Ferdi wrote:Immanuel, seeing that you brought God into this abortion issue,
It's IC, if you like...it's shorter and clearer. Save your fingers some typing. I'm not up to the title you gave me -- not nearly.
I was born in 1927 in the Netherlands in a strict Catholic environment, went to a High School run by Jesuits, moved to NZ in 1952 and on to Australia in 1970. I went to church each Sunday until the 1990’s after semi-retiring which gave me time to think and to look more objectively at mankind. It then gradually dawned on me that mankind has created beliefs as a shield against the vagaries of nature. Humans created the various Gods and independently so, in various parts of the globe: Gods for volcanoes, rain, harvest, etc., and devils for diseases, etc. Beliefs about abortions, evolved from there.
This is perhaps a remotely
plausible explanation, I think not a
necessary or
accurate one. What I mean is that the same is true of the explanation that says "Humans were seeded on this planet by aliens": it
could be true, but it's neither likely nor compelling to think it is, so we're probably better to consider the full range of available data before making that assumption.
The other difficulty for it is that it begs a lot of questions, questions that we shall want answered if we want to be content with that explanation.
Why should the Catholic faith be the correct religion?
I don't think you'll find I claimed it was. If there are other possible explanations, explanations that account for the historical and theological data better, we'd be best to consider them, no?
In fact, I think that's what you're saying...
The religions of the enormous populations of India and China provide a much larger foundation.
The belief that "enormous populations" increase the likelihood of a belief being true is a fallacy, actually. It's called "bandwagon fallacy." And you'll see why it's wrong if you consider that at one time in history 100% of the people of the world believed the world was a fixed, flat plane. So if your conclusion were true, then the world would not be a sphere; for the numbers who believed otherwise would have changed the facts.
But as it is, numbers don't change facts. The facts remain as they are. The important question, as Galileo et al realized, is "What are the facts?"
Fact is that “God” is just a label for the superior power of nature; similar to us now giving labels (like “black holes”) to features of the universe which we observe but are beyond our comprehension.
Ah. On what evidence did you acquire this "fact"?
So far, you've listed two: that you consider it plausible, and that a lot of people believe it. Neither is, of course, any rational basis for thinking it's a fact at all. But in any case, the first reason is merely subjective and personal, and the second isn't true. For the majority of, say, Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists DO NOT, in fact, believe in the theory you are using to explain the whole situation; namely, they DON'T believe that their religions are mere explanations of natural phenomena. That is, in fact, a minority view, one pretty much limited committed Atheists, and thus to (probably much less than) 4% of the West.
So now, if numbers still count, have you not undermined your own argument.
Thus I have some sympathy for your opinions founded on your God-driven mind which distorts your objectivity. You are viewing the world through God-coloured glasses. We have a free will to guide us and make us responsible for our actions. Shielding behind belief in a God is no excuse for anyone with adequate intelligence.
Perhaps this is an explanation you find plausible, again. Is it necessary or rational? Is that what it seems to you I am, and does that seem to you to be what I would likely do? Not very flattering, perhaps, but I'm not wounded.
If it helps you to sleep at night, you can tell yourself that story. But I think you have reason to suspect it might not be true: otherwise, why bother to explain this to me? I must simply be an indoctrinated sheep.
But I'm going to guess what you're wondering: "Is he
really that, or can he hear me?" Or perhaps, "Is he just possibly somebody who may have found a line of thought I missed, and is it conceivable he got something to say?" Absent those two possibilities, I would expect you not to bother to put together such a thoughtful message as you have. After all, what's the point of talking to a "brick wall," if that's what you genuinely believe I've become?
Do you accept that we do not know if there is a God ?
Well, rationally speaking, your question implies I shouldI accept that
you do not, yes. But then, why would I doubt that? I have your profession of it, and it reconciles well with the facts as you have given them to me. But, may I ask, what would make you think
nobody else does, if you don't?
There's just no easy road from "I don't know" to "You don't know" or "We can't know."
