet all we have had is a lot of generalities. Waterboarding does not seem all that extreme. In fact Navy seals undergo the same treatment as a part of their training. But I can tell you one thing. Every country will use some form of torture when its back is against the wall. You just will not hear about it. Now if the U.N. or the Vatican, or modern ethicists want to come right out and say that even to save one’s own wife, child, or country, one may not waterboard, then I will submit. So far none of them have done nothing but give generalities. Now it should not be too difficult to be specific. So why aren’t they? *

What do you think JPII was referring to by asking to “completely eliminate this intolerable violation of human rights, radically contrary to the dignity of man”?

What you do think Veritatis Splendor was referring to as the “negation of the honour due to the Creator”?

What do you think UDHR means by “No one shall be subjected to torture”?

What does the Holy Spirit tell you? That you can do anything you like unless it’s specifically prohibited by clauses in the small print?

*You do know that the Catholic Church condemns the use of weapons of mass destruction ( i.e. nuclear weapons, various gasses, etc. ) don’t you? And I agree. And that is a real conundrum given the age we live in, don’t you agree? *

I’ve found before on CAF that some American Catholics cannot get their heads around moral absolutes. Whether it’s torture or WMDs, whether it’s categorically prohibited or not, if you guys decide it might reduce the body count, you’ll do it as the upstanding utilitarians you are.

 

[inocente]

I am saying it should not even be discussed. And remember, there will be mistakes, some heads will die. Besides, this represents the kind of extreme measure that should never be permitted for any reason. We are just playing God again.

Then sending a man to the Moon should never have been discussed as there was a chance someone might die in the endeavor, and all automobiles must henceforth be banned, as drivers make mistakes, and some will die, and they’re just playing God?

I don’t know if one should call Spain a Catholic country any more.

How about if you let people decide for themselves?

Anyway, where immortality is promised, or a few more years. there will always be scavenging. It is taking place now in China, and no doubt in North Korea. If A and TA were studied as diligently as the agnostic, atheistic, secular humanist ideologies at today’s colleges and universities, it might lead to a culture where people were more reluctance to play God.

Seems to me that it’s the A & TA fans who want to play God by prohibiting the rest of us from even discussing anything. :coffeeread:

I didn’t say that all forms of transplanting are evil. Assuming the donor was fully responsible when making that election, and assuming the doctors don’t rush the procedure there is nothing wrong with the normal kinds of transplants. Though there is evidence that some doctors do rush things ( i.e., take a part before the donor is actually dead ). There is also the question of whether, from a financial view point, whether they are justified. After all it is the insurance subscribers and the government which pays for this things. And health care systems are going broke. In light of that, how can they be justified.

I didn’t know that A & TA say the cheapest option is the moral thing to do. But sure, banning all transplants would save money and we could all buy a nice big TV with the proceeds, but I think perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere down the line you missed the entire point of doctoring.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By a priori I mean you appear to think that everyone should conclude the technique is immoral by reasoning alone. But for example, your first point relies on a belief in ID rather than evolution, your second point is an assertion which may or may not be well founded, and so on. Fine, that’s your opinion, but a lot of people (in the UK) obviously disagree with you and you would appear to deny them even the right to discussion.

Your conclusion is unjust, I never suggested the right of discussion. I’m saying that so far there has been no fair and objective discussion.

Well, this is the numb of it. If we don’t know how A & TA would handle modern moral issues, then getting scientists to study A & TA will be pointless, even if we were to accept the notion that we should give over decisions on morality to scientists, which I think is a very strange idea.

I don’t claim to be an expert on either. Someone with a better education could possibly give a better response. But it is a little unfair to expect anyone to more than point to the principles of moral ethics which Thomas espoused. The conclusions I reached are based on the natural law which Thomas defended.

So you’re saying a conspiracy of secularists have secretly controlled the UK for the last three hundred years. < sigh >

I never suggested a conspiracy. It is more like " birds of a feather stick together. " When the controlling institutions of a society represent a particular ideological persuasion, that is the ideology which is installed in the laws and institutions of that society.

My answer is that torture is so abhorrent that it is never justified. The Church takes the same line, and so do secularists - UDHR Art. 5 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”

So you would not use water boarding if it would save the life of your loved ones? Interesting. A very brave position. I’m not that sure of myself.
.

Neither the Church nor the UDHR add any get-out clauses in the small print - all torture is categorically prohibited, period.

And how did it define torture?

What do you think JPII was referring to by asking to “completely eliminate this intolerable violation of human rights, radically contrary to the dignity of man”?

What you do think Veritatis Splendor was referring to as the “negation of the honour due to the Creator”?

Sorry to say I have not read it yet.

What do you think UDHR means by “No one shall be subjected to torture”?

I do not live by the dictates of the United Nations, nor of any of its offices. The U.N, supports many things which are fundamentally evil. When and if they ever clean up their ethical views I will have more respect for them.

What does the Holy Spirit tell you? That you can do anything you like unless it’s specifically prohibited by clauses in the small print?

Fortunately I don’t have to make any decision on that. I would expect a detailed list of what is regarded as torture.

I’ve found before on CAF that some American Catholics cannot get their heads around moral absolutes. Whether it’s torture or WMDs, whether it’s categorically prohibited or not, if you guys decide it might reduce the body count, you’ll do it as the upstanding utilitarians you are.

The trouble is that we all understand what WMD’s are, we are not so certain what constitutes torture.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then sending a man to the Moon should never have been discussed as there was a chance someone might die in the endeavor, and all automobiles must henceforth be banned, as drivers make mistakes, and some will die, and they’re just playing God?

