[ Back to JB's Debater Profile ] Greetings to all, and peace among you, anno Domini 2007. $rjvyw hwhy $krby
Knxyw $yla wynP hwhy ray
~wlv $l ~fyw $yla wynP hwhy aFy I'll be switching up the format of my replies this time. Instead of replying in order to the statements of one opponent, then the other, I'll be grouping them in a different manner, largely according to subject. I also intend to give a somewhat sarcastic (but frequently just cryptic) section heading to each piece. Why? Well, I've got to find some way to reduce the monotony of this all. That said, let's begin. I'll be responding chiefly to Tony's third-round entry and to ARU's guest entry for Round 3.
Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary I'll get this out of the way. Mary, one of our participants, has already been soundly indicted for her smug statements in her second-round "entry", if it can even be called that. To recall: I don't have much to say this round, honestly. I know JB wrote 40 and some odd pages, but I don't really feel the need to defend my position any more strongly than I presented it. I feel as though I stated my case intelligently and I don't have any more to say.
I responded to this and other statements among her rant in my Round 3 entry, and hence I refer everyone to that. Simply put, Mary neglected to interact whatsoever with the arguments presented by all other participants, and she had the audacity to simply brush them off as somehow unconvincing, though her responsibility was to interact with them. That is, after all, the point of a debate. Further, all of her initial argumentation was soundly defeated in the critiques provided in Round 2. Did she therefore go on to defend herself in Round 3? That would have been the intellectually honest thing to do. Regrettably, she didn't do it. Instead, she said: I don't have anything to add. You haven't swayed me, and I won't sway you. So no reason for me to write a post. Sorry I'll write a closing summary but that's it.
Again we see the reason for the refusal to contribute: a self-centered view that the entire point of the debate is to sway the opponent. There are also these little things called intellectual honesty, interaction with opposing position, personal intellectual growth, new learning, swaying readers, etc. You know, things that evidently don't concern her. She's quite right that she wouldn't sway me--her argumentation was roughly ten levels too weak for that. In classic style, her attempts to intimidate the readers and opposition into thinking her to be getting the edge through her aura of superiority might have worked in an oral debate, or even a written debate with an opponent less capable of seeing through it. However, that's not the case here. The display of pride-dripping language simply isn't a sufficient substitute for content. I should also point out that in agreeing to the debate, she implicitly gave an oath to provide material for the first three rounds, in addition to a closing statement. To not do so is tacit forfeit. She has willfully and stubbornly refused to contribute that to which she agreed, thereby violating the arrangement for which she herself volunteered. However, we ought to also examine a later statement she made when confronted with her dishonest and arrogant behavior. I first wrote, at a time when it appeared that Kameron would likewise be failing to uphold the agreement: I'm highly disappointed in both of the other participants for not submitting anything for the round. But, at least we do have that guest entry to keep things at least somewhat lively. It'll appear in a few days. I presently project that the next round of entries will be due around 12 December, but don't you dare hold me to that. The next couple of rounds will be just me and Tony unless Kameron motivates himself to contribute something. Goodness knows that our other debater, who shall go unnamed on account of her shameful attitude regarding the entire affair, isn't going to be intellectually honest enough to add anything, when she's already willfully reneged on the rounds for which she signed on.
To this, she there remarked: I'm so sorry, really, JB. I didn't realize that my priorities were so out of whack. Here I have been paying attention to schoolwork, family, friends, my three jobs and various other insignificant things, while I should have been spending hours researching a subject for a debate that means so much in the grand scale. [...] Also, I apologize (sincerely thsi time) for not staying committed to the debate. I didn't realize when i originally agreed to do it that I would be overwhelmed with so much else in my life. I'm not being "intellectually dishonest", I'm just overwhelmed.
Note the abrupt change in justification for the failure. Initially, it was simply that the opposition's arguments were allegedly unconvincing, and hence she felt that her position as clearly victorious enabled her to withhold any engagement of the issue, substituting instead mere smug expressions of the obvious strength of her arguments. Now, however, it becomes an issue of time. Now, for the readers' information, Mary truly does have the habit of taking upon herself far too many responsibilities. However, if this were truly the obstacle, the proper thing to do would have been for her to contact the administration up-front when confronted with this excessive busyness and to apologize for being unable to fulfill her obligations. She should have gone through official channels in order to forfeit. After all, only a few simple moments would have been required to send such a message. Judging from the pace of her blog posting and the few comments she has left, as recorded above, she had that amount of time. She could have easily managed to do this, and in fact should have included a clause in her second-round entry to the effect that her schedule was forcing her to resign from the debate (preferably with the honesty to make a concession that her arguments had been defeated, but I suppose that's too much honesty to hope for). On the contrary, she simply denigrated the opposing side in hopes that her quick, biting wit and the force of her personality would intimidate us, as it has others. Like I've mentioned, had this been an oral debate, it might well have had a greater effect. However, I'm simply going to have to say that it won't cut it here. Content was due, and content was withheld. In its place were refusals to concede, refusals to respond to any of the material, refusals to show any sign of being open-minded. Readers, please don't get a mistaken impression of Mary. She's not a bad person. Generally speaking, in fact, I'll gladly vouch for her conduct and personality. She has a well-developed character and sense of civil duty. I do not criticize her on the grounds of any of that. I criticize specifically the manner in which she has conducted herself with respect to this debate, and that alone. That is what is relevant here. She has clearly lost the debate. I suspect that at heart, she knows this.
Q&A: How'd They Do? In Round 2, I posed a serious of questions to my opponents, Tony and Mary. Now, I'd like to look at the answers provided by Tony and ARU. When, precisely, does life begin, if not at conception? (If you're unsure but have a few ideas, please pinpoint those.) Tony: Life began 4.3 billion years ago with the first self-replicating cell. Since, when a single cell reproduces, neither one can be called the original, we are all the first cell that ever existed. That’s precisely when life begins, since the cells that make up our bodies have existed since that time. Tony, you either have poor reading comprehension, or else you're being deliberately problematic here. Note the present tense of the verb in the question? It speaks of individual life, not the issue of when the very first life began, nor even when the very first human life began (also note the past tense there). It appears that perhaps you're attempting to argue, based on the continuity of life through the evolutionary chain, that because all of the cells in our body are simply modified reproductions descended from the primordial organism, then there is no such thing as the beginning to an individual life. However, you know good and well that the question implied the origins of a distinct organism. I doubt you'll say that you are me, or that I am you (and I'm quite thankful about that latter). We have a distinction between your life and my life. Likewise, my life is distinct from that of my mother, and despite the dependence during developmental years, such a distinction has existed since conception (i.e., the initiation of individual life). This question was largely directed at Mary, though, so I'll let you slide despite your irrelevant answer. ARU: Up until the 20th week there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity (I don't agree with late term abortion). The time before this is not medically dissimilar from when people are considered "brain dead." If the most integral part to what makes us people is not present, then clearly what we have is more about "chemicals in action" than about a distinct person. Thus (per your definitions) the "human life" does not become enough of a moral object to squeal about until then. You failed to answer the question, ARU. I asked when life begins, not "personhood". I'm simply going to assume from your other statements that you agree with me that distinct life begins at conception. Is there any point past which abortion should be illegal? If so, when, and do you intend to incorporate a ban on abortions after that point in your voter decision-making process? Tony: I’d say after the brain starts to work. There is no absolute point when you can say “Now”. But there is a general area where the transfer happens. Therefore, the cut-off point is at the beginning of that period, to play it safe. There must be such an "absolute point"; we may quibble about our ability to properly identify it as such. However, given your perspective, it is certainly a good idea to classify it as the beginning of the period in which you suspect the increase in moral status occurs. Now, I simply ask you, when does that occur, exactly? What point in time after conception do you regard that cut-off point? ARU: The 20th week. Your answer is much more consistent than I expect Mary's would have been. One thing I note in the answers given by both of you: you conveniently neglected to answer the question about how your view on the issue affects your personal voting decisions (or will, in the case of Tony, for whom legal permission to partake in the electoral process remains a future state). Curious. What would be required to show you that abortion is immoral? Tony: That the moral equivalent to a human being begins at a point before abortion is conceivable. Fair enough. I'll just note awhile that you're being inconsistent with your terminology. Your argument takes the position that conception indeed produces a human being; however, you argue that the deciding factor in morality is consciousness more so than humanity. Therefore, you must refer to the "moral equivalent of a conscious human being", or the "moral equivalent of a human being with functional brain activity". Otherwise, your imprecision ruins your argumentation. ARU: A good reason to care about mere chemicals in action instead of the full-fledged choice of a real human being. I might ask why we should care about "real human being[s]", for that matter. However, I'll harp more on this point later. What would be required to show you that abortion should be illegal? Tony: [no answer provided] ARU: If the rest of your argument held up, I would agree it should be illegal. Excellent. If you realized that the condition for which termination is immoral were present from the moment of conception, and that abortion were an immoral act on a grand scale, how would you react intellectually? Emotionally? Legally? Tony: I'd be pro-life. Well, that's a rather succinct answer to the question. So you would campaign for anti-abortion legislation, and you would feel emotional turmoil at having advocated the acceptability of such a grievous act, yes? I'd assume it so. ARU: I imagine I'd be almost as disgusted as I am at so many billions of basically good people being tortured in hell for all eternity. And I would support legal opposition to it. I'll simply ignore the caricatured jab at the Abrahamic faiths in which a very real standard of justice is upheld. Is it ever acceptable for an individual to permit their religious convictions to have any influence whatsoever on their public life, if that individual is an official in the American government? Tony: Yes, if they say “I’m Christian” or something like that. But they can’t use it to make decisions on laws. So tell me, Tony, how exactly do you expect them to do any action in office whatsoever if they are not permitted to allow their religious beliefs to have any influence whatsoever on their decisions? Sometimes you liberals* just don't seem to be aware that such is absolutely impossible for anyone but a complete hypocrite or an idiot--two sorts of figures I'd prefer to minimize in governmental positions. It would entail a mental process such as, "Well, I honestly believe that this is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and that it's a completely foolish decision, but what the heck! I'll vote that way anyway, despite the fact that my ideology is 100% opposed to it in every possible way!" (* I use liberal here in the sense of one who says, as you do, that "separation of church and state" requires that religion be kept divorced from politics in such a manner.) ARU: I'm sure one could find some palatable instances. There are always exceptions. However none come to mind. See above. Given the quotes I've provided from the Founding Fathers, do you believe that the Founding Fathers truly held to the sense of "separation of church and state" to which you adhered as of the beginning of this debate, if not the present? Tony: Yes, because I could pull out just as many quotes where they say they should be separate, then we have a giant debate about what quotes are real, and we don’t get anywhere. But considering that it’s right there in the constitution that congress can’t oppose religious beliefs on the citizens, I’d say they were for separation. First, I amply sourced my quotes, so it'd be pure idiocy for you to attempt to deny them. Hence, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you wouldn't try anything so foolish. (Then again, you are a Christ-myther, so it's not like there's a good precedent for assuming the best when it comes to your epistemic approach to history...) In addition, I highly doubt you could have provided a sufficient number of quotes from all but a very few individuals (e.g., Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, maybe Madison) to even attempt to bolster your position--indeed, I doubt you would have overcome laziness to even attempt it. Furthermore, I and they would of course agree that there's a "separation" in some sense; the question is whether or not they conceived of it as you do. As for the First Amendment that you reference, it means precisely what it says: Congress lacks the power to establish a national church or to prohibit citizens from freely practicing their religion (presuming, of course, that such doesn't involve acts that are otherwise prohibited, such as ritual human sacrifice). In their words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How liberals (see asterisk above) ever managed to get it into their heads that the Amendment was intended to require officials and organizations to spiritually castrate themselves, I may never deduce. ARU: I think they supported the basic idea... all the while outwardly proclaiming the Christian paradigm. One gets an assortment of mixed quotes from the same people. [...] If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, that many of the founding fathers were outwardly Christian friendly for the sake of politics and inwardly hostile to religion... which explains the usual conflict of quotes from the same people for and against. I suspect that their "procla[mation of] the Christian paradigm" was more than mere deceit to manipulate the religious populace. However, this point in the debate probably isn't a reasonable time for me to return to the quotes I provided and detail how they soundly defeat the extreme "separation of church and state" view (particularly as espoused by Mary), though I may in the future consider having an interesting historical debate here. Furthermore, several of the quotes I cited were from personal correspondence, thereby giving us a view into their personal views on the matter. In addition to that, several of those I provided were "official" in the sense that their importance for the issue of "separation of church and state" cannot be denied, as they provide evidence for the Founding Fathers' breaches of that principle as understood by many modern liberals. (Particularly in ordinances, and in Madison's appeal to the truth of Christianity in order to defeat the bill that Mary mentioned. I find it amusing that Mary now seems to be implying that Madison, whom she'd previously hailed as a hero, was a hypocrite!) Suppose, however, one wishes to argue that their views on the interpretation of the First Amendment and its meaning are irrelevant to how we ought to regard it. Then likewise with the phrase "separation of church and state", and if stripped down to simply what the First Amendment itself says, and disregarding foolhardy court decisions based on a misunderstanding of "separation of church and state", this alleged "separation of church and state" as there found cannot be urged against a ruling to ban abortion. This is what I have urged against Mary--that no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution prohibits such a ban. I suspect that you would agree, given your statements that if convinced of the immorality of abortion, you would campaign for its illegality as well. If there is a God, and if this God highly disapproves of abortion, should this have any impact on your personal views of the matter? Should it have any impact on state or federal policy on the issue? Tony: No. If God truly cared, he’d stop it himself. ARU: Nope. He could be mistaken. The only reason to pay attention would be out of fear of retribution. And then I still might not agree... but I might comply. There is such a thing as maltheism, I'm sure you know. Is it any wonder why I don't consider either of these fellows to be truly honest seekers, with this sort of attitude? Of course, Tony's suggestion would require absurd miraculous intervention. And given that my position is rather similar to (but not identical with) divine command theory, maltheism lacks even a remote sense of rationality. In retrospect, how would you rate your arguments in the first round? Please be specific. Tony: Pretty good. I didn’t set them up to be perfect, but to be able to draw the criticisms that I wanted. I didn’t go all out to explain exactly why they were true, but waited for a reply so that I could defend them later. If it were just one essay, it would still be good, but I could make it better. Fair enough. I suspect that you're aware that my evaluation would be somewhat more negative, given that you spent much of the first round responding to imaginary arguments. ARU: My first "round" was in response to Kameron and I think I did pretty darn good. I cut off his biblical basis, his moral basis, and gave a defensible position on when we should take human life seriously within our moral sphere. And he responded with no response + excuses, false accusations, and bigotry. Success is so sweet... I'll let Kameron dispute this if he wishes. As it stands, the question wasn't really directed at ARU, since he didn't have a Round 1 entry. I recommend freeze-drying some of that success for later, though; you ain't gettin' any more. 
