Re: The naturalist Philosophy

Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 20:28:22 EDT

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch"

    John Burgeson writes:

    > Jan wrote, in part: "In studying nature, there are things from which, I
    > believe, investigators
    > should stay away. For example, some research in biology involving
    > embryos...These are things which can be easily reasoned."

    > Easily reasoned, perhaps, but you imply the answers are easily found. Having
    > been in an ethics class where such was discussed, I did not discern easy
    > answers, even from my more conservative colleagues. Human reproduction
    > remains a PROCESS, and reasonable people, devout, committed Christians among
    > them, do not agree on when in that process a human being can be identified.
    > My own position is that the point is quite early in the process, but I have
    > at least one clergy friend, who is also a professor of philosophy in Texas,
    > who holds that it is quite late -- perhaps not until the 3rd or 4th month of
    > pregnancy. I think him to be wrong; I have no arguments which are compelling
    > for my own position, unfortunately.

    Indeed, easily, I still say, but ethics is not just an independent study.
    It is founded in the philosophy the writer, talker, listener embraces. You
    gave anexample yousrself in stating your own answer, which is based on your
    basic beliefs, which are based on your faith. Ethics is not a subject that
    can be taught like mathe,matics in grade one. Unfortunately, teachers of
    etics do often show, but not reason their basic beliefs.

    >>>It is much more difficult to show that much of modern research is
    >>>motivated by men wanting to play God.>>
    > Perhaps that may be because the statement is not true.Or, more likely, it is
    > because all of us do most of the things we do on the basis of mixed, and
    > only partially understood, motives. Which makes the questioning of a
    > person's motives in most cases a futile, as well as an uncivil, exercise.
    > Burgy

    I do not think that questioning the basis of one's faith is uncivil, nor
    that questioning a person's motives is uncivil. We live in a society which
    seems to have as highest common denominator the economic sphere of life.
    For me that is an idol which we as christians should reject. It goes to
    show that basic philosphies exist, even if we do not always realize them.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 05 2002 - 00:28:36 EDT