Should religion and moral views be handled politically?
The question itself is a little ambiguous – obviously the state ("politics") cannot make you hold a certain view and cannot make you believe in a particular religion – such personal matters simply cannot be handled politically.
One's personal religious and moral views are relevant to others only when they are translated into actions – a view that remains inside one's head is invisible to politics.
It is only the behaviours that result from religious and moral views that are relevant politically, and influencing (and restricting) behaviour for the good of the society and its people is politics' raison d'etre – the alternative is anarchy.
Unless you are an anarchist then you must accept that the behaviours that result from religious and moral views must be handled like all other behaviours; that is to say they must be regulated and restricted - to a greater or lesser extent - by the politics that is the basis of our society.
I think most of what I've said above will not be controversial – almost everyone accepts that there must be some restrictions on our freedom in order for that freedom to be meaningful, and almost everyone accepts that freedom (within limitations) is something positive and worth striving for.
It is the extent of those restrictions / limitations that divides opinion, and indeed for the entire length of recorded history, societies have been strengthening and softening the restrictions imposed upon their people. Over time, there has been a tendency for change, on average, to be more in the liberal direction (less state intervention and more personal freedom). This trend may have been reversed in much of the Western world in recent years with the instigation of the "War on Terror".
While morality can be more "shades of grey" than just black and white, the state has to legislate one way or the other. People who feel the state should not be getting involved in matters like gay marriage seem to overlook the fact that the state has to either allow it, or prohibit it – there is no middle ground there. The state doesn't necessarily have to take a moral stance, but it does have to make a call one way or the other.
The real issue is how the state decides what is to be prohibited.
Such decisions are based on many elements – reason, religious beliefs, morality and pragmatism, to name but a few.
One of these, religion, is obviously not a sound basis for a society deciding what freedoms to restrict. Those who state that society has no business telling us what is right or wrong should realise that right and wrong are meaningfully determined only in relation to other people – aka society.
Also, as mentioned above, society prohibiting something doesn't necessarily constitute society making a moral judgement – it can simply be a pragmatic one (one recent example would be the banning of drinking alcohol on public transport in the UK – society is not saying there is something intrinsically wrong about drinking alcohol there, but in practical terms it is better for society to prevent it and thus prevent the violence, accidents and other problems that it was shown to play a major part in causing or aggravating).
It is religion that has no business telling us what is right and wrong – why trust the Bronze-age writings, warped beyond their original context and meaning by millennia of societal progress (not to mention numerous key mistranslations on the way to their current forms), of the Bible or Koran over reasoned thought, modern ethical philosophy and pragmatism?
It is a fact that secular nations (that is to say nations that are secular in practice, even if not constitutionally secular) are generally more pleasant and more prosperous than nations where the religious laws are the law of the land. The USA is one of few nations that is explicitly secular in its constitution, and is the most prosperous nation on Earth.
Societies that choose what freedoms to restrict based on informed judgement using reason, contemporary science and ethical philosophy rather than out-dated and often mistranslated ancient texts are going to be better places for reasonable people to thrive.
However, some of the current issues dominating this topic of debate are gay rights and abortion. I will focus on these two issues.
Firstly, gay rights (and specifically gay marriage) – this one is easy – of course gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. Denying gay people the same rights as everyone else is morally no different to denying rights to people based on their ethnicity, their having big ears or their having ginger hair.
The only objections to gays having the same rights as heterosexuals are based on:
a) mistranslated Bronze-Age scriptures and
b) the "yuck factor" - e.g. In contemporary Western society many heterosexual males find the thought of the act of two men having sex quite "yucky". But they tend to exhibit a lot less "yuck factor" at the thought of cute girls getting off with one another. This may explain why lesbianism isn't mentioned as a sin in the Bible, written as it was by males.
A lot of homosexual males presumably find the idea of heterosexual sex just as "yucky"!
Of course, just because people find something "yucky" doesn't mean that that something should be made illegal. I personally find childbirth and cleaning up other people's bodily excreta particularly "yucky", but I'm very glad that we have midwives and nurses!
In the case of gay couples adopting children, I think that, as in all adoption cases, the interests of the child should come first. If there was evidence that being raised by a homosexual couple was disadvantageous to the child then I'd oppose it. I've yet to see such evidence, and moreover have no reason to suspect such evidence would exist.
Abortion is a trickier issue, and a good example of the difficulties of imposing legislation, which is largely "black or white" - "legal or illegal" - on issues that are really more "shades of grey".
The common complete anti-abortion argument is flawed – it essentially states that human life is sacred from the moment of conception, thus avoiding the difficulties of the "shades of grey" by making all abortion "wrong".
However, this argument breaks down with a contemporary understanding of evolution (unless you extend it to all living species including plants and bacteria, which is absurd) – species aren't the rigid, separate things Creationists would have us believe. "Human" refers to a narrow part of the continuous spectrum of possible genetic combinations, which brings us right back to the "shades of grey" problem once again.
It is only by happen stance that there isn't a continuous spectrum of living intermediates between humans and chimps – if there was, legislators would have to draw the cut-off line between "human" and "non-human" somewhere, but exactly where would be an arbitrary decision, and no doubt a controversial one especially to families where some of the children were deemed "non-human". Perhaps this sounds contrived, but the very same thing happened in South Africa with the line between "white" and "non-white".
Abortion then, being a "shades of grey" situation (either species-wise or in terms of the age of the potential baby), is a complex issue to legislate on, but clear abortion legislation is vital due to its potentially drastic effects on both people and society.
Destroying a recently fertilised human egg isn't taking a human life in the normal sense of "human life", it is taking only a potential human life – a zygote doesn't have any of the qualities which come to mind when we think about what "human" means to us – it can't feel emotion or pain, hope or despair, laughter or anger (and most spontaneously abort naturally and unmourned in any case) and doesn't have a "personality".
But a new-born baby can do a lot more of these things – it can feel pain, and does have a personality – and I think every decent person agrees that killing a new-born baby is wrong. Between these two points is a grey area, but a society has to draw a line somewhere – and while all the best available evidence needs to be considered, the exact location of that line is going to be largely arbitrary.
The interests of both the mother and the potential child need to be considered. If the potential child is unwanted, and the parents unwilling and unable to raise it effectively, it may be that aborting the collection of cells before it develops to the point where it becomes capable of suffering is the right thing to do.
Also, in societies where abortion is illegal, abortions are still conducted, but often crudely (and later in the pregnancy), causing more suffering.
More generally, evidence suggests that increases in the numbers of children born to parents who didn't want them and were financially and emotionally incapable of raising them well are connected to increases in social disorder and crime.