Let My People... Not Be Depersonified! Both of my present opponents (Tony and ARU) rest their argument on the basis of the "personhood" of the embryo, though Tony couches it in more explicit language of consciousness. Allow me to respond to this more general view before I address any specific remarks. First, remember that my principle reads as follows: In a modern society, it is immoral to terminate an "innocent" human life without consent in a non-combat situation in which none of the following conditions are met: 1) divine mandate exists that this specific life be terminated, 2) the preservation of the aforementioned life carries as its cost the loss of another human life, or 3) the life in question has absolutely no hope in performing any mental action at any point in the present or future prior to full biological non-functionality (i.e., physical death).
It speaks only to what is immoral; it, in and of itself, classifies nothing as moral. This is why, if I so wished, I could completely ignore all of the attacks my opponents have made against biblical morality. They are, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Returning to the point, what Tony and ARU are in effect doing is qualifying the principle with an additional factor, that of "consciousness" or "personhood". If the principle were left otherwise untouched, that would not at all stand contradictory to my principle as it stands--the two could frolic hand-in-hand down the halls. However, that would be clearly insufficient to overturn my position. Hence, my opponents must then formulate the following additional principle: In a modern society, it is morally acceptable to terminate an innocent, living, human non-person organism with the consent of a guardian.
In the case of abortion, the biological mother constitutes the "guardian". I'll refer to this as 4 Principle, just as I refer to mine as 3 Principle 2.0. 4 Principle has not been justified. My opponents have scarcely even attempted to justify it. This, I hold, is one of the crucial weaknesses in their presentation. Given the stakes of the debate, I contend that the onus is on the pro-choice position. Furthermore, I argue that 4 Principle is fundamentally flawed in that it creates a class of "human non-persons". Can no one see the patent absurdity of this? First off, it's the precise sort of reasoning that justified all sorts of racist atrocities in the past by demoting the status of others, such as the Holocaust during Adolf Hitler's Third Reich--particularly if one takes Tony's implication that personhood is simply the status of being worthy of "moral treatment". When humans are defined, classified, and/or valued in terms of function rather than in terms of intrinsic worth, the result is horror. In addition to this, I argue that even accepting 4 Principle (which I do not), its applicability to abortion is not without challenge. It is feasible to argue that even a zygote is a "person". Personhood is an essential attribute; that is, it is intrinsic and primary, not secondary. Hence, a transition from non-personhood to personhood (or vice versa) can only occur via an essential transformation. Such a transformation occurs at conception when the male and female gametes unite and combine their DNA to form a unique and new genetic code. However, no essential transformations occur during the remainder of the pregnancy (or, for that matter, at birth). Changes, both pre-natal and post-natal, involve a gradual development and do not alter the essential nature of the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant. Therefore, no essential transformation occurs during the course of the pregnancy, including at the points my opponents have postulated as the decisive ones. Those, on the contrary, involve at most alterations in secondary attributes. Secondary attributes are not the proper basis for morality in a situation in which value is intrinsic. Returning to the matter of essential changes, no essential transformation occurs during the course of pregnancy or birth. Hence, essential nature (and thereby essential attributes) remain constant. Because personhood is an essential attribute, if it is possessed by the infant, then it therefore must have belonged likewise to the zygote. To counter an expected objection: consciousness is an expressive attribute that serves as a secondary attribute to the primary one of personhood, which is intrinsic to the nature of the human life in question. If it is argued that personhood is itself not an essential attribute, then I must wonder how it could possibly serve as the fundamental factor that confers upon the possessor the status of such value as to make termination immoral. As a result, I establish that even if we were to uphold 4 Principle as valid, it would fail to provide a sufficient link to get my opponents to their goal. The zygote is a person, and as such, "worthy of moral treatment", as Tony might say.
They Always Did Say That the Person's in the Details... I'll just respond to some assorted statements by my opponents about personhood, consciousness, morality, humanity, and all that rubbish. ARU: Up until the 20th week there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity (I don't agree with late term abortion). The time before this is not medically dissimilar from when people are considered "brain dead." If the most integral part to what makes us people is not present, then clearly what we have is more about "chemicals in action" than about a distinct person. Thus (per your definitions) the "human life" does not become enough of a moral object to squeal about until then. First of all, you are assuming that only "persons" merit protection under a moral rubric. You likewise imply that without a cerebral cortex of the proper level of complexity and central nervous activity, there is no personhood. I will disagree with both of these statements. When I began this debate, I began it on the assumption that even under a materialist rubric, it would be possible to select a non-arbitrary moral system. Now, having interacted with several materialists, I'm not so sure. ARU says that a living human non-person is just "chemicals in action" and hence disposable. However, what makes a living human person so much difference, if personhood is merely a biological function involving activity of the central nervous system? It's still just "chemicals in action"--the action is simply different, as is, perhaps, the level of complexity. Why should that make such a substantial difference in the morality of termination? It seems quite arbitrary, just as arbitrary as the "principle of species-ism" that ARU believes that I employ (although, given the formulation of 3 Principle 2.0, it is nowhere intrinsic to my argument that the termination of members of any other species is morally acceptable, though I do personally believe that it can be, as I do hold Homo sapiens to be radically distinct in essential nature from all other varieties of creature). As for the brain-dead, 3 Principle 2.0 has incorporated that objection to provide a distinction, though 3 Principle 2.0 does not, in and of itself, render a judgment as to the morality of terminating a brain-dead patient. JB: In addition, you've provided no argumentation as to why consciousness should be the litmus test. Tony: Because, without consciousness you have no desires, and with no desires you can’t fulfill them, and if they have no desires to fulfill, then they aren’t considered a moral equivalent to a human. And you get that absurdity... where, exactly? The last part is the problem: why should I regard desirelessness, or the inability to act, to be the crucial issue to being considered "moral[ly] equivalent" to an adult human being? That simply doesn't make sense. ARU: Yeah, being able to label a DNA strand human is quite an accomplishment there. Tell me. Would you rather take a bullet for a zygote two seconds after conception or for a developing infant 6 or 7 months in the womb? So you can be either crazy or wrong. Its no trilemma, but it'll do. Assuming that both have equal chances of continuing their development, then I'd take a bullet for either with equal readiness. Problem with that? Emotional appeal would incline me more to the latter, as it appears to the eye as bearing greater similarity to the standard human form; however, reason does not permit such input in a strict calculation of the moral decision. JB: I refer you to the argumentation presented in my opening statement. Furthermore, you would undoubtedly concur with me that a merely unconscious individual is not fair game for destruction. Therefore, the litmus test of morality in the situation cannot be consciousness. Tony: I’ll have to think on that a bit. But, in the meantime, I’ll show, using similar reasoning, that life isn’t a good test for morality. Imagine that we find a way to unfreeze and grow new bodies for those people who froze themselves after they died. They take a guy, and start rolling him towards the laboratory to revive him. Is it wrong for you to go up and smash his brain into pieces? Of course it is, but this guy isn’t even alive. Let me suppose that you're absolutely right there. Does that in any way affect my arguments? Nope. Remember the formulation of 3 Principle 2.0, which commented on the immorality of a certain act under certain conditions but made no claims about any other conditions or act? Hence, 3 Principle 2.0 is perfectly compatible with the statement that it is wrong to destroy the brain. Furthermore, you say that it's wrong to destroy the brain. Why? It has no consciousness. It has no desires, it feels no pain, it feels no pleasure. Your own litmus test, then, by your own admission, fails here. If you wish to say that the brain has potential future consciousness, the zygote does all the more so. In your scenario, you assert that it would be wrong to destroy a dead brain that will soon be given both life and consciousness. The zygote already has the former. By your reasoning, then, you ought to support the pro-life position on that basis. At any rate, I highly doubt that we will ever succeed in advancing our technology to the point where we can achieve your hypothesized accomplishment, cool as it might be. ARU: To quote Rustophilus: As far as I'm concerned, there are, at most, 3 main levels of moral value, at the top - those who qualify for personhood (which might also include certain apes and possibly other nonhuman animals), the middle - those who are sentient beings but do not qualify for personhood, and the bottom - those that are not sentient beings. Most nonhuman animals and newborn humans, for example, fall into the middle group. We need to be concerned that we don't cause them any unnecessary suffering, but keeping them alive isn't the most important thing in the world. The bottom group consists of the unborn (for most of pregnancy), Terri Schiavo, stem cells, rocks, plants, hydrogen atoms, etc. This group can be worthy of no moral consideration because they have no interests. They have no consciousness. They have no sentience.
While you've done an admirable job in quoting him, and he's done a good job in articulating his position, I simply have to note that he nowhere in this quote details how one "qualif[ies] for personhood". Similarly, I reiterate the various points I've already made in this post with respect to personhood, morality, consciousness, etc., etc.
I Hereby Nominate Tony for the Role of Person #3 Tony: You see, we don’t know anything for 100%. Just because we don’t know it for 100%, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act upon it. I think that I can prove with little room for doubt that consciousness is in the brain. Line three people in a row. I think you might want to put your girlfriend’s ex along with them. Take a metal bat and a clipboard. Hit the first person in the leg with the clipboard. Is he conscious? Telling from the screams of “[*CENOSRED*] THIS HURTS!” you say he’s conscious. Check the “no” box next to “leg” on the bat. Go to #2, hit him in the chest, see if he’s conscious, then check the “no” next to “chest”. Go to the third person. Hit him. This guy fell to the floor! Is he conscious? Nope. Is he dead? Check the pulse. Nope. Check “yes” next to “head” on the bat. Send bat along with your notes on how you carried out the experiment to Nature to be published. You do profess to have read what I said, correct? I charged you with the task of demonstrating that "the physical brain is absolutely proven to be the necessary requisite of any level of consciousness". Your little "experiment" shows, at best, that the brain is the focal point of physical expressions of consciousness, and that physical expressions of consciousness, and probably memory-intake capacity, cease to function upon disruption of ordinary brain activity. That doesn't get you where I pointed. If you need an analogy to help you better think of the scenario, compare the human brain to the inner hardware of an ordinary television set. When something malfunctions in it, does this mean that the show is actually off-air? No, the signal is still existent, but the set is incapable of processing it. The analogy isn't perfect, and possibly one of a computer with an Internet connection would be better (mine would be analogous to the brain of someone in an asylum, perhaps...). However, I suspect you get the picture.
Reading Comprehension Skills Gone Awry - A Video You Won't See Advertised on Late-Night TV Several statements on the part of my opponents here seem to have just betrayed a lack of awareness of what I was saying. Plus, of course, there's the standard incoherence (largely on Tony's part). Consider this a bit of a miscellany in no particular order. ARU: You've heard of a little thing called having more than one option, haven't you? I'm rather shocked, ARU, to have to put something by you in this category. I have generally regarded you as quite capable to see precisely what's being said. Evidently, though, I'll have to review this time. Tony said: For simply having sex, proponents of this argument say that the "criminals" should have 18 years of hard work trying to make a living and take care of a kid. The kid also suffers, since they were forced to be born into a bad family.
I responded: You have heard of this little thing called "adoption", haven't you?
As you should be quite able to see, he is the one who denied the multiplicity of options, not I. Tony operated under the assumption that a woman giving birth to a child necessarily must raise that child for the next 18 years. Hence, in reply to me, your remark simply doesn't make much sense. I'll simply assume that you were a bit tired when you wrote that up. JB: Likewise, I hold the same for Roe v. Wade, until I am given reason to consider it a wise or even well-reasoned decision, let alone a correct one. ARU: So her emotional response justifies dismissing the ruling? If she'd gone her life not caring (there are women who apparently do) would that have meant the opposite? How, precisely, did you extract that from the fullness of what I said? [Mary:] The 1973 decision by the Supreme Court in the case of a woman named Norma L. McCorvey (known as "Jane Roe" to protect her privacy) was a monumental judicial case that profoundly affected society as a whole and has resounded throughout every major political debate since. The Court, in a 7-2 majority vote, determined the criminality of abortion to be not only outdated, but founded upon incorrect notions. The Court majority further determined that the Constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. This was a correct decision based on research and thoughtful contemplation, not a hasty, liberal decision as many people would have us believe. A woman's right to determine her own medical care is an essential liberty that would create a baneful precedent if restricted. A rather succinct summary of the events that transpired. Of course, as is common knowledge, that very same Norma McCorvey, the decision in whose favor in this case brought about the legalization of abortion, is now a very vocal pro-life activist. You may read some of her story here. To quote the portion under the heading "One Hundred Percent Pro-Life": When my conversion became public knowledge, I spoke openly to reporters about still supporting legalized abortion in the first trimester. The media was quick to use this to downplay the seriousness of my conversion, saying I typified the "general ambivalence" of our culture over abortion. But a few weeks after my conversion, I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that posted made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby! I felt "crushed" under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' In was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All these years I was wrong. Signing that affadavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion--at any point--was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.