At the very least, you've got to give me this: if "I" don't know something, it doesn't argue that a person in Philadelphia or Fiji doesn't either, does it?
So why would we think that a thing that's obviously true of all other facts could not possibly be true in reference to knowing God? You'll have to help me with that.
The God-label may serve to remind us that there may be more to life than meets the eye. I could swap the “God” label with the “life” label and replace a God’s judgement by a self-judgement on the instant that one’s “life” stops on death. Life may logically return to wherever it may have come from at birth. I find it plausible that the “god” label of all religions may be denoting “LIFE”, infinitely large and small, right here dimensionless, explaining everything and everywhere, Higgs Bosons and Black Holes, gravity and electrostatics, and the reason for our existence: unbiased self-judgement with ”life’s” wisdom on death. May be we should behave yourself, not for God but for your own objective judgement at your moment of wisdom at death.
Well, it's a very long time to work for a very short moment, isn't it?
I would think that was bad economy of time.
But yes, you
could choose to do that: but the question is not that. The more important question is, (Given the universe as you have described it) "Why
should anyone?" If I were an Atheist, I think I'd be wise enough to see that there was no reality to morality, and no Judgment hanging over my head. And then, whether I was "good" or "bad," (though those terms no longer have meaning for me) would be a matter of my personal advantage only. My life could be used to please myself -- whether that meant self-presenting as a rescuer of infants or a devourer of nations -- would be a matter of strategy. Whatever got me what I wanted at a time would be the only "good" I would know.
That's if I were an Atheist. It always charms me, and gives me hope for the Atheists, that they just can't bring themselves to live that way: for it is surely the logic of their professed beliefs that should drive them to it. But sometimes it doesn't, and for me, that's a good thing.
Back to abortion; none of us asked to be born, and none of us would have been harmed if we had been aborted prior to having come to LIFE; prior to being an individual. We are here as a result of our ancestor’s procreation instinct. We are here for an earthly sojourn which comes to an end when ”life” departs on death. It raises the question: why no dispute about our instant of death but influenced by fanatic opinions about when life starts ? It seems logical to me : if life stops on death after one’s last breath is exhaled, then life starts at birth when one’s first breath is inhaled, both are evident by close observation. Such evidence should not be clouded by emotions or fanatic beliefs.
Well, again, you've got an explanation that you find satisfying, perhaps...what is your question
for me?
Ah, now we get to the strand topic. You write:
Abortion is only murder if the foetus is brought to life before the abortion; euthanasia may then be applicable.
Again, here is a hold-back on your Atheism. Come on; let's go the whole hog here.
According to Atheism, you -- and all children too -- are merely a contingent fact of an impersonal universe. So why think that ANYBODY deserves to be given any "dignity" at all? What Kermit Gosnell did is then not "murder." You've proclaimed "open season "on infanticide. But why think that infants have a dignity advantage over toddlers? "Kill the toddlers!" But why think toddlers are anyone special? "Kill the youths!"...
You've put yourself on a genuine slippery slope to a world of pure "survival of the fittest," and "morality be damned." As you rightly point out, you could
choose to stop it (and maybe as a "nice" person, you would); but if another person doesn't want to stop where you want to stop, how will you prevent him going further? And why should you? You don't know, any more than he knows, that there's any reason not to keep going.
I'm not advocating any of the above. I'm just showing you the absurd logic of Atheism. Lots of Atheists have told me they "Don't want to go that far," and I believe them. But not one of them has ever been able to tell me why they CANNOT go that far, if they choose to. For them, it's just not "wrong" in any defensible sense of that word. So I always marvel at the inconsistency of Atheism.
Let me come to a point, if I may. In short, rather than writing me a short or hostile message, punctuated with swearing and abuse, you have honoured me with a thoughtful message not only treating my views as worthy of rational debate. Not only that, but you have graciously shared with me your personal disillusionment with your past, which is much more personal and honest than you might have chosen to be. And so I am thankful, and would fain respond in kind.
Ask, say or present what you will. I will do my best to answer, converse and respond in the way you have done.
Thank you for your thoughtful input.