Allowing people to abort unwanted children could thus potentially save lives and increase the quality of life for people, without causing suffering (as the zygotes / embryos are incapable of suffering as we understand it). If you can easily increase happiness without causing suffering, you need pretty good reasons not to do so. In the interests of society, and the protection of its people, abortion is at worst a necessary evil.
In an ideal world abortion would not be needed, but in the real world, it is.
Politics governs the real world, and has to legislate accordingly. Religions should only determine what their followers should and should not do – they should not seek to force others outside the faith to follow their rules.
It is the job of politics, not religion, to decide what people within society can and cannot do, for the benefit of all.
» left by Dianne Lehmann(2,601) Dianne Lehmann (71 days 12 hours ago.)
Ben, this is very well written and very well argued. A very good job of clear thinking and clearly delivered. Dianne
» left by Missing Link(1,991) Missing Link (71 days 9 hours ago.)
Well done Ben. Quite an article. Not sure that we will ever live in a truly secular society that behaves according to a common moral code if that code must be defined in law. I agree completely that you can't legislate morality. I think that government intervention in the form of endless unnecessary laws is incrementally limiting freedom and thereby choking our democracy. Missing Link
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 22 hours ago.)
I certainly agree that at present governments (well, specifically the US and UK ones, I don't have much experience with the others) are legislating for the sake of legislating, rather than legislating only for the common good. It's a tough time for freedom and democracy. Respond to this comment
» left by Susan Thom(8,150) Susan Thom (71 days 8 hours ago.)
hi ben, i don't think anyone could have covered these issues this well. this piece was excellent. you are a writer, and i hope you keep writing. it was brave of you to take on these issues, when so many millions of people are so divided. the facts spoke for themselves, and you put them together precisely. thanks for sharing,
best regards,
sue thom
» left by Mark Parsec(23,348) Mark Parsec (71 days 8 hours ago.)
I'm afraid that your references to "Bronze" age scriptures and "misinterpretations" (did you mean mistranslations?) reveals a predjudice against religion that permeates your article. Otherwise, very well written.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 23 hours ago.)
Bronze Age is a factual statement, as many of the scriptures in the
Bible (and elsewhere) where written in the Bronze Age. As an example,
the book of Leviticus was written between 1440 and 1400 BC, which falls
into the (late) Bronze Age, which lasted until 1200 BC. "Misinterpretations" is also correct, as in history people have
interpreted certain aspects in incompatible ways, hence they can't all
have been right and some of them must have been misinterpretations (and
there has been a lot of violence between groups defined only by their
differing interpretations of the same scripture). Mistranslation is
closely linked, as when the translators misinterpret a section they
will probably perform their translation based on their own
interpretation. This will tend to perpetuate that particular
misinterpretation into the future as it has become "the text". As to
prejudice, "making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant
facts of a case or event", I disagree - my distaste for fundamentalist
religion and using religious scriptures as a source of (or authority
for) morality is founded on extensive research into the subject, and
has increased as I have learned more about it. Respond to this comment
» left by Mark Parsec(23,348) Mark Parsec (70 days 16 hours ago.)
As a seminary student and one time agnostic I too have extensively studied this subject.The term "Bronze Age" is only partially correct in that it identifies only a portion of the period in which the Scriptures were written. New Testament Scriptures were written as recently as the First Century. Research has shown that the Bible is perhaps the most accurately translated manuscript of antiquity when compared to other texts of similar age. For additional information on this subject I would refer you to Josh McDowell's excellent book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nevertheless, this article alludes to the Scriptures in such a way as to infer that they are archaic, obsolete and, therefore, irrelevent to the subject of morality and politics. However, any perusal of the Bible will show that the entire book relates at length about the struggle between politics, morals and religion. To dismiss the Scriptures from any discussion on this subject is to negate the historical impact the Bible has had on our political system. It is a well established fact that our legal system is derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage... Hello! That's the Bible folks.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 15 hours ago.)
Dismissing the scriptures in any discussion of contemporary morality or politics is entirely right and proper, and does not negate any positive effects they may have had on our modern political system (unless we dismiss the modern political system, which no-one is suggesting). In many places in the New Testament there are references (including statements by Jesus himself) to the continuing authority of the laws laid down in the Old Testament, that is to say - Bronze Age laws. The fact that post-Bronze Age writers have stated that those laws are still authoritative does not change the fact that they are writing about Bronze Age laws. Josh McDowell has been roundly refuted by both atheist and Christian critics. Our current system has of course been influenced by Western Judeo-Christian heritage (and by ancient Greece and Rome and many other cultures), but it is stretching the truth somewhat to claim it is derived from it in any significant way. Trial by jury and other key aspects are relatively recent. Of the 10 commandments, many are not enshrined in law today, and the ones that are are the ones that are common to pretty much every society even before the Old Testament was written - "don't murder people" for example. It is a fact that the US constitution is explicitly secular. Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 15 hours ago.)
See also the "Treaty of Tripoli", article 11: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion" Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (70 days 13 hours ago.)
Politics and religion are two different sides of the same coin. Although the US Constitution wants them to be separated, they cannot be separated. There is no place on earth where they are truly separate. Ever watch the pope visit the president? That visit is celebrated, even though it is technically unconstitutional.
On the topic of abortion. Claiming to understand anything about what a zygote or any other prebirth form of human is thinking or feeling is simple human arrogance. Just began we as human beings cannot detect something a life is doing does not mean it is not doing anything. Did you hear that car accident 400 miles away? Gee, I guess it didn't happen then. When you have kids, your life is about your kids.
The best way not to have a child if you don't want to is not to get pregnant. A lot of people don't like this simple truth because it means they have to control themselves and be responsible for their actions. People who believe their unborn child is there to serve them think it is ok to kill it if they don't want the child. Put it up for adoption. This is not rocket science. Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 13 hours ago.)
While there is of course a lot science does not yet know (and may never know), science knows enough for us to state with confidence that a zygote or even an embryo is incapable of suffering in any meaningful way, and certainly not capable of suffering as much as other lives we are happy to take (cows, pigs etc). There is no human arrogance involved there - just well established science. The human arrogance is revealed when we claim that a ball of cells with no developed central nervous system is more imporant or can suffer more than (for example) an adult pig simply, because that ball of cells has human DNA and could one day become a human being. Most abort naturally without even being noticed - if you believe that these are genuine human lives then efforts should be made to detect these and have proper funeral services for them. I agree that not getting pregnant is the best way to not have a child. This is why I stated that in an ideal world there would be no need for abortion. However, we live in the real world. If you have kids your life should be about them, they should be your first priority. If you have zygote or embryo at a time when you are not willing or able to put the potential child first, you should have the choice to abort before it becomes meaningfully human, for the child's sake as much as anything else. Respond to this comment
» left by Danny Davids(13,195) Danny Davids (70 days 13 hours ago.)