As for your statement that this decision was "correct", "based on research and thoughtful contemplation", those are all simple things to say, of course. I can easily envision someone saying, "Plessy v. Ferguson and Scott v. Sandford were correct decisions based on research and thoughtful contemplation, not hasty, racist decisions as many people would have us believe." The mere assertion does not make it so, and I expect that many of us today would regard Plessy v. Ferguson and Scott v. Sandford as bad decisions. Furthermore, I dare say that you'd dissent from the Court's ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. Likewise, I hold the same for Roe v. Wade, until I am given reason to consider it a wise or even well-reasoned decision, let alone a correct one. Goodness knows the plaintiff disagrees with your conclusion about the correctness of the decision in her favor now. None of us are obligated to agree with a given Court ruling, particularly Roe v. Wade.
While I may regard my perception of Roe v. Wade as confirmed by McCorvey's new position, given her role in the whole affair, I in no way base my stance on her change of heart, nor did I anywhere imply this. My stance on Roe v. Wade is based largely (but not entirely exclusively) on the fact that I hold abortion to be a grave societal evil. JB: I must introduce totipotence--that is, the living and human entity in question must be such that, if left to natural means and assisted in whatever non-engineering means are reasonable to invoke, it will develop into what is unmistakably a living human being. ARU: So since it is on the roller coaster towards bigger and better things that means it necessarily must get there? Perhaps I should have specially highlighted the word "unmistakably" to make sure that you wouldn't miss it or misinterpret it? By "unmistakably", of course, I am saying that it is already a "living human being", but that by outward appearances, one could mistakenly deny this at the earlier stages of development. Hence, by speaking of totipotence in this context, I indicate the continuity between earlier times and later times. The later times are naturally recognized as a distinct organism, and that is what I intended "totipotence" to imply, in order to prevent the inevitable comparisons of a zygote to a somatic cell of a parent organism. JB: Regardless, you certainly feel that you know that the zygote isn't life. ARU: It's life, but many things are and we kill them. I don't think a mere genetic plan or opportunity to propagate is sufficient enough to make it a moral issue. Fair enough, that's your position, but you'll note that I was addressing Mary, who does deny that the zygote is life. I'm not sure whether you were just ignoring the context of my statement, or instead chose it in order to find an opportunity to reiterate your perspective. JB: In order to maintain the pro-choice position, one must maintain that either abortion is not at all immoral or is at least minimally so. ARU: Some regard it simply debatable enough to let other people have their way. Sorry... you can't have your either or. That's called "evil". If a person in our society maintains that abortion is what pro-lifers say it is, yet believes that it should be up to each individual to make the decision without legal repercussions, they are comparable to a German circa 1944 being confronted with the Holocaust and responding with a shrug and the words, "I may think it's wrong, but it should be up to Hitler to make the call." So yes, I'll be keeping that "either or". JB: Western society sure seemed to get along fine with slavery and male domination of women, so I suppose we should get back to those too [in accordance with Mary's assertion that any law unnecessary for societal function is prohibited by the Constitution], since any objections must be religious and therefore unconstitutional. ARU: You tread a very fine line here. Many evils are justified because the OT god said so... but how can we be so sure those atrocious pronouncements weren't of the same nature as that of the delusion pronouncements of other evil gods (like Jihad on America)? Since when did ethnic cleansing ever make the world a better place? You call them "evils"; I call them judgments. As for your attempt to compare the biblical God's actions to Allah's "delusion [sic] pronouncements" in fundamentalist Islam, try this on for size: if Islam is true, and if Osama is right that Allah demands that the Arabs be instruments of judgment on America (and hence Allah approves and commands what al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist groups are doing), then on the basis of those two facts, I wouldn't object. Sorry, but if the shoe's on the other foot, I'm going to weigh that objectively. I, unlike you, don't believe myself to be in a position to condemn the God from whom objective morality derives. I'm a created being, and I try to avoid the arrogance of setting myself up above my Creator. JB: For example, if a friend of yours were to deem your participation in this debate as a crime for which the punishment of which they conceive as appropriate were to be several blows to the head with that baseball bat, I suspect you might change your tune rather swiftly--and perhaps with some unorthodox notes in the process. Tony: But why would he want to do that? Would he be able to justify that having a debate about abortion is wrong? Your argument was that personal belief is sufficient to justify action. I quote you: If you think that wrecking the car would be apt punishment for their reckless driving, then you would be justified in getting a baseball bat and totalling their car.
Note the chain. The "if" statement is a personal belief that retaliation X is "apt punishment" for action B. The "then" statement, which in this construction should logically follow from the "if", is that "B --> X" (abbreviate this "A") is justified. Hence, the structure is "if (personal belief that A is justified), then (A is justified)". This simplifies to "if C is believed, then C". However, C is objective, not subjective, as I illustrated. As such, it is patently absurd that "if C is believed, then C", particularly as C is not a question about belief. Therefore, the appropriate and rational response for you to have made was "Oops, you're right. I goofed." Tony: Besides, are you saying that we can't enforce morality without a certain number of votes? Why does the law of a million mean any more than the ethical system of a few? The majority has been wrong before. Case in point, slavery. Are you speaking of enforcement, or of morality itself? It is quite true that enforcement cannot be done violently except through official channels (i.e., the government). That's one of the fundamental notions of government. The alternative is called anarchy. However, your subsequent questions do not appear to be about enforcement, but about morality. As for morality, I do not recall ever having said that it derives from consensus. If it is indeed your contention that I have said this, then I ask that you substantiate it, as I deny it. JB: It is not being asserted that, well golly, every act of extramarital sex should result in a pregnancy, because that would be the sole fair and just outcome. That's patently absurd, and I don't think it's honestly what you've been hearing from the opposition. Tony: It's a logical conclusion from the argument that "You chose to have sex, therefore you should have the abortion." This is called an argument from absurdity, which means I draw an absurd conclusion using the logic or premises from the opposition's argument. So, while I doubt they ever say this, they must believe this in order to be self consistent. First of all, I'm going to assume that you misspoke when you said that the argument is "You chose to have sex, therefore you should have the abortion." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that there should be a "not" preceding "have". And no, that does not at all follow from the position of the argument. That's why I've put this statement in the "Reading Comprehension Gone Awry" category. The argument: It is not unjust to prevent abortion, since pregnancy is a fair consequence of extramarital sex.
You wrongly interpret that as: We must prevent abortion, since pregnancy is the only fair consequence of extramarital sex.
It is the latter upon which you build your reductio ad absurdum, not the former. If pro-lifers genuinely said the latter, then you would be right, consistency would demand that they propose what you have posited. However, what I'm saying is that you screwed up in understanding the argument. Just admit it and move on, before you publicly humiliate yourself. I'm not seeking to shame you in front of the readers, though that's an inevitable consequence if you refuse to concede that you erred. Tony: Who’s the judge of who’s right or not? I nominate truth itself as the ultimate arbiter of "who's right or not". Perhaps you think that truth should stay out of it?
Amber and Tony - Debate Timing This is in regard to Tony's defense of himself when confronted with a debate in which, against Amber, he defended the moral acceptability of rape under certain circumstance. Most of the material will be incorporated into his fresh attempt to deal with the same question again, using utilitarian ethics. Tony: First of all, I have to say that I checked several weeks after my first reply and she hadn’t responded. So my not answering isn’t that mysterious. I thought this was a fairly simple thing, but I guess I’ll have to go through in detail. I'm assuming you're talking about your final entry in that debate, in which you said: Well, pregnancy is only one thing. Obviously we're asuming the girl doesn't want to be raped while she's in the coma. If she said something before hand that made it completely clear she wouldn't mind then it wouild be OK, but, since most people wouldn't want to be raped, we should asume that she wouldn't want to be either. Since you said "If the test of morality in this case is pragnancy" I was simply asuming that pragnancy was the only thing wrong with it in that hypothetical situation.
To which she replied: I would be nice and I understand that Atheist Thought does alot of debates and that he might have forgotten that I did not first gave the test of rape being immoral is pregnancy but rather it was his conception and the standard that he originally gave me when he commented on my June 7th post: As to your post, it would be immoral since, when the person woke up, they might be pregnant.
If he has more standards, do let me know and work it out.
It appears that you are saying that you didn't respond to her reply because it was made several weeks after your last entry, which would indeed be a rational defense of yourself if the case. If this is not what you intend to be saying, please feel free to correct me, but it appears to be the most logical interpretation of your words, unless you wish to opt for the clearly irrelevant one that doesn't explain your lack of a response as you professed it would. There's just one problem. See, from my timezone, you made your comment on 18 July 2006 at 10:59 AM. Her response was posted on 18 July 2006 at 3:36 PM. How you fit "several weeks" into a span of 277 minutes, I don't know. Tony: I put myself in that woman’s shoes. By that time I had already reasoned that, if I’m unconscious, then what do I care if somebody does something to me, as long as I don’t have any effects of it when I wake up? Obviously, I could care less. So, with that basic assumption, I confused some people. My next thought was what effects there would be of rape. Of course, pregnancy. So, with the assumption that people actually think about stuff like this, I posted the first and second times. With her reply, I realized that something was wrong, since the assumption that people don’t care about what happens to their unconscious body was so easy to come to and there were no gaps in it, it was ingrained so that I didn’t even realize I was assuming it. If you truly can't see why a person would not wish to be raped while unconscious, provided a guarantee of no effect to the conscious person, you're genuinely a unique individual. And I don't mean that in a good way. You go around telling people that when you meet them; it could provide for a fascinating sociological study. Better yet, if you ever end up in prison, be sure to mention this interesting factoid to your burly cellmate. I'm sure he'd find it nice to know how little objection you have to such a dehumanizing, horrific, condemnable action being carried out on you without your knowledge.
Tony Scenario: Not to Be Confused with Tony Soprano I tossed Tony five scenarios to handle with his utilitarian ethics. Before I get to his responses, though, our other Round 3 entrant had something to say. ARU: The likelihood of circumstances changing and being more dynamic than you inferred or out of control makes each of these scenarios morally risky. A wise utilitarian person would avoid them knowing there may be profit undisclosed at present by doing so. Wisdom might counsel a person against the actions, but that isn't the question I'm asking. I've asked Tony to give me strictly utilitarian arguments for his choice of action in the scenarios in question. I'd likewise call abortion an unwise action, but that's not the point of the moment. Scenario 1: It's time for the SAT or some other large test. You really aren't a very good test-taker, and so you're quite worried about the score you'll receive. Suddenly, you realize that by a certain mechanism, you could cheat without a possibility of discovery by any other human being. The increase in your score would harm the grades of no other individuals. You are aware that your overall academic achievements are such that this action would, in fact, bring you benefit by increasing your credentials to match what you feel is your appropriate level of intelligence and academic prowess. Is it ethical to cheat? Tony: You know the complexity I was talking about? Well, SAT scores really only matter in getting into college. Since you have to compete to get into most colleges, cheating and making yourself seem better would make others who did deserve the place not get in. It also isn’t in the best interest of society, since, as a society, we desire to have the best people at intellectual jobs. By cheating, you destroy the fulfillment of this desire. The only objective way of telling who’s the best at what they get on these test. Therefore, this score matters more than your own opinion. Nice try to get around it, but you didn't read the scenario closely enough. I specified that in the scenario, the "you" in question might actually benefit society by cheating, as "you" are actually more deserving of the credentials than the others in question, or at the very least equally deserving. The cheating here is intended, after all, to bring the test score into closer alignment with actual capability for academic performance and benefit for society. I reiterate: the overall benefit to society in this scenario is either zero or positive, not negative, in the cheating procedure. Given that, I score you one failure to provide a utilitarian argument against cheating. Scenario 2: You are married to a woman of moderate attractiveness. You are also an exceptionally clever individual. Another woman, more beautiful than your wife and single, has expressed extreme romantic and sexual interest in you. It comes to your attention that it would be possible for you to have an affair without your wife ever learning of the actions. Is it morally acceptable to have sexual relations with this second woman? Tony: Similar to the rape thing, if I were her, and my husband cheated on me without knowing, I would only care if it effected me. If he spent the same amount of time with me and loved me as much, then I’d have no problem with it. Again, most people don’t think like this. So their desires would not be fulfilled if the man cheated on his wife. I take it that you intend to answer "no", because the woman's "desires would not be fulfilled". However, utilitarianism is strictly concerned with net pleasure/pain, both physical and emotional. In this scenario, the wife will not learn of the affair, and so provided that "you" do not permit the affair to alter the manner in which "you" would otherwise treat her, there is no alteration of net pleasure or pain by having the affair. Therefore, that makes two failures to provide utilitarian arguments against self-evidently immoral acts. Scenario 3: You have come across an unconscious woman. You have in your possession condoms, spermicidal lubricant, birth-control pills, etc., such that by using these means, the risk of pregnancy is effectively nullified. If you have sexual relations with her, she will never be aware of it--nor will anyone, save you yourself. She has not offered her consent. This is the first time you have ever seen her. Is it morally acceptable to engage in sexual relations with this woman? Tony: So, if you don’t want to get raped while unconscious (assuming you have no way of telling), I might think you’re illogical, but I would still be forced to fulfill your desire. [excerpted from earlier speech on the question--ed.] Ah, now we get back to it. The question is: why? Utilitarianism isn't interested in "desires", it's interested in pleasure and pain. No "pain", defined as mental anguish, occurs to the woman if she does not learn of the event. That's the third failure, then, to provide a genuinely utilitarian argument. Scenario 4: You are on trial for some offense that you have, in fact, committed. The only evidence that would conclusively demonstrate your guilt would be your own testimony, should you plead guilty. Otherwise, you will not be convicted. Conviction would result in a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. No overall societal harm would result from your particular refusal to plead guilty. The Fifth Amendment has been repealed. Is it morally acceptable to plead not guilty? Tony: First of all, we must assume this crime is actually immoral. Drug use and prostitution are illegal, but not immoral. Actually, we don't have to assume that the crime is immoral. I'm getting at the utilitarian moral judgment on perjury, not on the initial crime. For the purposes of this scenario, drug possession or prostitution will work just as well. Tony: Second, this is like questioning your ethical system by asking what would happen if God committed an immoral act. Because I follow utilitarianism, I won’t ever commit a crime, intentionally, that would be immoral. Given that I adhere to a relative of divine command theory, that would be incoherent. It would not be incoherent, however, to suppose that a utilitarian is capable of committing a moral act. Sorry to burst your Peter complex (guess the allusion, and maybe I'll mail you a cookie), but even a committed utilitarian isn't perfect. You, too, could stumble. Contrary, perhaps, to your self-perception, you aren't divinely endowed with flawless self-consistency and unassailable moral character, even from a utilitarian standpoint. Tony: So, let’s further assume that I’m a guy that decided to "convert" to utilitarianism while in the process of being tried. Third, it is logically impossible for this to happen, since the whole point is that societal harm will occur. You can't just say that "societal harm will occur" without justifying it. Where is the societal harm introduced? Tony: So, your question presupposes that utilitarianism is wrong. So, editing that out, what’s my answer to the question? No, because society will be effected by making a murderer get away, making people not fear getting caught as much. The crime wasn't specified in the scenario, so "murderer" might be a bit much. However, regardless of what it is, the fact remains that no one can tie "you" to the crime beyond even semi-reasonable doubt. Even if it were to be common perception that "you" committed the crime, it's highly doubtful that even a single crime would take place simply because the authorities' failure to convict "you" emboldened another criminal. I'm just not going to buy that. Hence, that makes a fourth failure. Scenario 5: You are a sadist and love the sight of blood. It would bring you pleasure to attack someone with a knife. You are in a hospital, standing outside of a room solely occupied by a comatose individual on life support. You are aware that you can be in and out without being noticed, and therefore cannot be charged with any wrongdoing by the legal authorities. Would it be morally acceptable for you to sneak into the room and stab the man? Tony: There are so many little nit-picky details on this one. Why is the family keeping him alive? Little relevance. I'll postulate several options for you to work through. - There is no family, and he is only being kept alive due to a chance mistake in the paperwork.