You are comparing apples and oranges. If someone wants to board a space ship, that is his right. Playing God by creating hybrid embryos, by trading bodies, and other grotesque procedures are immoral in themselves.

How about if you let people decide for themselves?

We have governments for the purpose of protecting the common good. I don’t see how the common good demands these or similar procedures.

Seems to me that it’s the A & TA fans who want to play God by prohibiting the rest of us from even discussing anything. :coffeeread:

You keep implying that A & TA fans ( one of whom I proudly am ) have said or implied that opposing views should not be heard. I merely said that these issues should never have arisen, because in a sane, moral culture they would not have come up at all. Or at least one would hope they would not.

I didn’t know that A & TA say the cheapest option is the moral thing to do. But sure, banning all transplants would save money and we could all buy a nice big TV with the proceeds, but I think perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere down the line you missed the entire point of doctoring.

One of the big things in deciding on a medical procedure is the cost. If the cost is unduly burdensome on society, then it should not be done - with public money.

Taking a break for a few weeks.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Your conclusion is unjust, I never suggested the right of discussion. I’m saying that so far there has been no fair and objective discussion.

As our conversation has become fragmented, I’ll try to limit comments to my main objections to Pearce.

1. You made good arguments on why you think three-parent babies is immoral, but there does seem to have been open discussion in the UK before it was authorized there, and I assume there will be in the US too, assuming there’s any demand for the procedure. Pearce wants scientists to make these moral decisions themselves, but I think it would be the worst of all worlds for society to hand any aspect of morality over to technocrats.

I don’t claim to be an expert on either. Someone with a better education could possibly give a better response. But it is a little unfair to expect anyone to more than point to the principles of moral ethics which Thomas espoused. The conclusions I reached are based on the natural law which Thomas defended.

1. Pearce believes that studying Aristotle & Thomas would help scientists to make moral decisions, but A & TA don’t offer any help other than, as you say, general principles, and Pearce gives no reason why A & TA’s principles should be used in preference to any other system of ethics.
2. As far as TA’s version of natural law, non-Catholics (and let’s face it some Catholics) don’t agree on things such as birth control and gay rights. But also Pearce is advocating their philosophy without the moderating influence of Christ, and for instance the A & TA doctrine of natures, which once held that women have an inferior nature, is still open to white supremacists saying non-whites have an inferior nature, etc. In other words only using one system of ethics is always going to be very dangerous.
3. It is hard to imagine how scientists could ever be convinced without any empirical evidence whatsoever that there are such things as natures, and that there is a natural moral law, and that TA’s version is the correct version.

So you would not use water boarding if it would save the life of your loved ones? Interesting. A very brave position. I’m not that sure of myself.

1. You have said that “it is a sin even to discuss or consider” techniques such as three-parent babies, yet you advocate torture. If this is where A & TA has led you, I can only say it is a most arbitrary and contrary philosophy.

*And how did it define torture?

What do you think JPII was referring to by asking to “completely eliminate this intolerable violation of human rights, radically contrary to the dignity of man”?*

If you look back at the quote, Vatican II defines it as “whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit” and goes on to say “all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”"

Sorry to say I have not read it yet.

I meant what do you think the short part of Veritatis Splendor I quoted in post #69 meant by the “negation of the honour due to the Creator”?

*I do not live by the dictates of the United Nations, nor of any of its offices. The U.N, supports many things which are fundamentally evil. When and if they ever clean up their ethical views I will have more respect for them. *

But your personal opinion of the UN isn’t relevant, as the US ratified the UDHR in 1948, and the core provisions such as the prohibition on countries employing torture are binding on the US in international law. Suffice to say that as the entire secular world and your Church both prohibit state-sponsored torture, you’re on your own here.

*Fortunately I don’t have to make any decision on that. I would expect a detailed list of what is regarded as torture. *

I ask “what does the Holy Spirit tell you”, and you answer that you expect Him to provide a detailed list of what is regarded as torture? Yikes.

If A & TA have taught you that the human person isn’t sacred and any act is permissible unless there is a specific detailed prohibition, then I can only say give them up for the good of your soul.

 

[inocente]

You are comparing apples and oranges. If someone wants to board a space ship, that is his right. Playing God by creating hybrid embryos, by trading bodies, and other grotesque procedures are immoral in themselves.

1. Medics are not scientists, and they already have perfectly good ethics, based on the Hippocratic Oath, by which they swear not to play God, so they wouldn’t use any new technique which breaks medical ethics anyway.

We have governments for the purpose of protecting the common good. I don’t see how the common good demands these or similar procedures.

You said “I don’t know if one should call Spain a Catholic country any more”, I answered “How about if you let people decide for themselves?”, and you reply “We have governments for the purpose of protecting the common good”. Que???

You keep implying that A & TA fans ( one of whom I proudly am ) have said or implied that opposing views should not be heard. I merely said that these issues should never have arisen, because in a sane, moral culture they would not have come up at all. Or at least one would hope they would not.

See point 1 is previous post. In any sane, moral culture, these issues must be put before us all for open debate. We’re not the Taliban.

One of the big things in deciding on a medical procedure is the cost. If the cost is unduly burdensome on society, then it should not be done - with public money.

Again, in any fair society, all members of that society must be able to contribute to any decision which affects their society.

Taking a break for a few weeks.

Have a good break, and, remembering that God gives each person a soul and that Christ died for each of us, please ask the Spirit prayerfully about whether it is ever permissible to violate a person with torture.