Ben, while I might disagree with some of your points, I must commend you on your calm, well-thought-out delivery. If folks who opposed your views could respond in the same rational manner, people in this country might actually be able to have the "dialog" we keep hearing about but never see, because the debate breaks down into yelling and throwing barbs instead if discussing the actual issues. Ah well, one of these days.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 13 hours ago.)
Hi Danny, thanks for your comments. On issues like abortion where people have deeply held and passionate views it can be hard to keep a productive dialog going - often it gets to the point where the two parties simply have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately legislators don't have that luxury - they have to allow it or prohibit it. I think it is right to allow it, but I wouldn't like to have to be the one who draws the line between the gestation length where abortion is allowed and where it isn't! Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (70 days 12 hours ago.)
A zygote and fetus does not suffer in any meaningful way? Meaningful to who? You were allowed to be born, so you would not know. By requiring something to be "meaningful" to you before it is worth your attention and respect, you are showing your arrogance. If your mother aborted you before you were born, you would not have the opportunity to live your life, or have opinions about anything. That simple truth stands above all science.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 12 hours ago.)
Meaningful to anyone, including the zygote / foetus. They don't have the physical capacity to suffer by any reasonable definition of "suffer". This is not arrogance (I'm not putting myself above anyone else), it is just the way things are. If I was aborted before I was born obviously I would not have the opportunity to live my life or have opinions. That is a simple truth but has no bearing on the issue. I would not have suffered, indeed I would not have been "me" at all at the time of the abortion. The aborted zygote / foetus ("potential me") would not have had a personality or self-awareness. "Me", the person, would never have existed, and thus would not have been able to regret that non-existence. We don't need to worry about the feelings of all t he potential humans that never came to be , we need to make sure the ones where that potential is fulfilled have the best experience of life possible. Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (70 days 11 hours ago.)
I think I am starting to understand what you are trying to say. You obviously agree with me that if your mother aborted you, you would not be alive. You say that has no bearing on the issue. The issue, to you, must be whether or not a being suffered upon it's death or journey into non existence. If that life did not suffer, then there is no problem. That also says, as long as you didn't suffer, it doesn't matter to you whether you are alive and living your life or not. Your though process tells me you believe that as long as you don't suffer, it doesn't matter whether you are here or not - no regrets either way.
My attitude goes beyond the question of suffering. I think every baby deserves the opportunity to step into this world and live life. Some suffer in the process, from medical issues, some come in healthy. I would like to see all come in and live.
I have experienced physical injury in my life. I suffered during the healing process. I am alive and well and very happy to be here. I would not give that up simply to avoid the previous suffering I experienced. Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 11 hours ago.)
I agree on most of what you say there, I think where we differ (although correct me if I'm wrong) is that you view the zygote / embryo as a person, whereas I view it only as a potential person at that stage. Of course many of us suffer but get through it and maybe even come out stronger as a result. Now that I am here, a living person, I would not choose to give it up unless my suffering became extreme beyond imagination, but that's now that I'm here to have an opinion on the matter - now that I exist I'm biased on the subject of my own existence (to say the least ;-) ). Since I consider the zygote / embryo that gets aborted to be only a potential person I don't believe they should have any particular rights, any more than those potential people I deprive of the opportunity of life every time I choose not to have unprotected sex . Since I don't believe there is a specific moment where a developing foetus becomes a person ( I view it as a gradual scale rather than a discrete one), I have difficulty conceiving what precise point should be chosen as the cut-off point, but I have no difficulty in earnestly supporting early-pregnancy abortions for women who want them. The problem for me is how late is ok, and it is one I think cannot be precisely answered, but for practical reasons must be determined arbitrarily, but based on the best evidence we can obtain. Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (70 days 10 hours ago.)
Ben - I read the messages we posted and I've come to a few conclusions. You see yourself as the person who decides what is meaningful to the zygote, fetus, and the baby. I know this because our conversation cannot get beyond your belief that your opinions are sound enough to be the final word on what is meaningful.
In a previous post, I asked: Meaningful to who? You answered: Anyone, including the zygote. You think you know what is meaningful on a grand scale, and you cannot understand why anyone would disagree with you. You are obviously a very intelligent person, but you are blinded by your own sense of superiority. I think you will be a very interesting person to talk to when you get beyond this. Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 10 hours ago.)
I don't see myself as the person who decides what is meaningful to the zygote / embryo, indeed I don't think any person decides that. I have an opinion on it, as do you. Our best understanding of what is meaningful to a zygote / foetus is based solely on science - we understand that suffering and consciousness are emergent from brain activity of a sort that does not exist within the zygote / embryo. You accuse me of arrogance for accepting the current findings of science and pointing out (based on this) that "suffering" is not meaningful to a zygote / embryo, and therefore "suffering of a zygote / embryo" is not meaningful to anyone, because there is no such thing. You assert, based on no evidence, that I am wrong, and that certain things ARE meaningful to a zygote / embryo. Any arrogance must therefore be shared between us both! As to saying I cannot understand why anyone cannot agree with me, I most certainly can understand... as I've said repeatedly, I think it abortion is a complex issue with no "obvious answer", and see my position as being somewhere on a continuous scale between "no abortion ever" and "abortion right up until just before birth". But exactly where on that scale I stand, I couldn't say. As a result, I can't and don't expect anyone to agree with me exactly. Rather than accusing me of being blinded by my own sense of superiority, it would be more productive if you provided a reasoned rebuttal of the points I have raised, or a reasoned argument why it would be better for society to prohibit abortion. I don't think I'm superior to anyone, and if the points I raised in my article are wrong, I'd love to be shown where and why they are wrong so I can learn from my mistakes! Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (70 days 10 hours ago.)
Hi Ben - Thanks for getting into that kind of detail. I appreciate your sincerity. An abortion is conducted to stop the fetus from growing. In my opinion, the fact that an abortion is necessary to stop the fetus from growing is an acknowledgement that the fetus is growing. It doesn't have a personality yet, but it is made of energy that is growing and expanding. I acknowledge that energy as life. I have no proof. I don't need proof. Can you prove to me that you had dreams last night when you slept? You can explain it to me, but you cannot prove it. People tend to get stuck on the idea that "this and that" has to be proven to be real.