- The family chooses to keep him alive sheerly out of a feeling of obligation, but would not care if he were to be killed.
- The family is keeping him alive because they choose to, but do not care if he lives or dies.
Tony: Does he have any chance of recovery? What relevance does it have? If we say that he does, then would you make a utilitarian argument on the basis that one should not kill him because his future benefit to society after recovery could potentially outweigh "your" sadistic pleasure in the act of killing? If you make that argument, however, it would likewise be countered that the same applies to the unborn, for their potential beneficial input to society could outweigh the value of the mother's choice, hence providing a very solidly utilitarian argument against abortion. I doubt you're willing to accept that conclusion. Tony: Is he really, say, drugged and it’s a misdiagnosis? Nope. If that were the case, it would have been specified in the scenario. You're basically asking, "I see what you've specified about the scenario, but is that really how you set up the scenario?" Duh, Tony. Just... duh. Tony: You would have to specify so many things as to fill several books. Therefore, on that basis alone, it’s a no. In other words, you refuse to make a utilitarian argument. That makes your fifth failure. I'm afraid that through your inability to respond to the scenarios, utilitarianism is now looking significantly worse than it was at the outset. I'd say "Nice try", if it looked like you'd really made a genuine attempt to provide answers.
Utilitarian Virtues and Pope Peter Singer I asked Tony a few questions about utilitarianism in addition to asking him about those five scenarios. Particularly, I asked him about utilitarianism and mercy, justice, and intrinsic value. I'll respond to what he said in that same order. Tony: Doesn’t somebody acting merciful towards you make you happier? Occasionally, sure. But it might make them unhappier. Are we not to be concerned with the net effect? Also, are you saying that mercy is good only insofar as it increases net pleasure? I don't remember exactly what was in my mind when I mentioned mercy, though, so I'll let you slide a bit more on this one than I might have otherwise. Tony: If you aren’t punished for a crime, aren’t other people more likely to commit crimes? The evidence; New Orleans after Katrina. That's very limited justice, Tony. Do you really mean to say that the sole reason for punishment is to deter crime? That's not justice; that's just punishment doled out to achieve an alternate goal: societal order. I'm going to ask you to imagine a four-person society on a small island. Presumably, since utilitarianism is such a sufficient system of ethics, it would be applicable there, too. We have four people, labeled A, B, C, and D. D is the young child of C. A is the appointed magistrate, and for a touch of flair, let's suppose that A is for some reason unsusceptible to attack. Perhaps we could envision this as simply dwelling in a fortification of some sort. B kills and eats D. Is it in fact the case that the sole reason to punish B is in order to enforce order and thereby prevent future crimes that would further decrease happiness? (Well, we're also assuming that the loss of utility in D's death was net; after all, who's to say that B didn't derive exceptionally great utility from the act, such that the net utility is positive? That would, in fact, presumably justify B's action, under a utilitarian system.) Now suppose that B proceeds to cannibalize C. What societal disorder will arise from withholding punishment? None, as no more such crimes can occur, A being exempt from the possibility of attack. Justice demands that A punish B in some manner. However, one may presume that B does not desire punishment, perhaps to a greater degree than A might conceivably desire that B be punished. In that case, punishment, thereby fulfilling the demands of justice, would decrease net utility. While some utilitarian judgments may be just, they are so only coincidentally. Utilitarianism itself does not incorporate justice as a cardinal virtue of the system, preferring instead to simplistically boil everything down to utility. Tony: Humans are conscious. They therefore can have desires, and fulfilling those desires makes them happy And this speaks of intrinsic value... how? "Desires" are not intrinsic. Nor is consciousness. Utilitarianism treats everything in terms of its functionality, i.e., what result does it have on the net utility? Anything unrelated to utility is removed from the picture. That's one of the main problems I have with utilitarianism. By treating people as functions, it reduces them. As should be pretty clear, he either didn't understand the questions or was sidestepping them. JB: Indeed, bio-ethicist Peter Singer is a utilitarian, and he has gone on record as stating that infanticide up to 28 days after birth is morally justified. ARU: He said only in extreme cases. I simply can't imagine the scenario in which that's justified in our society. Tony: And? Is he the ultimate authority on what is and is not acceptable by utilitarianism? Pat Robertson, a Christian, said that God sent Katrina to punish the immorality of New Orleans. Can I use that against Christians? For one, Robertson is a heretic and a false prophet. He's not even a remotely good representative of Christianity, let alone an "ultimate authority". Singer, however, is an acclaimed utilitarian bioethicist. Of course, you aren't obliged by your utilitarianism to agree with him, so long as you're capable and willing to make a utilitarian case as to why he's wrong, if indeed you believe he's wrong. But ask yourself, if utilitarianism really does back up Singer, should we continue to hold to utilitarianism?
Revenge of Tony Scenario Tony: Well, JB failed to provide much of a case against Utilitarianism. I can think of a lot better tough questions than that. So, now that we’re on the subject, I’ll reply with my own list of 3. As can be seen, Tony actually is the one who failed on the utilitarianism issue. However, it's only fair that I answer his questions as well. 1) Why is cheating on tests wrong? If you sign no statement saying you’re playing fair, and nobody asks you, then you aren’t lying. There's an implicit obligation to be academically honest, i.e., not to cheat. To cheat is, whether you acknowledge it or not, to violate the implicit rules established by the authority (in this case, the test administrator). In Christianity, we are exhorted to submit to rightful authority (cf. an application of the underlying principle of Romans 13) when it does not contradict the higher law of God. Hence, it would be wrong and deceitful to cheat on a test. 2) Is God’s law moral because he said it, or did he say it because it’s moral? Going out on a limb, I’ll assume you’ll say it’s his nature. What does this mean? It means that both true, objective morality and God's will reflect God's innate character. This is why it is absurd to ask questions about what if God committed an immoral act. By virtue of His nature, He could not. In my discussions of free will, as you might remember (I forget if this was with you or not), I typically divide free will into two aspects: power of choice, and power of contrary choice. We humans are given both; God, I say, has the first but not the second. God cannot act in a way inconsistent with His nature. Hence, when I say that it is God's nature to be just, I imply that it is utterly impossible for God to act unjustly in any possible world. God's will is a reflection of His nature. As such, it doesn't matter whether we say that morality is derived from God's will (as in divine command theory) or from God's nature directly, as the result will be the same, and it will still be incoherent to ask about God acting immorally. What, then, of queries as to, "What if God commanded X?" Well, is X consistent with God's nature and God's expressed will? If not, then it's a nonsense question. Nice try to adapt the Euthyphro dilemma, but it really doesn't work very well against monotheism, least of all against a monotheism that holds to a consistent divine character. 3) If it’s in our nature to sin, why doesn’t God fix us? Do you propose that He "fix us" with or without our consent? If you say "with", then I reply, "Why do you not give your consent along the channel He has established to do precisely that: sanctification via Christ?" If you say "without", you denigrate free will by essentially proposing that God force a rectification of our problem upon us. Our nature is such that it inclines to sin; however, as we have the power of contrary choice, we do not have to sin, at least not in my opinion. Theoretically speaking--and purely theoretically, as I do not believe it has ever been actualized, save in the case of Jesus Christ--it would be possible for a person to be born and to live a sinless life. I believe that God respects our free will. He also does not allow us to experience temptation beyond our capacity to handle (1 Corinthians 10:13). Hence, we are without excuse, whether or not we begin with the yetser hara ("evil inclination"). Suppose you say that you think that God should "fix us" without our consent. Why would one not consent? Out of refusal of Him, of course. Then I would ask, would the "fix[ing]" alter this refusal? If you say no, then a conundrum arises, for this continued refusal would be sin, and the sinful inclination would hence return by a broken nature in shattered fellowship with Him. If you say yes, then this would require that God override human free will with respect to how we approach Him. The entire point, though, is that He desires that we freely choose to give Him the honor He deserves. Love sans freedom is act or feeling sans love. This illustrates that it is not possible for God to "fix us" without our consent. Else, He would have initially created us without free will. I have contended, and continue to contend, that there is a reason He did not do so, as I have just mentioned (the issue of love). So, then, we must say that if we are to be "fix[ed]", it will be with our consent, and only with our consent. However, those who consent to submit to God in truth are Christians. We fully expect that in the resurrection, this sinful inclination will be gone. Why does God not "fix us" now? It is not in His timing, and it is not our place to establish our limited knowledge above His omniscience, for assuredly He is wiser than we. Through the Holy Spirit, the Christian is given the theoretical power to genuinely overcome the yetser hara and to "go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). I do not know if any have truly achieved it to the end of their life. That requires a great strength of faith and devotion. Have some Christians made it? (Those who weren't martyred shortly thereafter, of course--I find it quite plausible that a person would become a Christian and be martyred without sinning again, especially in the cases of various persecutors who became Christians upon seeing Christians about to be martyred and chose to join them.) I truly do not know. That appears to wrap up your three questions.
Tony Goes to Vegas Tony: To clarify my position on abortion, I'd like to say that I only support it because the chance of doing moral harm to fetuses at certain points in development is almost 0. I'm very close to being anti-abortion simply because the benefits aren't that great and the possible down sides are very bad. But, since the chances are so low, to ban abortion would be like not going outside for a fear of getting hit by an asteroid. So, when chances are ridiculously low for something, it would be unwise to bet on it without solid evidence? Gotcha. I'll remember that for the next time that we debate the existence of God, and you try to argue that your atheism is justified by the unevidenced off-chance that the universe just happened to pop into being spontaneously without any cause whatsoever; and the off-chance that the constants of the fundamental forces just happened to be within the extremely narrow range that permits an orderly universe and can support life; and the off-chance that undirected processes mysteriously just happened to result in a viable, unknown precursor to the first cell; and the off-chance that the Book of Daniel just happened to be accepted for no apparent reason as ancient Holy Writ by the Jews shortly after the Maccabeean Revolt, despite its references to YHVH with terms that would suggest Hellenism to a very anti-Hellenistic people; and the off-chance that--despite the overwhelming consensus of history that Jesus did exist--the early Christian movement, complete with its startlingly distasteful message, just happened to get off the ground, thanks to the early Christian leaders, who evidently had a masochistic desire to be martyred for what they knew to be a lie. In other words, you're not being very consistent in saying that you refuse to be pro-life because the chance is almost zero that it's the correct stance, considering that you base your entire worldview on massive leaps of unevidenced belief without any seeming rationale save that it's gotta be more improbable than God, due to your rapacious abuse of Occam's Razor.