I have been alive long enough to know that human beings love to convey rights to each others than take them away as they please. This has been a human struggle for a long time. The baby is there and it is growing. To me that means it is alive. I simply acknowledge what I know. The science of whether the baby is alive or not was created by people who want to kill it for their own convenience, and justify that act without feeling like they are doing something wrong. They try to convince others they did not kill it because it was not alive. The science tries to find a reason to say: See - it not really alive. The only baby that is not alive is carried by a woman who is not pregnant.
If you had a big cut on your arm that was scabbed over and itching a lot, would you say the cut had skin on it? You might tell me there was a scab at the moment, but ... I appreciate the chat - Larry Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 9 hours ago.)
The thing about science that makes it so powerful is that it is protected from any personal agendas of those doing it. If the science is good, it can be reproduced by anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs. And just to clarify, I am not saying, and neither are any biologists that I am aware of, that zygotes / embryos are not alive - they are. But we are not talking about life in general here (carrots are alive and we don't have any debates about killing them), we are talking about human life, and what we really mean by "human", and why "human life" is considered differently to other life. As mentioned in the article itself, nothing here is all that clear cut! Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (70 days 10 hours ago.)
Hi again Ben- Let's assume I am arrogant too. There is no chance that my arrogance will cost a zygote/fetus/baby it's life, because I won't kill it. You may decide to kill it. There is a chance your arrogance will cost it its life.
If the zygote/fetus is really not living, and we leave it alone and let it grow into life, then we have allowed it the opportunity to live. If it really is alive and you assume it is not, then kill it, then you took it's life. Really very simple stuff here.
Assuming it is alive gives it the opportunity to live. Assuming is not yet alive exposes it to the risk of being killed. Which position would you rather be in if we were talking about you?
You clearly say in your previous post that you know what is meaningful to the zygote/fetus/baby. Reread your post - its there. Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 9 hours ago.)
There's a chance your "arrogance" (and to be honest I don't think either of us is truly being arrogant here) could lead to deaths and suffering, for reasons given in the original article. As mentioned in my previous comment, which appeared after you'd already written this further response, I do not believe that a zygote / embryo is not alive. I am confident that I do know what is meaningful to the zygote / embryo (or rather I am confident that I know that suffering / consciousness are not properties a zygote / embryo possesses, and are thus cannot be meaningfully said to be experienced by them). I do not decide whether or not these things are meaningful to them, but the evidence strongly indicates that they are not. Referring to your example, if I was a zygote, I would not have a preference either way, I wouldn't be capable of having a preference about anything. Respond to this comment
» left by John Short from Colorado Springs, CO (70 days 9 hours ago.)
Great article, Ben. As for the abortion issue, the vast majority of Americans wish there were fewer abortions. I believe it would be beneficial to ask not only is abortion immoral, but also is how America deals with abortion immoral.
For example, in Switzerland the laws allowing abortion are much more lenient but the abortion rate is much lower than it is in America. This would seem to indicate that if we wanted fewer abortions in America, making it harder to get an abortion would not be the moral answer, but rather how we deal with the need for abortions. I believe there is significant evidence that the Republican Party doesn't want to put an end to the abortion issue, but rather they are exploiting the issue to manipulate Christians and their votes. This would truly be immoral.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 9 hours ago.)
Thank you for your comment John, you raise some excellent points there. I think pretty much everyone agrees that it would be preferable for the number of abortions to be as low as possible, preferably zero. In reality, zero is not achievable, and as you mention, imposing strict legislation to tightly restrict or ban abortion does not stop all abortions, and doesn't even necessarily reduce the number of abortions (indeed it can increase the number, and can increase the average gestation time at which the abortions that do occur are performed, as well as reducing the safety and hygiene of the procedure. On top of all that, an increase in unwanted babies can lead to increased crime). What is needed is an adult way of looking at the issue and handling it pragmatically. Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (70 days 8 hours ago.)
"I am confident I do know what is meaningful to the zygote/embryo. I do not decide whether or not these things are meaningful to them, but the evidence strongly indicates they are not".
That is part of what you said in your last post.
Your words are contradictory and ambiguous. Again, our conversation is stuck in your belief that you know what is meaningful to the unborn baby. You could not possibly know. Maybe someday you will become aware of your own sense of superiority. For now, you are still blinded by it. I realize now that I have been asking a blind man to see. That doesn't make sense either.
I'm going to remove myself from this conversation because it is stuck. Ben, I wish you well - Larry Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (70 days 1 hour ago.)
The words you quote are not contradictory - I believe the evidence is strong enough to prove beyond reasonable scientific doubt that a zygote / embryo is incapable of consciousness or suffering and therefore, necessarily, suffering is something a zygote / embryo can be meaningfully be said to experience, any more than a rock can be meaningfully said to experience it. I didn't decide that the evidence from observational reality should demonstrate this, but it does.I feel that it is better that important decisions are made based on the best available evidence rather than on things people claim to just "know" without evidence. You say "maybe someday you will become aware of our own sense of superiority", but if someone is not *aware* of having a sense of something then they don't have a *sense* of that something, by definition! I do not feel superior. You have repeatedly accused me of being blind, implying that you're the one with superior qualities, at least in terms of vision, yet in your earlier comment you imply evidence from reality (science) is not worthy of consideration and that you just "know".... if you won't accept evidence then to me that suggests your eyes are closed. Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (69 days 15 hours ago.)
Hi Ben - Take a deep breath and listen to your own words. They are angry and defensive - just the opposite of your original article. I wonder why? You are saying anything you think is necessary to defend your position, rather than sincerely trying to understand what I am trying to explain to you. The energy you are putting into this conversation would has in turning in an endless loop of defensive posturing. In other words, defending your position has become more important to you than sincerely trying to understand what I am saying. I think you are angry because you really want to believe that a zygote is dead or non existant so you don't feel guilt about deciding its ok to kill it.
My point is simple. I am not interested in the science, because the science is used to try to prove that something is already dead or does not exist, so it can be killed without guilt. No science is necessary to simple let a baby be born. I do not need science to back up my understanding that a fetus is alive and should be allowed to grow into a baby and be born. You seem to be angry at me because I cannot prove my belief to you to your satisfaction. Every time a baby is born somewhere, my case has been proven. My case is simple: It's alive! Your response to me: Prove it with science! My response to you: I don't need or want science, let the baby live and watch the mother give birth.This is the endless loop of conversation we are now in.
If you are really as high integrity as you say you are, then you will be willing to step out of your defensive posturing and sincerely participate in this conversation. Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (69 days 14 hours ago.)