Dostoevsky is Crying For those who don't get it, perhaps I should explain that I'm alluding to the title of one of Dostoevsky's novels, Crime and Punishment. Hence, I'll here be interacting with Tony's peculiar blunders on the topic. I regard it as of relatively low relevance, as it was one of the imaginary arguments he intended to refute in his opening statement. However, he so grossly caricatured those arguments that I felt obliged to correct them. As we see in Round 3, things don't appear to have sunk in so well. JB: I find that somewhat odd. The concept of the baby as "punishment" (though I'd generally prefer to replace the term "punishment" with "consequence") has never struck me as exceptionally compelling, in comparison with the myriad other pro-life arguments. Tony: I'm not saying that you think this way, I'm saying this is a valid way to explain it, whether or not you think so. In other words, I'm saying that you say this. So... I don't think that way, but I do? Tony, you're less coherent here than usual. If it hadn't been so crucial to this topic (the consequence/punishment argument), I would've classified this strictly under "Reading Comprehension Gone Awry". Just admit that you mischaracterized the argument, and move on. Perhaps some of your peers used this faulty version, but from the way you've told the stories, I'm not exactly impressed by many of your peers. Furthermore, you included this "refutation" in your opening statement. If you're going to critique arguments in your opening statement (which I think was a poor move, especially when beginning by doing so and without establishing an independent case first), you should be sure to select the real version, not the caricature that you misinterpret it as, or the flawed version that perhaps a slow-thinking friend might have tried against you. Furthermore, when confronted with the flaws in your version, don't keep attacking your version; if you're not going to drop the issue, then go after the real one. JB: It's largely simply a counter, in my eyes, to the charge that "forcing" a woman to have a baby is somehow "unfair", when in fact in the majority of situations, she has already made a choice that she knows full well may lead to that consequence. Tony: Well, that's mostly right, except that it's one choice. But think of it this way. You tell a kid many times that the stove is hot and not to touch it. He does anyway. Are you just going to sit there and say "I told you so"? Similarly, some people just aren't very smart and don't realize that they actually have a future. Is it right to say that just because they knew what might happen and they made a choice means we can't help her get out of the situation? Again, this could get a reading comprehension anti-award. By using the phrase "we can't help her get out of the situation", you again imply that the version of the argument you were attacking is actually the one that I explained to you. It isn't. What I said was that if I were going to formulate the consequence argument, it would say that it is not unfair to prevent the woman from escaping the consequence of her actions. That is not the same thing as saying that it is mandatory to prevent that. As for your "kid", first we must place him at the same age as the woman in question. Second, supposing that he indeed acts in the way you postulate, it would not be unfair to let the painful consequence remain. Would I personally do that? No, because the cost in higher-valued goods is not nearly comparable to the case of abortion, in which one of the highest goods of all (life) is the one being sacrificed, whereas here, it would be at most time and money, neither of which is even remotely close to the same level. As for the argument that people are stupid and therefore should be excused from the consequences of their actions, it's difficult to imagine too many individuals who are utterly unaware of the fact that intercourse can lead to pregnancy. If they choose to ignore that fact, or to willfully downplay it, that does not excuse their behavior. JB: In my understanding of the argument you intend to refute, however, all that is being asserted is that the nine months of pregnancy after sex are not unfair in relation to the act. Tony: Well, it's not the nine months that's the problem, it's the effort and money to raise a kid. Plus, if they had a kid later when they had more money and a secure job then the kid would be happier than if he was born when the mother was a teenager. (BTW, I don't think people who can afford it should be allowed to have kids. The only way they suffer is the pregnancy, which isn't much.) Yet, as has been established, no one has maintained that those who become pregnant must raise the child. This is an invention of your own imagination. Now, you even maintain that the nine months of pregnancy are inconsequential and presumably just and appropriate. As for your statement on the comparative happiness of children born into financially secure households and to teen mothers, it really boils down to the question, "Is it better to live a life of allegedly lesser quality, or to die?" I contend the former. You appear to contend the latter. I also say that the offspring should be the one making that decision. If they come to the conclusion that their death would be preferable, let that be their choice. And though I would personally attempt to dissuade them from that position, it would remain their choice whether to live or die, once life has begun. Not mine. Not yours. Not his or her mother's. His or her decision. JB: If I were to someday accidentally kill you (don't worry, that won't happen; it's much more likely to be on purpose--kidding!  ), I would fully expect to be held responsible for my actions, despite the lack of intent to terminate your life. In the interest of justice, I might well demand that I be put to death for the crime. Tony: I disagree. Assuming you did something like tripping with a knife and it stabbed me in the heart, I see no reason to hold you morally accountable. This is assuming that you were as careful as possible when carrying the knife. Disagree though you may, it would be just for punishment to follow that inadvertent act of killing, whether or not I intended to kill you. Hence, since justice is one of the values that concerns me, I would expect it and possibly even attempt to obtain it against the inclination of the authorities, though the latter is less likely. JB: First of all, your driving analogy has lessened applicability here. With sex, it isn't just some "off-chance" of pregnancy, but a couple should be well-aware and willing to accept the consequences of their act. Tony: Let’s imagine we’re arguing about beating people’s cars when they drive like maniacs. You used an analogy to abortion, and I reply with: First of all, your abortion analogy has lessened applicability here. With driving, it isn't just some "off-chance" of hitting a kid, but a driver should be well-aware and willing to accept the consequences of their act.
Hmmm... Silly me, I forgot that one of the primary purposes of cars was vehicular homicide. Clearly, my error. In case text doesn't convey it, I'm being sarcastic. Oh, and of course, if a person is driving and does run into someone, they should accept the obligation they incur by doing so: seeking to protect life, if at all possible. Likewise, in a pregnancy, the obligation is incurred to protect life, if at all possible. Amazing how so many of your scenarios serve to illustrate the pro-life position so admirably, even with minimal tweaking. Could it be, perhaps, that you'd do best to realize that consistency with your own ethical declarations demands that you realize that some of your underlying principles point in the pro-life direction?
Pro-Life Compassion JB: Um, Tony... You have heard of this little thing called "adoption", haven't you? I don't know of any pro-lifers who use anything even remotely close to this argument who would say that the biological parents must raise the child. Tony: Okay then. Where is one, just one, group of pro-lifers who have formed a group to adapt children who would have been aborted? If you can show that every child could be adapted into a normal family then I'll change my opinion about abortion. Like I said, I'm not set on being pro-choice. Individual pro-lifers do adopt children; there's no need for a specific organized group for it. Of course, not all do so, but it certainly does happen (and should happen more often). For example, a family from my church recently returned from China, having adopted a girl from there. I'm sure you know how abortion is used in China with females as the specific target. There's quite a possibility that I may be sterile (it's a shame I didn't have that orchiopexy sooner); if that is the case, I'll certainly be making it my goal to adopt children who might otherwise have been in danger of abortion. Now, as for the adoption issue, I find here, on a site that hails itself as "the Internet's library of statistics on adoption, foster care, and related topics": By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade.
I'm sure you're going to ask about those infants who aren't healthy. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any specific statistics, but I do know that there are many couples who seek to adopt special-needs children, driven by compassion. There are many who have a special compassion for those with disabilities. Mary, for example. One of the problems these days is that the adoption process seems quite bogged down in bureaucratic red tape (like, well, just about everything else the government has succeeded in getting its hands on), thereby discouraging prospective adoptive parents. That's one thing that the American society really needs to work on, I think. In short, according to the statistics, demand for healthy children to adopt far exceeds supply. As for the less healthy, I've little doubt that the demand there is sufficiently high also. I'm also fairly confident that if it were the case that abortion would end if the demand for children rose to accomodate those children who would be put up for adoption (and I suspect that many biological mothers would choose to keep their children, feeling an emotional bond by or after birth), pro-lifers would be willing to do their best to accomplish the task. Tony: I'm not saying that it's the only punishment, but that, if pro-lifers were consistent, they would have to admit that they do feel sorry for the girl who needs an abortion, but an innocent life is too much in return to avoid the punishment. Yet all that seems to come out is "Abortion is killing!" If you don't believe that pro-lifers feel a great deal of compassion for the women involved in the issue, then you probably haven't asked many pro-lifers about it. The reason it seems like denunciations of abortion are all that comes out is probably because so many people are attempting to justify abortion, including women who need a rationale for the deed. Go ahead and survey some pro-lifers, asking them if they feel sorrow and compassion for women who feel pressed by societal pressures and economic difficulties into believing that abortion is the only choice. Odds are, many will say that they do have such compassion, but that compassion does not allow them to turn a blind eye to the protection of the child.
Culture Wars Tony seemed to have slipped up a bit on the culture thing, particularly as relates to abortion. Rather than classify it under "Reading Comprehension Gone Awry", where it assuredly would fit, I'll give it its own category. Tony: This Didache, written within 170 years of Jesus, said that abortion isn’t allowed? Didn’t you say something earlier about the culture not needing an anti-abortion law or something? As for God "forgetting" to mention the immorality of abortion, several points may be made. The first of these is that in an ancient Near Eastern culture, the goal was to have many children.
Also, Second, the only semi-rational purposes for abortion in such a cultural setting would be some form of child sacrifice, and that is condemned in biblical literature.
Well, you almost pulled a fast one. I quoted your two arguments against the bible mentioning abortion above. Do you believe that the culture of the ANE was the exact same as the culture in which the Didache was written? You'd have to, in order to find a "fast one" in my statements on the Didache and the abortion in the ANE. Tony: I guess I was right, your argument said that it was pointless to include in the Bible. Well, you lead us, me included, into narrowly thinking about the Old Testament. I might have lead to that, since I only quoted OT verses, but that was because that’s where all the laws are. Back to this. I’m guessing that abortion didn’t just appear at this time. So, if we assume your arguments are right, then why didn’t Jesus mention abortion, since this document shows it was at least worthy of mention? Jesus preached to a Jewish audience in Palestine. The Didache was probably not written for that specific audience. I highly doubt that Jewish Palestine was an abortion-rife culture, regardless of the Hellenizing influences. The pagan Greco-Roman culture, though, was known to have abortion, infanticide, and various other contemptible crimes against human life. Jesus never addressed them, though; He spent His earthly life in Palestine, save for a childhood trip to Egypt. I don't believe that my argument was ever that abortion is explicitly singled out and condemned in Scripture. It certainly is in very early church literature, which constitutes (in my opinion) sufficient grounds for Christian opposition. Furthermore, I've also contended that the prohibition against ratsach in the Decalogue also covers abortion, and you never disputed that point--at least, not that I can recall. I've also maintained that various biblical ideas and statements lend themselves to support the position that abortion is wrong, while not actually mentioning abortion. Tony: So, by answering why God didn’t tell ancient people about abortion, you have avoided the question of why God failed to inform us of this immoral act. In other words, how hard is it to update one, singular, book once every, say, thousand years or so? I could easily argue that He did inform us, via the voice of the Church in the Didache. And given that the Christian tradition has a deep respect for human life, even in the womb, it goes without saying that abortion is classified under murder, which is quite clearly prohibited.
Doodling on the Decalogue Tony decided to have some fun in his profanity-ridden whine about laws in the Bible that relate specifically to a culture. Rather than quote directly what he said, since he intersperses it in much gibberish, I'll summarize. He points out that the Ten Commandments are prefaced by a clause noting that the addressees were the Jews. That's quite true. And I will tentatively maintain that the Ten Commandments, strictly speaking, do not apply specially to us because they're the Ten Commandments. Tony's probably surprised at that answer. The Ten Commandments apply insofar as they are moral laws. There might be a question about the Sabbath issue. I'll leave that to my friend Brett to tackle, since he's the resident expert on the Sabbath. He recently made a decent case for Sabbath observance predating the Decalogue. The question for Tony then, I suppose, is how one can tell the difference between the categories of laws. Perhaps he has a rather difficult time with this. Well, as Paul said, "the natural man [...] can[not] know [things of the Spirit of God], because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). It's difficult to describe the litmus test used here anymore than I could describe to a colorblind man how I tell the difference between red and green. The civil laws, of course, are rather easy to distinguish. They deal largely with specific punishments and establishing ordinances and certain governmental systems, whether on a local scale or a larger scale. The ceremonial laws deal with the priesthood, etc. The purity laws are some that might be mistakenly assumed by one who is discernment-impaired to be indistinguishable from the moral laws. The purity laws encompass dietary restrictions, restrictions against various mixtures, etc. The civil laws do not apply to modern Christians just as the laws of France, by virtue of being the laws of France (I'm going out on a limb and assuming that France actually has some laws other than the anti-discrimination blunders that get pushed to absurd extremes), do not apply to American tourists in Asia who happen to have French ancestry. The ceremonial laws are clearly done away by the end of the Aaronic priesthood and the fulfillment of the purpose of the rituals. Likewise, the New Covenant redrew the purity map along the lines of faith rather than ethnic boundaries, thereby having "broken down the middle wall of separation" (Ephesians 2:14) and fulfilling the initial signification of the laws. We're left with largely two categories: strictly moral laws, and laws tailored to the culture but with an underlying moral principle. It isn't exceptionally difficult to extract the moral principle from those, if you're knowledgeable about the culture. Otherwise, they'll occasionally look like gibberish, but oftentimes, the moral principle is one that is somewhat self-evident in its more general form.
Excuses, Excuses JB: I'm afraid that I must disagree that the wording in this passage implies that at all. I think you're simply imposing your typical thought patterns on ANE literary expressions. Tony: Frankly, I don’t really care. The point was that, if you want to twist unrelated biblical passages to fit your beliefs, then I can play that game too. Basically, if God wanted us to know, he’d make sure we knew. I mean, he created the universe. His will is done. In other words, all you know how to do is whine about how you think God could've done a better job, when you're just too plain arrogant to admit that you don't have near the universal scope necessary to make such a judgment. And you try to justify your blatant eisegesis by accusing me of having done likewise, although you haven't established that I did anything other than valid exegesis at any point. Tony: I messed up on Exodus 20:5-6. I remembered reading about sins being passed down somewhere by the ten commandments. Since I can turn almost instantly to the ten commandments in my bible, I decided to look up the verse in there. The problem is that I have a New American Bible. For some reason I made the strange assumption that God’s perfect word is articulate, and assumed the NIV would say the same thing. So, I didn’t read the NIV verse when I linked to it. Just a quicky to replace it. I have no idea if this verse works, but I can afford for this argument to be crappy, since it’s just the cherry on top of the Empire State Building. Amazing. You were caught blatantly slacking, and you want to try to pass the blame off to the Bible? Dude, check the translation again. I want an image of the page you claim to have gotten your translation from, or else locating the exact wording online that supports what you said. Because if you're talking about the NASB (New American Standard Bible), it reads: You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6, NASB)
But suppose you are, in fact, speaking of the NAB. I found a copy online here, and an examination of Exodus 20 reveals the text: You shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6, NAB)
'Fess up, Tony. Your defense is clearly inadequate, and you've been shown dishonest by trying to make it. Instead of trying to blame the translation, the honest thing to do would've been to admit that you were working from a flawed memory and failed to double-check the text before mouthing off. JB: Note that David expects to eventually join his child. David knew good and well that he was not going to be eternally condemned; hence, you cannot make sense of this passage if you hold that biblical teaching is that dead infants or fetuses will go to hell. Tony: You’re assuming the bible doesn’t contradict. The context of the discussion was discerning what the Bible is teaching. Since we were working within a framework of biblical authority, you have no room to wiggle out through a "contradiction"-shaped hole. Besides, considering that you admitted that your handling of the allegedly contradictory passage was deliberately botched, you're standing on shakier and shakier ground by the moment.
Pope Pesky XII Here, I'll treat Tony's woefully brief statements on the evidence I cited from the early church and from the Roman Catholic Church. Tony: Whoa! This Didache, written within 170 years of Jesus, said that abortion isn’t allowed? Say what?!? "[W]ithin 170 years of Jesus"? Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that the Didache could date as late as 200 AD? Dude, reputable scholars regard it as a first-century document from the early church. J. B. Lightfoot, for example (a leading scholar in the field of patristics, so don't get your "who?"-drive all in a bundle), affirms that J.-P. Audet's estimate of 70 AD for the time of composition is very probably within a decade, placing the Didache in 60-80 AD. In other words, instead of saying "written within 170 years of Jesus", trying saying "written within 50 years of Jesus". Significant difference. As for actually interacting with the material I presented on early church positions on abortions, I see none from you. As for the Catholics... Tony: Keyword, dogma. In other words, beliefs without evidence. Besides, I’m refuting our arguments, not Catholics. Key concept: dogma is a technical term used by the Roman Catholic Church that decidedly does not mean "beliefs without evidence", but instead, as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it: But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.
Dude... weren't you supposed to have once been a Roman Catholic? Did somebody shoot you in the skull with a crossbow, or were you just a really poor student back then and haven't given the RCC much thought (let alone that "study" thing you fear) ever since? Tony: Who gives a [*censored*] about early church fathers? Sure, it tells us what the early beliefs of the church was, but their interpretation is no more valid than a monkey’s without evidence. I believe this is called an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. Oh? And who says that the Church Fathers don't constitute a valid authority? You? You aren't a Christian, and it's the basis for a religious person's objections to abortion that are at issue. Or have you entirely forgotten the context? Let me refresh your memory. You said: I'm also confident that the Bible doesn't tell us anything about when consciousness begins. Therefore, even the most religious Christian has [no] reason to oppose abortion.
Your object, after all, was to deal with religious arguments against abortion on their own terms. As you said to Kameron: Because I don't want to go into the separation of church and state debate, I will give him the huge benefit of the doubt that it's valid to base your choice on the Bible.
Why else would you have tried to argue as hard as you did that the Bible doesn't condemn abortion? So what I'm saying is that the Bible is not necessarily the sole authority of the Christian. It's certainly the primary authority, but when the early church speaks with such unanimity, that's a difficult argument for the aware Christian to ignore. Likewise, if I were a Roman Catholic, not only would I place even greater emphasis on the Church Fathers, but the papal decrees and later councils would have great authority for me likewise. So when you said that "even the most religious Christian has [no] reason to oppose abortion", you were flat-out wrong. Face it, Tony. You got caught with your hand in the proverbial cookie jar, and the cookies turned out to be animate objects with sharp fangs and a very large appetite.
Soulful Queries Tony: First of all, we don’t have to believe in a soul. So picking it because it makes the most sense out of all the soul theories is illogical. Context, dude, context. We were talking about nepheshology within the Christian paradigm, not outside of it. I don't believe that the "no soul" idea holds any merit in Christian thought, but you let that be for me and the other theists to toss around. Tony: Actually, I’d argue that we have to start out with the no soul idea, since it is less “complex” than the soul. (i.e. It can explain all the data equally well with less parts to the theory). I quite frankly disagree that a model sans non-physical aspect does adequately handle the data. One of my fundamental axioms is that humans have genuine free will. That's as properly basic as the belief that methods of sensory perception accurately obtain raw data concerning the surroundings, and that the human consciousness is capable of rendering a coherent picture from it. Everything a person does is predicated on the working assumption of free will. It's utterly fundamental. In its absence, our mindset makes no sense, save as the absurd yet deterministic consequence of cosmic history. Given that, I must strongly discount a model of human nature that does not have room for it, and I'm not seeing how free will can truly fit into a purely materialistic image of human consciousness. Tony: Second, JB uses body as though you can point to something and say body. What if you cut off a leg? Is the soul less attached? Are you less of a person? What if we cut off everything and kept, say, the heart artificially alive. Would the soul stay with the heart or would it die and go to heaven? So, the question is, what body part, or combination of body parts, has to be alive in order for the soul to stay in the body. How do you know this? I suspect (as you well know) that the physical locus of communication between body and soul is the human brain, when such has developed. Prior to the distinguishing of body parts during development, I regard it as likely that the soul will be attached in some central manner. Alternatively, some segment of bone may be the central point, with resurrection in mind (and I'm sure God is perfectly capable of working with even a mere speck of ash from a burnt bone, if necessary). ARU: Otherwise, you're saying you'd be worried if they removed your brain and put it in a cyber body that you wouldn't still be fundamentally you? And when this is demonstrated all you'll do is say "well I guess the soul is attached to the brain." Meta-scam variables like the soul will always find a place to hide in the ontology of the credulous. As I've noted, it's been my position that the brain is the physical locus of connection. That's hardly ad hoc, but something I reasoned through long before I started dialoguing with biblioskeptics. As for your "cyber body" scenario, considering that I don't believe such is ever going to be within the realm of actuality, I see no reason to speculate about the effect it would have, any more than I would if you'd inquired about the consequence of magically switching my brain with a square circle. Tony: Third, what does it mean to get your soul from your parents? You said it was much like the body, but I could tell you exactly what I mean when I say that you get your body from your parents. You see, in meiosis, each parent chromosome splits in half and goes into a reproduction cell. When they mate, the two strands join together, making the genome of the individual. This genome determines how they develop. So, how does this soul thing work? It seems they can reproduce. It also seems they can mutate in a fashion. Does that mean they can evolve if given enough time? Your little pet theory doesn’t explain anything. Unless, of course, you haven’t explained something of importance to us. In that case, why did you even bring this up if not to introduce what makes this idea so great? Cocky little fellow, ain'tcha? What exactly do you mean, "how"? In a traducian nepheshological model of the origin of the individual soul, a gamete would carry with it a "half-soul", if you want to use such crude terminology. It derives from the parent-soul and is of that essence, though the parent-soul and the offspring will not be identical. Fusion occurs upon the fusion of the gametes. What do you mean, precisely, by postulation "mutation"? If you speak of an alteration of essence, I'd say no, not if we speak of the fundamental essence of the spirit. Perhaps you intend to indicate the individuality differentiation. I'm afraid I have no books detailing the workings of the soul (and before you complain, no, there's no reason for God to have told us everything about the soul--that's just your ignorant belch), and your questions aren't very clear. Tony: Since we go beyond biology when dealing with morals, I think I can assume that by “human life” he means whether it has a human soul. Not particularly, no. By "human life", I mean just that: a living organism which may be appropriately classified as "human". (I also happen to believe that no kind exists that lacks a soul, but that doesn't mean that my definition of "human life" incorporates the notion of "soul".) And where do you derive the principle that "we go beyond biology when dealing with morals"? Says who? You? Forgive me for not accepting a pronouncement from such an authority...
Souls in the Bible JB: Now, I promised a brief defense of traducianism. Well, I'll give it, since I did agree to do so. Of course, I want everyone to keep in mind that my case against abortion does not rely on the arguments I'm about to make. Tony: What? If traducianism is wrong, than your whole view of when your soul enters your body is completely wrong. No. Remember that I also mentioned that one of the other nepheshological views has a popular variant that also has the soul present at conception. Nor does my case against abortion rely on the notion of the soul; it relies upon my three principles, none of which make reference to anything beyond what could be found in an atheistic worldview. Tony: Unless I’m mistaken, I remember you saying you believe we get new, better, bodies in heaven. If our body changes, then what remains constant to say that the JB in heaven is the same JB that’s on earth? It appears you're paraphrasing me. I tend to speak more about the resurrection than about "heaven". I find it distasteful that so many modern Christians have forgotten about the centrality of the eschatological resurrection, abandoning it in favor of an ethereal tribute to failure by discarding an integral aspect of humanity (physicality) and by surrendering the earth. The resurrection body is "new" in that it has some distinct differences from our bodies as they are now. However, the newness does not compromise the continuity. For example, see Paul's discussion of the resurrection body: So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual* body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44)
Note the singular pronoun that mitigates against any "body exchange" scenario. Thus, there is asserted to be both continuity of spirit and continuity of body. (* "Spiritual", in contradistinction to "natural", does not in this context and usage denote a lack of physicality, as some have erroneously argued, but rather the governing force. "Natural body" (soma psuchikon) denotes the body that is governed by appetite and passion--i.e., as I see it, the body that is subject to the yetser hara, the sinful inclination, and/or the body as subjected to mortal frailties and temptations. The "spiritual body", then, is one that is under the control, either of the unimpeded and purified human spirit, or else the Spirit of God.) Tony: Therefore, your soul is you. So, assuming traducianism is wrong, how do you know that the soul doesn’t enter the body at, say, birth, therefore allowing all abortions. (Note: it doesn’t have to be at birth for my point to be valid, it could be at 6 months or whatever). First, why would I want to assume that traducianism is incorrect? Second, if you're seeking a biblical argument independent of traducianism, here: there is clearly physical life in the womb, initiating at conception. You would not doubt this. James writes: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)
The body without the spirit is asserted to be dead. The body (the physical aspect of human existence) is, in the case of an embryo or such, not dead. Ergo, it cannot be without the spirit. And before you make the inevitable complaint, "Who says that's right?", keep in mind that you're inquiring for an argument from within the Christian worldview, and hence it's absurd to then try to back up and take potshots at it from over in Atheistland. Tony: So, since the soul is you, it is also what makes you a moral equivalent to a human, right? I mean, if in heaven you had dog bodies it’s the fact that it’s a human soul that matters right? So, we can conclude that the soul is what defines you as human (at least morally). I don't concede. Human spirits will not be conjoined to non-human bodies. Tossing out incoherent thought experiments as you are presently is not getting the job done. You still haven't justified your position adequately, so I see no reason to entertain absurdities such as "man-trapped-in-dog-body--morally-man-or-dog?". ARU: Since God might not want to deal with all the icky implications of zygote souls, perhaps he waits until the 20th week to properly infuse the soul into the mental apparatus it will be using for the rest of its life. Feel free to prove me wrong. I refer you back to James 2:26, for example. And, of course, in the instance of uncertainty such as that, the burden would be upon your position, not mine, since the assumption of ensoulment-at-conception would establish a cautionary safeguard around life. However, I recognize that you're just cavilling. ARU: I don't think the Semitic Totality Concept rescues this any of these verses [i.e., Jeremiah 1:5] from ambiguity. The verses speak of more than just the developmental time frame and could even be applied to, "Oh god, you knew ME even as a sperm and an egg." Do we then say that the sperm and the egg each have half a soul? I know this is probably one of your favorite pet apologetic ideas average people don't know about that you can pull out of your rear on occasion... but it doesn't save the day here. You honestly haven't established that STC would apply there, but since I'm perhaps more inclined than my partner is to agree that foreknowledge is a legitimate interpretation of Jeremiah 1:5, I'll let the point go. At this point in the debate, I can afford to set that matter aside as of little consequence. Besides, I want to do more reading on the subject of the soul, and do some more reflections on how STC relates to some of the proof-texts of traducianism.