I'm not angry. Of course I'm defending my position (you're attacking it), at least in the sense of trying to explain the reasons why I take the position I do. I do understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with it. I have not asked you to prove zygotes are alive, I agree entirely with you that they are! I don't want to kill... I'm not trying to find evidence that supports my position, I'm trying to adopt a position that best fits the evidence, whichever way that evidence happens to point. I am sincerely participating in the conversation, I find the subject matter both interesting and extremely important. Because it is such an important matter, I think legislative decisions need to take into account all the available evidence (biological, historical and legal-social) - you disagree, and that is fine. But this difference between our positions does not in any way detract from the sincerity of my participation in the conversation. Respond to this comment
» left by Larry (69 days 7 hours ago.)
Hi Ben- The bottom line is for you science is more important that life, and to me it is the other way around. Respond to this comment
» left by Teresa Ortiz(5,005) Teresa Ortiz (69 days 5 hours ago.)
I can't imagine not feeling pain if my arm were sucked off my body until it ripped in half while the rest of my body was being ripped to shreds....It's a baby, no matter how one looks at it, the fact is it is living, breathing and growing on the inside of its mothers womb. You can hear its heart beat at just 10 weeks old, listen to your baby's heart beat and then say it can't feel, have an abortion and let the life be sucked out of you literally. That is after all what an abortion is. So sad that it is not considered life in the name of science. People can try to paint abortion as humane and ascribe medical terms that distance the emotion and truth of it all, but it doesn't change a thing. If more people opened their eyes to the truth, then it wouldn't matter if it was legal or not, it just wouldn't be done. My heart breaks. Especially for the women who have to deal with the emotional aftermath that no one wants to talk about. So these women walk around in silent pain.
That being said, great job on your delivery as far as the writing of this article is concerned. You are a great debator for which I give you credit for. Any writer who can provoke such emotion is an amazing writer in my book. Peace.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (68 days 2 hours ago.)
Thanks for reading Teresa, I appreciate your comments! You state that it isn't considered life in the name of science, but it is - the zygote / embryo is unquestionably alive. That is not the issue however, we are not talking about the general right of living things to be allowed to live, indeed no-one can seriously entertain this notion on a general, practical level since we need to kill living things to live. No-one campaigns for "right to life" outside vegetable farms, and very few campaign outside pig farms, despite the fact that in both cases living things, both adults and children, are being killed in huge numbers. In the case of the pig farms, the living things being killed are significantly more complex and our best efforts indicate that they have more capacity to suffer than the early-stage human zygote / embro that would be killed in an abortion. This clearly shows that our natural gut-feeling of disgust or unease is triggered in the case of abortion not because the zygote/embryo is alive, but because of its perceived humanity. This is either outright species arrogance on our part or an arbitrary decision based on capacity for consciousness (and therefore suffering/joy) that draws the line immediately and conveniently between us and all other species, even though we are all on a continuous scale.But the pigs have a greater capacity for consciousness that a zygote, so even if we are drawing an arbitrary line, we're drawing it based on a degree of species arrogance. An argument can be made against abortion based on this idea, but it raises difficulties as it would apply to other species as well. Respond to this comment
» left by Terence from U.K (67 days 7 hours ago.)
Wow Ben, your very well written article epitomises the error that is the plague of modern man - no offense intended. You are attributing the fundamental order of creation to a random model that contradicts the basis of good science at every level, and somehow allude to science as supporting your argument? You are also separating history from the lessons that it teaches. To name a couple of points, America's founding Fathers were all Bible believing Christians, some even being able to to quote large sections of scripture and applying it in their governing of the country. The constitution was based on Biblical truth, the American war of independence was essentially "Rex Lex" vs. Lex Rex" ("The king is law" vs. "The law {God's} is king"). Those who settled America were mainly Christians seeking a country where they would live under God free from the oppression of the various states that persecuted their faith and set themselves above God (which most countries are doing today) and taxed them beyond Biblical limits (which nearly all countries do today).
The prosperity of America was built on a model of Christian faith worked out in practice for all to see (and copy). The roots of this practical faith stem from the Reformation which also brought about the prosperity and freedom still enjoyed in the West today. (But which we are slowly losing due to unfaithfulness). America's constitution in no way had a secular basis but was based on Biblical principles put in place by Bible-believing men.
The "science" which you use to justify what the Bible calls "lawlessness" has nothing to do with true science. I quote a few sentences from "The Greatest Century of Reformation by Dr. Peter Hammond". "Modern Science as a discipline is a fruit of the Reformation. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method said these words 'There are two books laid before us to study to prevent us fallng into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.'... Johannes Kepler - 'My wish is that I may perceive the God whom I find everywhere in the external world in like manner within me',... Sir Isaac Newton (the father of calculus & dynamics, theory of gravitation & laws of motion....) to 'truly know the Creator, one must study the natural order of things.' Newton dedicated his life to know the Word of God (the Bible) and to know the works of God (creation)... Blaise Pascal (mathematics & technology)..., Charles Babbage (father of computer science)..., Samuel F.B. Morse (telegraph & Morse code)..., Sir Michael Faraday ..acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists of all times declared: ' The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances. Faith in the Divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God and the evidence of faith is obedience to the commandments of Christ,... 'Lord Kelvin...formulated the metric temperature scale..formulated the science of thermodynamics..declared 'With regard to the origin of life, science positively affirms creative power.'"
All these were true scientists and Christians, upon whose discoveries the major elements of today's science rests, and yet they and many others saw in science the outworking of the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.
Now the God who defined science in its minute and unchangeable order, is removed from the picture by men who do not want to be governed by His moral law, and is replaced by bad science which says this order came out of a random chaos, which contradicts the law of entropy which basically holds that matter naturally proceeds towards a state of disorder, not order. Did you ever buy a car that got newer as the years rolled on? Did you ever meet anyone that looked younger as they got older?
The same God who created order out of the universe (enormous energy or enthalpy involved to overcome the entropy and set it all in a delicate equilibrium), whom the scientists testify of, also created moral law, for his creatures to live by. The animals obey it by design, men disobey it because of sin. So all the talk of "at what age can you abort a child" is nebulous and not our decision anyway. God's law says "never". It couldn't be much simpler.
Is fornication, homosexual practise or adultery permissible? No. Can homosexuals adopt a child? - according to biblical pattern, "no". The family structure is clearly defined as father, mother and children, each with their own role. Two males or two females are not a biblical family.
Everything works according to pattern, and outside that pattern is a mess. It is plainly and obviously cursed. (There is no mess in the universe, it is perfectly ordered). What these questions and many others are in essence asking is "when am I allowed to sin ( break God's pattern)?" The answer is "never, on pain of death." This is an offense to many people, whose common ground is "God or religion will not control us. We will create our own order and decide what is right and wrong". This was the sin of Adam and is rampant still today. The consequence is thousands upon thousands of man-made laws to try to control uncontrollable people instead of ten comprehensive commandments and a changed heart that a merciful God has paid for and promises to those who humble themselves, call on Him and turn from their own ways to obey His. Life or Death?
God Bless you.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (67 days 2 hours ago.)
Thanks for your comments. Your comment about the Founding Fathers is
flat-out wrong - not ALL of them were Bible-believing Christians. In
fact, most of them were deists, not theists at all, and therefore not
Biblical literalists. Many of them had a good knowledge of the
scriptures, this was common for educated individuals in those times.
Your comments about science are entirely at odds with the opinions of
the vast majority of the scientific community, and at odds with the
scientific method.
The God of the Old Testament, in which the 10 Commandments were laid
down, is not a notably merciful character - more vengeful than
merciful.
Quoting those scientists adds nothing to your argument by the way, as
it consists solely of argument from authority. Newton in particular,
while he was one of the greatest scientists of his day and his work is
still useful today, also believed in lots of irrational nonsense,
including alchemy. Respond to this comment
» left by Mark Parsec(23,348) Mark Parsec (65 days ago.)
Ben, For an individual who wants to leave religion out of political discussions you seem to display a significant amount of anymosity towards any suggestion that Christianity has had a profound impact upon the development of our political system. Earlier you dismissed my reference to Josh McDowell by stating that "Josh McDowell has been roundly refuted by both atheist and Christian critics." Can you give me a reference on this. Incidentally, since you are so bold as to take a firm stand on the "authority" of science in its application to politics, would you be so kind as to admit whether or not you are an athiest? I am curious also whether you are a homosexual. I am a Christian. I am not homosexual. And I think our personal position on these issues are very pertinent to the conversation so that we can all understand where we are coming from. I would appreciate your honesty.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (64 days 23 hours ago.)
Not animosity. Christianity has of course had an influence on the development of our political system, but the facts is that it is only one factor among many, the US constitution is explicitly secular, and today's political systems are incompatible with Biblical literalism. Almost all those elements common to both Christianity and modern political and moral systems are those elements which can be well supported by reason - and most of these elements did not originate with Christianity. I can't give references via link here as it won't let me, but even a quick search in the world's most popular search engine will bring up a few decent rebuttals. The "authority" of science is, by definition, the "authority" of the facts of reality as best understood, and any decisions made for the real world need to be made on the best available understanding of reality. I'm an agnostic atheist, with a soft spot for the God of Einstein and Spinoza (a deistic rather than theistic, personal God). I'm not a homosexual, indeed my own personal "yuck factor" is quite strong in relation to such acts, but then my own "yuck factor" is quite strong in relation to asparagus as well. I can't personally see the attraction in either, but if other people want to go for it then that's their business. Respond to this comment
» left by Mark Parsec(23,348) Mark Parsec (64 days 23 hours ago.)
Apparently my most recent comment did not make it to this page. So, I'll try again... I must admit that you are correct when you stated to Terrence from UK that not ALL of the Founding fathers of the United States were Bible believing Christians. However, the majority of them were not only Bible believing Christians but theists as well. I can provide you with the references on this if needed. Perhaps your sources of information in the UK regarding our history in the United States is inaccurate or has been misinterpreted by you or somebody else. A document does not need to be from the "Bronze Age" to be misinterpreted. As a matter of fact, I have seen an immense amount of misinterpretation, misinformation and rhetoric in the comments on this article. I suppose we are all guilty of that... aren't we? In any event, I would like to know how homosexuality is scientifically correct? Or, how is abortion scientifically correct? We sometimes assume that science has all the answers, when in fact it has frequently been wrong. Science once proclaimed that the Piltdown man was a missing link. When in fact it was a fraud. Science also proclaimed Neanderthal to be the missing link... but has now changed its mind and determined that the mytochondrial DNA of Neanderthal bumps it out of the Human family. And science continues to assert the theory of evolution as if it were a fact... when it is in reality a system of faith. This is the way of humanism. However, it is quite obvious that human intelligence is quite limited. As you should know, considering your interest in science and religion. Because of our human limitations heads of governments have repeatedly been held accountable to a Higher Authority. Tell me, why does the President of the United States place his hand upon the Bible when he is sworn into office? What is the moral implication? Why do we have "In God we Trust" engraved on our currency? And what is the moral implication? And why does every session of Congress open in prayer... and you got it... what is the moral implication?
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (64 days 22 hours ago.)
My sources of information on the Founding Fathers are from the US as it happens, although sources from elsewhere could be argued as being more objective. I'd accept that most of them were theists. Most significantly, the majority of them were secularists. Science itself doesn't make moral judgements, it is merely the information about reality which must be taken into consideration when we make moral judgements. Scientists can be wrong, but what makes it so powerful is the mechanism by which it corrects itself. Its ability to change its mind based on new evidence is surely preferable to the alternative - doggedly clinging to the same view *despite* new evidence that indicates that view is wrong. Evolution by natural selection is not a system of faith. It is a scientific fact. This means that it is supported by overwhelming evidence and has stood up to numerous attempts to falsify it. It is possible that it is wrong, but if it is, a new and better explanation would be needed (similar to Relativity replacing Newtonian conceptions of gravity - Newton was wrong, but even so his theory was accurate enough to be useful for centuries, and is still useful today!) The fact that evolution happens is an observable fact, it is the theory that *natural selection* is the *cause* of the observed evolution that is falsifiable. Evolution by natural selection is not faith-based, it is evidence based, and this is why it could be falsified. This ability to be falsified is one of the key things that makes it a scientific theory. Human intelligence is undeniably limited. It is our invention of "extelligence" that has helped us as a species overcome individual human limitation in many ways, although as individuals are limitations remain. Historically, human heads of governments (mostly Kings) have claimed their authority is divinely bestowed, and thus that they are not themselves accountable to anyone on Earth, only to the Higher Power. The implications of this are obvious. The moral implications of those Christian traditions are almost none-existent since the constitution..the law (which determines what is deemed ok and what is deemed not ok)...is explicitly secular. Christian traditions and rituals are commonplace of course, but have at best only a symbolic meaning - the President swears on the Bible as a sign that he submits himself to higher authority, a sign that he is a servant, but the laws of the nation of which he is the head are not the laws of the Bible (although some few happen to be the same), and the president's authority comes not from God but from the people. Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (64 days 14 hours ago.)