Enter the Exodus Tony, bizarrely, felt the need to try to attack the morality of the biblical God by talking about the Ten Plagues upon Egypt in the Exodus. Skipping over the parts where Tony doesn't really disagree with the author of the article I showed him, we get more to the meat of his complaint. Tony: Imagine that I’m being accused of killing 10 people. The judge decides that, as my punishment, the family of the survivors get to kill my whole family, and I’m free to go. What? Surely I’m making a straw man. Sorry to say, this is their actual position. And how the ANE tended to work, generally speaking. Mind if I quote from a paragraph of one of my recent literary acquisitions? The village assembly punished murder according to the norms of reciprocity which required that a life be given for a life. But even when an assembly sentenced a murderer to death, it executed its sentence in more than one way. For example, the assembly could impose the death sentence on the actual murderers, but it could also execute any other member of the household in their place. Likewise, the assembly could also allow the killer's household to pay compensation to the victim's household (Pitt-Rivers 1977:119). The assembly imposed a death sentence when it determined that a swift execution of justice would best restore the balance of power in the village (Exod 21:12). It permitted compensation when it decided that the taking of one life should not deprive the village of another (Exod 21:13-14). Compensation spared the life of the killer by transferring the killer's contribution in land and children to the household of the victim. In Africa, village assemblies often commute the death sentence to paying a fine of livestock, or providing the victim's household with a human being physically comparable to the victim, or with a woman who will bear a child for the victim's household (Schapera 1985:31). (Social World of Ancient Israel 11-12)
Problem with that? Feel the need to judge another culture because you think yours is superior, or that you specifically are superior? Of course, I'm partly teasing you. In the context of a worldview in which justice is ultimately not rendered to each individual, I agree that this would be even more problematic. (Of course, we must also bear in mind that the both of us were raised in an individualist culture, and hence have that sort of baggage clouding our view.) However, in the Christian worldview, justice will be done. Those infants who perished in the plagues were God's to take as the ultimate authority of life. Furthermore, the infants are not shamed. (Well, technically, see later in the category "Hellbabies and Sin".) Tony: They try to say that, since Pharaoh knew the laws, he was the cause of death. He knew that him being stubborn would result in God killing his people. Therefore, it wasn’t God’s fault that 69,000 people got killed. Oh yeah, we have to wait until later for Pharaoh to die, and he dies of his own stupidity. As if God did not know that Pharaoh would choose to act the way that he did (by the way, according to Exodus 14:4, that final expedition against the Israelites was another "God hardening his heart" instance), and thereby go down in the annals of history as a fool against whom the power of God was manifested for His glory and for the remembrance of the Israelites? Here's the thing, Tony: God has every right to take the life He has given. He is bound by no obligation to grant life to any. It's a gift. For someone to complain, then, that God was unfair here is foolhardy. Indeed, looking at the estimates wherein God took roughly 69,000 Egyptians in response to the Egyptians' having killed 2.75 million Israelites, God was exceptionally merciful! Tony: So, that leaves the question. Why didn’t God simply punish Pharaoh and anybody else who was involved, instead of killing the innocent? If I kill your son, do you kill my son or me? So your objection is a thoroughly individualistic one, then? If you kill 2.75 million of my children (plus countless adult children of mine), and I already hold all ultimate authority of life and death, I have every right to kill all of your children, at least 2.75 million of them, and you can consider yourself highly lucky if I only take out 69,000 of them and whichever adults are too stupid to know when I've beaten you, especially if you already adhere to the Principle of Reciprocity and fundamentally agree that I have the right to do to you and yours whatever you do to me and mine. Pharaoh knew exactly that it was right for God to do what He did, and as Pharaoh was the federal head of Egypt, he knew that he was acting on behalf of Egypt, and hence Egypt in the corporate sense could be rightly punished. Tony then complains for a bit about the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Rather than quote exactly what Tony said, since most is just Scriptural quotes and his commentary, I'll simply address it without the quotes. First of all, the phrase "hardening of the heart" would have had a specific import for an ancient Egyptian or someone familiar with ancient Egypt. As Randall Price explains: Since all men sin and the natural inclination of the heart is to confess such sin, the ingenious Egyptians devised a means to keep the heart from contradicting the Negative Confession. They did this by writing magical incantations on a stone image of their sacred dung beetle, called a scarab, that was carved in the shape of a heart. This stoneheart scarab was then placed in or on the chest cavity during mummification (a fact revealed by x-rays of Egyptian mummies). Various incantations which ordered the heart "not to rebel against me" or "not witness against me" transferred the stony character of the scarab to the fleshly heart in the afterlife, making it "hard" and unable to speak. This act of ritual "hardening of the heart" reversed the natural function of the unhardened heart and resulted in salvation since the deceased was now decreed sinless through silence. However, when God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart, who as a god himself represented the salvation of Egypt, He reversed the theological hope of all Egyptians. This hardening resulted in Pharaoh's natural inability to naturally respond to the fearsome plagues, and therefore stop them, by surrendering to Moses' request. Therefore, instead of the "hardening the heart" bringing salvation, it brought destruction. (The Stones Cry Out 128)
The point of the Pharaoh being considered a god is pretty important, too. See, each plague was designed so as to express the superiority of Israel's God over the pitiful Egyptian gods. The tenth plague, which was a direct assault on Egypt itself, was a judgment against Pharaoh. Hence, your complaint that God didn't judge Pharaoh is misdirected. He did judge Pharaoh, and eventually did kill Pharaoh as well. One of the points I'm making, though, is that the plagues were heavily imbued with meaning. Your conjecture of what God presumably could've done better, then, utterly misses the point. But I'm sure you still want to complain that Pharaoh was somehow not to blame for anything. Of course, to do so, you'd have to utterly ignore his lengthy infanticide program. It was his decision to go down that path, and I highly doubt that God restricted Pharaoh's willpower to anything that Pharaoh was not himself choosing. After all, while it does sometimes say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, it also says that he hardened his own heart (and other times, Pharaoh's heart grows hard without explicit ascription). And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as YHVH had said. (Exodus 7:13) Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as YHVH had said. And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. Neither was his heart moved by this. (Exodus 7:22) But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as YHVH had said. (Exodus 8:15) Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as YHVH had said. (Exodus 8:19) But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go. (Exodus 8:32) Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go. (Exodus 9:7) And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants. So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as YHVH had spoken by Moses. (Exodus 9:34-35)
Judging from the way in which the text does this, it appears that Pharaoh is acting of his own free will, but God is confirming Pharaoh's decision as the one he is making. Compare it to a person who is chugging a bowl of water, and someone else gently places their hand beneath the bowl to prevent the person from stopping, yet the person never attempts to stop. Tony, like I've said, trying to argue against biblical ethics doesn't really get you anywhere. Please, just give it up and try to do something productive.
Hellbabies and Sin Silly opponents... Trix are for sinners? ARU: Just think though... 90% of all aborted children would have wound up in hell otherwise. Where or where ist thou fist shaking? You zygote straining eternal damnation condoner! In hell by their own choice of free will, you mean. That's the factor you never seem to incorporate into your rants about hell. Of course, I also consider it a theoretical opportunity that, upon death (or upon resurrection), sinless children are presented with the opportunity of whether to submit to God, in which case, your figure would be inaccurate. However, that's speculation. ARU: This is sick. They stumble into this evil when? Age seven? When they don't want to throw the ball back to Billy on the playground? And they know they should have... When they choose to sin, selecting to violate the Moral Law of God with awareness that they are not acting rightly. I doubt there's any definite set age, much less a specific year. Your "sickness" is... where? ARU: obviously this proves that each of us under the best circumstances (like the Garden of Eden for instance) would have chosen to become sinners like Adam and Eve. All gazillion of us would just so happen to use our free will in exactly the same way with out the slightest deviation. Such the coincidence! That's how it's turned out. Problem with that? You have some mystical knowledge that, say, you would've remained faithfully obedient to God? Right... I might seriously contemplate that argument coming from, say, Mother Theresa. From you, on the other hand, who've explicitly stated that even if you learned that Christianity were true, you'd continue to rebel against God... I laugh. Tony: As for what JB said, he seems to be implying that you have to do something in order to ask for forgiveness. Well, if sins are passed down, and you didn’t do anything, it still means you have sin. So, you have sin, but God gives you a pass to go into heaven. But then what is sin? It’s obviously an action that goes against God’s word. So then what does it mean to pass down sins? I think it’s proper to think of this type of sin as an attribute. So, if your father sinned, then you have his sin. But since JB says that you have to do something yourself, this is a new type of sin, one that doesn’t really do anything. So we have three types of sin; the action, the attribute that gets you in hell, and the attribute that doesn’t do anything. So, according to JB, God gave us the passages that give us absolutely no meaning. This is assuming, of course, that the verse I gave about passing down sins hold up. Maybe he’ll critique it by saying that God conformed to the ancient Hebrews or something like that. Let me see if I can clarify your muddled thoughts, so please pay attention this time. I'm saying that while a sinful inclination is passed down via biological lines, active participation in ancestral sin can at most be confirmed by action. There is a sinful inclination in a person who has yet to act on it, and there is a sinful inclination in a person who acts on it. For someone to suffer everlasting penalty, they have actively acted upon their sinful inclination. However, as best as I can make out from your rambling, you're trying to ask me about Exodus 20:5-6. Am I right? First of all, it may speak only of temporal judgment. Biblical Israel, for example, might be judged and sent into captivity in one generation. Subsequent generations would probably then be born into captivity through no direct fault of their own. Through their faithfulness, though, it is highly likely for God to redeem His people. For example, the use of Cyrus as a deliverer to conquer the Neo-Babylonian Empire and proclaim freedom occurs to me. But let's suppose that we aren't talking about corporate judgment on that level. Strictly speaking, the passage is about idolatry, and in that context, this passage could well be referring to descendants who persist in the idolatry of their forefathers. In such a case, what's wrong with God's punishment building until the wrath comes, as the overall lineage has definitely had generations to return to the exclusive worship of the true God? The delay of wrath is a mercy, not a cruelty. The guilt builds in each generation, compounding through continued refusal of God and refusal to see the bad example of their forefathers. I'm not entirely sure I see your objection. Tony: You love digging holes for yourself don’t ya? Now imagine I take you, force you to have brain surgery that makes you want to commit crimes, and then release you. Predictably, you go commit crimes. Is it right for me to punish you for these crimes? If yes, then I’d like to say your ethical theory isn’t working very well. If no, then why is the ultimate moral authority doing pretty much the same thing to every human and punishing them for it? In your scenario, have I been hard-wired in such a way that my free will is compromised? Then I'd say no, the punishment as punishment is not warranted. On the other hand, if there's still free will, such that I could theoretically resist the urge to commit crimes, then yes, it's perfectly legitimate for me to be punished for the crimes. I don't see how that entails a fault in my "ethical theory".
Other Assorted Vintage Whines about Culture, Scripture, and God This is gonna be one big category. Some people just can't resist trying to take a crack at vilifying God and the ancients, all in one breath of smug pseudo-superiority. Tony: Why would God care any bit more about their culture than, say, the 1500’s culture? Unless the Bible doesn’t apply to us, why is God’s target audience a couple of stone age tribes and not the 7 Billion people alive today? - "Stone age tribes" is highly inaccurate. Would it kill you to crack open a book once in a while? The Exodus itself, the first point of textual revelation, is placed in what was for the ANE the Late Bronze Age--long, long after the conclusion of the Stone Age in the standard three-age system.
- Hate to break it to you--again--but the bulk of today's population consists of collectivist, honor/shame cultures. The disparity was even greater in the past. Hence, if you want to play the "majority game", you lose on those grounds as well. As I've said before.
- The biblical texts had a primary audience and a historical context. Neither are us. Are you honestly so incapable of fair and rational thought processes that you believe that the "majority" (by which you incorrectly mean us) should have been the primary audience of documents written thousands of years ago in a different culture, such that the authors would have had no idea what they were writing, and the people around them would have been equally puzzled, and the documents would have been preserved miraculously despite no one caring about them, since the contents would have been incoherent?
- The central salvation message is what's truly important in the Bible, and that has remained largely understood by Christians of every subsequent era. All you can complain is that the Bible includes a whole bunch of other stuff that you can't understand because you're too lazy to learn.
Tony: Or, being God, he could simply update the Bible for more recent cultures. How, and why? New revelation? The revelatory acts of God culminated in the ultimate revelation of Himself via the person of Yeshua the Messiah. What sort of update are you thinking? New explanations of Israelite history for people of our culture? But that would entail not actually reporting anything, since the events themselves reflect the culture, and your proposed additions must be void of any vestiges of cultures other than our own pitifully aberrant, individualistic mess. Or do you wish God to commission a new apostle for our era? But the qualification of being an apostle was having seen Christ, so that's out of the question. Setting that aside, though, what would this new messenger of revelation give us? Extra directions? But why? Are the moral exhortations of the New Testament in particular so perplexing? Seems decently straightforward. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speech be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:31-32) But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Ephesians 5:3-4) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:10-11) Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless, and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. (Romans 12:9-15) If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. (Romans 12:18) Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things. (Philippians 4:8)
So it can't be the moral exhortations. Perhaps you want God to have this new apostle reveal deeper spiritual truths? Yet we have yet to master what we have already been given; how can we demand deeper revelation? Perhaps you think that God should send someone to clarify things? Nothing essential to the kerygma is muddled. Given that, your demand is that God clear up what we already know, or else settling various theological disputes. But why? Tony: Of course, we can’t have God making it this so easy for us, since it’s only our eternal fate that depends on this. Your "eternal fate" depends on your response to the kerygma, which is clear in a reading of the Scriptures. You know exactly what the Gospel message is; if you don't by now, then you've got problems. It is an idiot who rejects the kerygma through a lack of understanding of the cultural details in the Scriptures. Remember that. Tony: He says their cultures are different and the Bible reflects that. The best argument, which I have saved in this post until now (I admit I hadn’t thought of it until I started this), is to say “You’re right. That’s exactly what the atheist would expect.” As an atheist, I think the bible is a work of humans. In most works of literature, the themes are heavily influenced by the cultural ideas that surround the author. But, from a Christian perspective, wouldn’t you expect that the ideas are completely unique? Why aren’t we hearing arguments like “Why are the ideas in almost every book in the Bible unique from the culture that they came from, causing a revolution in their own society that caused them to be superior to those around them? How could this happen so many times without it being chance?” Instead, we get the complete opposite. Why should the Bible be out of touch with the cultural background in which it was revealed? Tony, the biblical documents were directed to a specific primary audience, through a specific author from that culture, with a certain historical and cultural context, and narrating events in a certain historical and cultural context. It makes absolutely no sense to say that God should have told the Israelites: Okay, blokes, listen up. You're going to be individualists with no sense of honor and shame, basing everything off of your own personal, self-centered perceptions. Yes, I know I'm commanding you all to act exactly like the scum at the crusts of society. Why? Ummm.... Hold on, I need to get some advice from a fellow who lives about 3452 years in your future. (Psst, Tony! Remind me again why I'm supposed to confuse the living daylights out of everybody and ruin their culture in favor of yours? Oh yeah! Thanks, bud, you da man!) Okay, okay, I have it now. The answer is, "Because that way of life is better." ...Don't you mouth off at Me! I didn't say that was everything. It's also because that'll make you really stand out from the cultures around you. Yes, I realize that your monotheism does that already, and yes, I'm aware that the prophecies I'll give your descendants will be more than sufficient for the apologists to do their jobs, except that unbelievers are so stubborn as to weasel their way out of it with the most unreasonable propositions... But come on, work with Me here. Those future people? They're lazier than you'd believe! What? They'd die out here really quickly? Well, yes, they would. And no, they typically aren't very educated, and if we don't make you just like them, they'll sit in judgment of you, and of Me too! (Of course, they'd find a way to do the latter anyway--they've hardened their hearts in rebellion.) Wait, you're calling them "bigoted"? Okay, that's true. But... but... Please?