Ben, I would like to begin this comment by commending you on your integrity to defend your position. I would also like to remark again that your article is written very well. It is stimulating to be able to carry on a discussion with someone like yourself who defends his position from an intelligent perspective. With that said, I would like to continue this debate... I would argue that evolution is not a fact... but a theory. One of the fundamental tenants of the scientific method is that it can be tested and that the results of the test can be duplicated. Evolution cannot be tested because we cannot duplicate the evolution of species. I would like to make the observation that the minor differences we have seen because of selective breeding is not the same thing as a creature mutating from one species to another species. Whales do not walk. Monkeys do not talk. And there is absolutely no evidence that any creture upon the face of the earth is currently in the process of evolution. To adhere to a paradigm without tangible evidence is a belief system. Evolution is a belief system because it "believes" the missing link is out there... kinda like theists asserting that God is out there... but neither one of us can see it or touch it. How does science and evolution pertain to this discussion regarding politics and religion? It is a question of authority... Now as I approach this I must refer to your comment that you are an agnostic atheist Deist. Well, that is quite an odd combination. I'm not quite certain what that means... but it sounds like you're doing the shuffle on your position. So, let me approach a theory of God from a scientific position... As a scientists I am certain that you accept that "reality" consists of matter and energy that can be measured, etc. And has not quantum physics proven that quarks are particles that appear to be able to exist in more than one location at a time? Has not science asserted that we live in a multi-dimensional universe? And if you accept this model of reality then is it not possible that the "space" in which you live, and walk and talk, could be co-inhabited by beings from a another dimension? This multidimension universe that science has just stumbled upon is something that religion has been proclaiming for thousands of years. The problem with humanism is that we want to believe that we can control our universe by the power of our intellect. Yet, you yourself have stated that human intelligence is undeniably limited. To defend your humanistic philosophy you have asserted that mankind has invented extelligence. Yet, would it not be equally valid to assert that extelligence invented intelligence... literally? Now, with that said I would like to try to bring this discussion back to the question regarding religion morals and politics. In my last comments I cited specific examples of how civil religion has been incorporated into our political process. Your response was that the "moral implications of those Christian traditions are almost none-existent." I must absolutely disagree with you on that comment. The moral implication of taking an oath and swearing upon the Bible is that an individual is pledging to be faithful and honest to their commission, not by the authority of man, nor by the authority of the State, but by the authorioty of God. Faithfulness and honesty are absolutely moral issues. The engraving of "In God We Trust", upon our coinage is another example of the acquiesence of the secular political system to the moral authority of God. The moral implication here is again a question of honesty. Yet, must profoundly... Why on earth would a secular political order such as Congress begin every session in prayer? Is this just shallow tradition and ritual? Absolutely not... it is the very real acknowledgment that our political leaders seek the guidance of God in their proceedings. The moral implications are powerfully self-evident.
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (64 days 13 hours ago.)
*Evolution by natural selection* is a theory that offers an explanation for the observed phenomenon (fact) of *evolution*. Speciation has been observed in labs, and elsewhere. Numerous times. The difference between species is just an accumulation of the tiny changes we see in selective breeding. This has been proven and it has been observed! Whales do not walk, but their ancestors did. There are still vestigial remnants that clearly indicate their land-based ancestry. There is evidence of evolution in contemporary creatures, as well as the instances of speciation observed in labs there are many other examples, such as the changes in the beaks of "Darwin's Finches". There's also the strong evidence from molecular biology, that shows a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that strongly supports the idea that all living things are related. Some of the most compelling evidence for evolution is the existence of some extraordinarily BAD design in nature (one example being the hideously twisted skulls of non-skate flat-fish, twisted to bring both their eyes to the "top" side that in their ancestors was their left or right side). The Theory of Evolution is not a belief system, it is an explanation (so far the only one that fits all the evidence) for the observed diversity of species. It has made predictions that have later been verified. No evidence has been discovered which falsifies it, despite many scientists having stated exactly what kind of discoveries would do so (and many attempts to find such evidence have been made). "Missing link" is a nonsense term really, since if we have an ancient species, A, and a modern one, Z, then we discover a "missing link" somewhere between them, M, we are still looking for a "missing link" between M and Z. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your references to a "multi-dimensional universe", its self-evident that we live in a multi-dimensional evidence as we can see that things exist in (at least) 3 spatial dimensions. There is nothing in the Bible, or any other religious text that I'm familiar with, that is a clear prediction of the kind of multi-dimensionality hypothesised by today's physicists. It would not be valid to state that extelligence invented intelligence. Extelligence is a repository of externalised intelligence (outside of the human brain), and you cannot have such a repository without first having intelligence. Morally, it makes no difference whether someone bases an oath to tell the truth on the authority of the state or on the authority of God, as either way they are committing to telling the truth with an implication of accepting punishment from that authority if they are found to be lying. Faithfulness and honesty are obviously moral issues, but whether you swear on God, the Bible, the Koran, your honour, your mother's life or any other personally meaningful authority doesn't change the commitment to faithfulness or honesty involved. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on extolling these virtues, they are common to many faiths, and common also among the faithless. Political leaders in democracies do not get authority from God, they get it from voters. Respond to this comment
» left by Helen M Nanney from Eagle, Idaho (64 days 9 hours ago.)
Ben: Your article makes a good argument but for who? f You commented on each of your subjects from the standpoint of your beliefs. Religion is a persons beliefs and every individual has a reason for believing the way they do. Christianity is under attack. Maybe it is a conscience thing with people. If there is a God (He has spoke to my thoughts as if I was talking face to face) then He does not need any ones approval. If not then who cares what the rest of the world thinks on the subject. Disasters are not of His choosing, It is our spiritual ignorance and it is the destructive forces we are now feeling in the acceleration of destructive weather around the world and the decline of our countries morals and prosperity. Our bill of rights, states it very plainly. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government is not supposed to be a body of people where it micro manages everyone's lives. No one objected to the choices gay people made on their own pursuit of the principles of freedom, only when it became a form of forcing their way of life through legislation. Sodomy means both gay men and woman. It is not the people that are targeted, it is the way of life being forced on children in books etc. It is the same with all forms of idolatry. It is self-destructive. No one argued when a woman chose to have an abortion. It is when it became a form of legislation it became dangerous. Millions and millions of tiny embryo's, with a beating heart, moving legs, and arms, eyes, etc. have been aborted because it is legal. There were few abortions before legislation. It has become a form of birth control. And yes full birth abortions do take place, by crushing the skull of the baby before it can take a breath. The rate of suicides of women with abortions is higher then any other class of people. A woman working for Planned Parenthood recently confessed she received $40.00 extra pay, for every girl she talked into an abortion.(taxpayers money) She confessed also some of them were not even pregnant. Remember the working people are paying the bills for all this legislation, most of them do not want. When a few people think they have all the answers for everyone, and have the powers of legislation, we all lose a little bit more freedom. Believe the way you choose, but why be concerned of others that believe the way they choose. Is it the need to be right, in order to make one feel better, on how they believe? Respond to this comment
» left by Mark Parsec (64 days 8 hours ago.)
why is it so difficult for you to accept an intelligence outside of yourself, mankind, etc.? Molecular biology does not prove evolution, it only shows the inter-relationship of all living things. This does not disprove Creation. You have asserted that there is scientific evidence for evolution in that "There is evidence of evolution in contemporary creatures, as well as the instances of speciation observed in labs there are many other examples, such as the changes in the beaks of "Darwin's Finches"." This is erroneous. You are referring to the interpretation of data and the conclusions of that information. The changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches did not change the basic DNA of finches. If you are going to claim that scientific evidence exists then you need to reference these claims. I could say that there is volumes of scientific evidence to support Creation Science or Intelligent Design. However, without the citations it is only an assertion. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in labs or in the fields that irrefutably show that one species has evolved into another. Good day!
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (64 days 2 hours ago.)
It is very easy for me to accept intelligences outside myself, there's a lot of them on our little planet, and a great number of them put mine to shame. It is difficult to accept an intelligence outside of man (and to a lesser extent other animal species) because there is no evidence of such a thing. Molecular biology is strong evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and is compatible with predictions made by the theory of evolution long before molecular biology came to exist. As to the observed instances of speciation in labs, this is not erroneous - speciation has been observed happening. This is evolution, and it has been witnessed. The only part where interpretation comes in is what causes it. The theory of natural selection is the most parsimonious interpretation, but a divine interpretation could be attempted here with God as the *selecting force* in evolution. The changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches were genetic, therefore were the direct result of changes in the "basic DNA" of finches. Darwin didn't know that, but it has been tested since his time. Further evidence comes from modern "ring species", where there's chains of slight differences in a species as you move around the world, but each can reproduce with other members of its species in its locality. However, at the far ends of the chain, the differences have become so large that creatures from one end of the chain cannot successfully reproduce with creatures from the other. If the creatures in the middle of the chain were wiped out, then the chain of reproductive compatibility would be severed, and the animals from the start and the end of the chain would have to be categorised as seperate species, due to distinct and consistent differences in behaviour, appearance and genetics, and inability to breed with each other. The evidence is there, and it is overwhelming. Respond to this comment
» left by Helen M Nanney from Eagle, Idaho (60 days 5 hours ago.)
* "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984.
* "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.
* "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.
This is just a few of the great thinkers including scientists that refute everything you are claiming is true. Theory is not true until it is proven. Everything provable has to have a Principle behind its capability to be proven, such as numbers and music. How do I know God exists? He has spoken to my thought as loud as if I was speaking to you face to face. That is all the proof I need, however, that just increased my thurst to know Him better. He told me to write my book,"Who Made God'. Helen M Nanney Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(890) Ben Morrish (60 days ago.)
Quoting other people who are wrong doesn't constitute an argument against evolution. Not one of those quotes contains anything beyond unsubstantiated assertion, and presenting them is nothing more than appeal to perceived authority. You seem to misunderstand what "theory" means in a scientific context - scientific theories are never proven (definitive proof only applies in logic and mathematics). Hearing a voice in your head is not itself sufficient evidence of the existence of any entity that also exists outside of your own head. We humans can all too easily be deceived by our minds and senses, which is why we need the scientific method to support any claims about reality.
» left by Anonymous (54 days 16 hours ago.)
Hi Ben: Interesting discussion. As an experienced scientist, I can confirm – science cannot explain many things. As a family person, I can tell – the most important things are love and spiritual growth. In my opinion, to improve your understanding you should marry, have kids, and watch them when they become teenagers.
There is much science cannot explain, that is for certain. Most likely science will never (and could never) explain everything, but every increase in our understanding of the universe we find ourselves in is both satisfying and adds to our sense of awe and wonder, as well as having many practical applications.
I agree that love, friends and family are the most important things in life, and spiritual growth too (depending on how spiritual is defined of course).
Understanding people and how to engage meaningfully with others is vital in one's own development and enjoyment of life.
» left by sue thom from nj (50 days 10 hours ago.)
holy s--t, ben,
there weren't this many comments when i first read this article!
you are very intelligent, and obviously have learned a lot in your young life, and you know how to intelligently handle all these comments. good for you.
i think abortion is a personal thing, and should be questioned or legislated by none. i don't think it should be done, but i also don't think anyone should mandate that it can't.
"numerous key mistranslations".... i've often thought, with all the mistranslations: What if God said, let no man lie with his lamb?" instead of "let no man lie with another man" something to think about.
I think you overrate my intelligence (and my youth) but I never turn down a compliment, so thank you for that! ;-)
As to the lambs, the Bible has that covered as well:
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
-- Exodus 22:19
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye
shall slay the beast. - Leviticus 20:15
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt
kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:16
....its just a shame the authors threw in the anti-homosexual references as well in my view, as it has caused a lot of suffering and conflict over something that all the evidence suggests isn't a choice anyway, and is a private matter in any case!
Thanks for reading!
» left by sue thom from nj (48 days 15 hours ago.)
hi ben,
congrats on winning the contest, good job.
there are 11,011 words in your comments! keep writing, and we'll keep reading,
and thank you for joining my fan club, i truly appreciate it,
What a well written, thoroughly argued article! This should have received 5 stars!
And you are right, religious beliefs of the people can not be undervalued in policy making decisions, but that does not mean that policy should be dictated by a singular religious belief system. When this happens, we no longer live in a true democracy, but a theocracy.
Socialist philosophy was developed in accordance with the "greatest good, for the greatest number of people' in mind. But this led to more governmental power and price control and set wages. Although this was a very popular economic policy after the Great Depression, the deregulated free market economy took its place.
Now we are stuck wondering whether or not this policy beholds the greatest good for the greatest number of people; as we have seen a larger division between the have's and the have not's.
Many people think that this current election has to do with religious conservatism vs liberalism, or that terrorism is all about fundamentalist, radical Islam vs the secular west. But I think the issue is even larger than this. I think global terrorism is a reactionary response to Capitalism run amuck; e.g, hyperconsumerism and materialism.
Great Article!
Was
this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:
This Article has been viewed 3,890 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Friday, June 27, 2008 View other articles written by Ben Morrish(890)