I could turn that into a really sucky play... Tony: Does everybody see why I’m complaining about God conforming to the culture? Assuming that morals are constant throughout time, it would be incredible chance that the cultures of the time had the best morals. So why does JB think that the culture of the time influence the Bible? Well, because it helps him keep his belief. It sounds good, and the historical facts stand up, so it must be right, right? Well, when you really dig down and think about it from an object viewpoint, the true nature of the argument is revealed. There are certain moral principles that are universal. Situations can involve them in conflict, and different cultures present different situations. But see, here's the thing. You keep assuming that our culture is right about everything: that individualism is better, that honor is worthless, that context is irrelevant, that the ancients were stupid and barbaric but our ways are superior. ARU: So you consider it not Divine negligence that so many of the "proper resources" of the Biblical student that exist today most likely haven't been available to 99% of Biblical readers of all time? Nope. The primary audiences had what they needed to properly understand the text. The kerygma is still clear. It's hardly God's fault that we choose not to search more deeply. ARU: God didn't have to mention abortion to give us a stable moral paradigm that is supremely defensible as is... that doesn't result in the splintering into millions of different interpretations. He could have told us more of the specifics on the ins and outs of the soul. He could have told us how to empirically know the soul exists. But he didn't. And it would be irrational to expect Him to "[tell] us how to empirically know the soul exists", considering that by definition, empirical methods cannot directly investigate spiritual realities. As for extensive descriptions of the human spirit, I'm sure the ancient Israelites would've been thrilled... ARU: The Bible goes into excessive detail on matters that didn't go very far. But in terms of defensible philosophy... accountable historical inquiry... preemptive damage control on religious zealotry of the ages... it's really quite pathetic. I bet you could add one page to the New Testament of divine pronouncements of mere fact and clear up 99% of all denominational disputes for the next two millennia. Since you're merely reiterating the gist of the same point over and over and over again, ad absurdum, I'll simply refer you to my above points on the matter.
[*Censored*]! This section is for two things. The first is that Tony's profanity was unusually high in his Round 3 entry. Hence, you see "[*censored*]" quite a bit. Evidently, the frustration of fighting an uphill battle was getting to him, forcing him into rather uncivilized behavior. The second purpose of this section is to engage a stray comment Tony made. Tony: After writing this, I was at work (McDonald's) taking cash in drive-thru for this really weird fat guy. Every time somebody said something stupid, he'd turn off the headset and cuss them out. Now, since he was cussing them out and they weren't aware, it wasn't immoral. But imagine if he would've forgotten to turn his headset off before cussing. Would it be a bad thing then? The key difference here is that, when the person doesn't know, no harm is done. But when they do know, it's really bad. This is the same thing for being unconscious. If there are no bad effects when they become conscious, then there is no harm done. Of course, Tony is surely jesting. "Cuss-words" are presumed immoral not because they are heard by another human who may be offended; if they are immoral at all, they are immoral because God has mandated that we not use them. Frankly, I don't generally have a moral problem with most "cuss-words", save those that implicitly involve theological concepts. The other side of the debate on the matter would be made by citing passages such as, say: Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. (Ephesians 4:29)
I do not personally use such words (or at least try not to) for several reasons. One, it's uncivilized. Surely equally powerful concepts can be expressed via less vulgar words. Hence, they're unnecessary, save for uncivilized shock value. Two, I refrain from using them for the sake of those among my brethren who do have moral qualms about their use and presume them prohibited. It's a matter of respect. In short, you picked an extraordinarily lousy choice of analogy. You should know better by now.
Emporium of Argumentum Ad Hominem: Here, I intend to interact with a curious little tangent Tony included in his last post. Tony: I need to explain something about JB’s reasoning so that you can understand his arguments better. Knowing JB now, and reading his testimonial, it’s very revealing. He seems to start out with a position, expand into a new area, then drop the old position. I’ll show what I mean. A quote: I was raised in a non-Christian household by my mother and grandmother, since I was the child of an affair, and thus no father was available. Later on, my mother married my step-father. I was not at this time a Christian, nor did anyone in my family attend church. Quite frankly, I don't remember what I thought about the idea of a God at that time. One evening, however, my mother and I went to see a performance called "Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames". As I look back on it, it was somewhat theologically crude, but no matter. Something in that performance woke me up to the concept of hell, and I was very certain that I did not desire to go there. And so my mother and I both chose to become Christians.
Notice how he converted to Christianity because of Pascal’s Wager? Once again, poor reading ruins the day, so I suppose it's up to my clarification to save it. Shall we review Pascal's Wager? It speaks of belief in the existence of God. Do you see anywhere in my statement where I said that I converted from atheism to Christianity? I certainly don't. While I recall very little about my previous views, it seems to me to be more of an agnostic deism or a very generic theism, perhaps an extremely nominal pseudo-Christianity (and I definitely put the emphasis on the word "nominal"). Honestly, if I hadn't believed in God at all or at least considered it a viable option, why on earth would I have given any weight whatsoever to the notion of hell? Think about it for a minute. I agree that I "converted" on that initial occasion as a result of a strictly pragmatic thought process--to wit, "I don't want to go to hell, so I'll do what it takes to not go there, and if that involves this resurrected Jesus fellow, so be it." It's quite possible that I already believed in the resurrection of Christ, for crying out loud! However, I can't be certain of this, because I have a notoriously poor long-term memory, especially about events roughly a decade ago. You also seem to omit the more crucial part of my testimony, in which I relate that my solidification of my relationship with God occurred as a result of a definitely non-Wager experience that I suppose could be termed exorcism. Considering that such an experience is a much stronger confirmation of worldview than anything I suspect you've undergone, I'd say that I hold the edge as far as that goes. Tony: Now, last time he checked, he thinks the wager is only good if you can’t decide. At the time it was his only reason for believing (that he says, so I’ll assume it was). Again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. That, and your memory of what I said about Pascal's Wager in the first place. Tony: But then he expanded into apologetics, realized that Pascal’s Wager was bunk, and dropped it. I’ll get to why this is significant later. I’ll provide one more example. I read the entire Bible, cover to cover. It took a number of weeks, perhaps a few months, but I accomplished it. Eventually I began to study creation science, a former passion of mine that was to later blossom into a more general interest in Christian apologetics.
Now he even says what I’m trying to prove. His first taste of apologetics was creationism. Now, however, he says that creationism isn’t necessary. Heaven forbid I should take a slightly less dogmatic stand on an issue! My goodness, what horrors! Yes, Tony, I do say that one can be a Christian without being a creationist. What of it? I also say that one can be a Christian without believing in the inerrancy of Scripture. That doesn't mean I'm not an inerrantist, nor does it mean I'm not still a creationist. Tony, did you ever stop when typing up this response to think (the word "think" tells me right there that the answer is "no", actually) about why I might have moved away from the interest in creation science? Allow me to clear the matter up so that you can stop jumping to insane conclusions. I originally had a great passion for science and intended to study physics in college. However, I came to the realization that my skills do not lie chiefly in scientific proficiency. For example, a large part of most scientific work involves experimentation. All my life, I've been awful at coaxing experiments to produce coherent results. As far as they go, my life is the incarnation of Murphy's Law. Hence, a scientific career did not look quite probable for me. That being the case, it would be absurd for me to pursue a degree in science, therefore putting me perpetually outside the circles of expertise on the matter. My skills, as I said, rest largely elsewhere, and it is on them that I intend to capitalize. Therefore, I willingly permitted my knowledge of the creation-evolution debate to wither somewhat. There are plenty of specialists on the Christian side for that issue; they don't need my limited skills among their ranks, when I can be more effective elsewhere. That's a basic principle of economics. Again, your conclusions are stretched at the best, flat-out wrong at the worst. Tony: On an evolution post of mine, he had no specific response to my evidence of macroevolution. One primary reason is that I've made an agreement with myself, in the presence of witnesses, not to respond to your ranting posts outside of a debate, because you've shown yourself to be about as far from an honest truth-seeker as it's possible for a human to conceivably get. Need I bring up your screed on "God is the most complex explanation for anything ever possible, so by Occam's Razor, I wouldn't believe in God no matter what, since there has to be some alternative explanation that's preferable, no matter how patently absurd" (paraphrased)? That did you in. Not that you came across as interested in honest discussion of the issues before, either. Tony: I think I can safely say that this is the same pattern as before. He starts with creationism, expands into other areas, realizes it isn’t as strong as he thought, then abandons debating with it in favor of other arguments. Here’s a picture for those visual learners among you. How is this relevant? Stay with me for a minute, I’m almost there. Core to Christianity are two chief doctrinal tenets about reality that stand above all: that God exists, and that Christ rose physically from the dead by supernatural means. If your argument, as an atheist, doesn't involve that, you're missing the point of how to attack Christianity. That's one of the chief lessons I've learned as an apologist. Attacking creationism won't get you far. Attacking inerrancy won't get you far. Attacking the ethics of the biblical portrayal of God won't get you anywhere. Attacking various other issues often just highlights your ignorance. If you ever succeed in learning that lesson, you'll be a much more efficient apologist for atheism, seeing as how you specialize in counter-Christianity apologetics. That said, and your "pattern" debunked, I think I can safely say that you must know you're losing in order to resort to tactics like this. Tony: Well, I have shown two examples of JB abandoning his base. So, he converts to Christianity and finds an argument to use. Then he finds new arguments he likes, and realizes his old arguments were wrong. So, to him, he’s being reasonable. He’s dropping ideas he realizes are bunk in favor of ideas that are right. What’s wrong with that? Well, from an outsider’s perspective, it can be seen that, get ready, from his own testimonial, we can conclude that all of his current arguments were formed while he was a Christian! Need I even say more than "genetic fallacy"? Is Tony's goal here to see how many blunders he can make in as short a section of text as is humanly possible? Tony: So, while evaluating the validity of his current arguments, he was biased in favor of them. For me, my argument for “conversion” was that there was no evidence, and that’s still my strongest argument. Pfft, as you've said, you'd accept no evidence. And even if that was an exaggeration on your part, the only evidence you would accept is miraculous intervention before your very eyes. As for your conversion, well, we'll get to that shortly. Tony: In case you didn’t know, human brains are wired so to fit fit the evidence into their current beliefs. It’s extremely hard to convince yourself that you’re wrong. Contradict yourself much? First you complain that I change my position too much, then you base your argument on the fact that beliefs are incredibly hard to change? Tony: So, for JB, finding new arguments that he likes isn’t that hard, since, by nature, he’s pre-disposed to doubt them less than arguments against his religion. Then, once he has these new, better arguments, he can look at his old ones, the ones that he used to base his whole belief system off of, and look at that more skeptically without threatening his belief system. So, when looking at his history arguments, you have to keep in mind that that he’s trying to make then work, instead of seeing whether they’re valid. This is why he uses the cultural arguments. I don’t think that, if he thought about it objectively, he’d take those arguments seriously. Nice well-poisoning. You've completed the unholy trifecta of irrelevant excretory patterns. Shall we register that so that you can put it on your mantle between the two Screwball Awards you've earned already? Now, if you want to play "conversion story" games, mind if we do yours, too? ("What's good for the gander is good for the dodo"--isn't that how the saying goes?) After all, you seem to have indicated that your repudiation of theism was quite the intellectual matter. Well, I've taken the liberty of archiving your testimony, and you and readers alike may read it here. I neglected to fix Tony's spelling and grammar; hence, it looks like it was typed by a dying narwhal. My apologies to those who, like me, can't stand such on the part of a native speaker of the English language without a learning disability. To summarize, you were a highly nominal Roman Catholic (which makes your ineptness with handling the Catholic stance on abortion earlier all the more inexcusable). You state that you wavered between agnosticism and your Christian background, yet you swiftly contradict yourself in the telling of the tale by stating that you're "100% sure" that you "believed in [G]od without question". You despised going to church and were the very image of a non-devout "believer" (in truth, you weren't one, and I'm not just saying that because you eventually deconverted). In short, you were the spitting image of what's sometimes been labeled a "pew-sitter". You were so ill-informed at the time that atheism had never even occurred to you, as it seems, despite your profession to have been a borderline agnostic. Upon finding out that atheists existed, you quickly threw in your lot with them. Doesn't sound like all too much intellectual examination of the case was involved there, either. After your deconversion, you were too frightened of familial repercussions to inform your parents, but upon your sister's prodding, the truth was revealed to her and, through her, to your parents. You made no mention of their reaction, oddly enough. One would have thought that such would be a highlighting feature of your story. By the end of eighth grade, you decided that God's existence was absolutely impossible, not just unevidenced. That admission contradicts your statement that you disbelieve in God solely because of the lack of evidence, as you've professed. After becoming a "strong atheist", you began debating and found that the Christians you knew were (in your eyes at the very least) ill-equipped to refute your contentions. From there, you lept to the conclusion that you could "beat any [C]hristian in a debate"--not exactly the humblest proposition, nor true. You finish by stating that you had been victorious in all of your debates up to that point (9 October 2005). First of all, I'll point out that you, like myself, came from a nominally Christian background, though yours was more churchgoing. I converted from it to Christianity; you mistook it for Christianity and jumped ship the first chance you got. In addition, I'll point out that in parallel to the charge you've leveled against me, all of your argumentation appears to have been formulated after you became an atheist. That is, unless you want to call this "argumentation": So, now that i knew some people didn't believed in god, i thought about wether or not it made sence. I decided it didn't, so i became atheist.
Translation into proper English with correct spelling: So, now that I knew that some people don't believe in God, I thought about whether or not it [presumably theism] made sense. I decided that it didn't, so I became an atheist.
On what basis, then, do you claim superiority? That your belief modification involved a proposition more fundamental to your worldview? From the sounds of it, it doesn't seem like theism was really a large part of your worldview; more like the grainy, dim background in the distance. Else, you would've been a more devout Catholic and wouldn't have been "in a state between agnosticism and [C]hristianity". To get to the point, the least you could do if you're going to engage in ad hominem arguments is to avoid being a hypocrite in doing so.
"I's Incompetent? Da'ahhh... You Am, Too!" JB: Tony, I recommend that you avoid talking about the Bible (and the details of religion in general, really). You never fare as well on those issues, because you've neglected to take even the remotest interest in educating yourself, nor do you have exceptional critical thinking skills. Your anti-biblical bias just keeps blasting through the shroud behind which you attempt to conceal it. You simply don't have the requisite level of understanding to handle the issues as a truly informed individual, and so you'd do best to acknowledge that, take a humility pill, and seek to learn the basics of how to approach the text before you brutalize it. Tony: Do you realize exactly how hard I’m laughing right now? In one giant logical fallacy you insulted my reasoning abilities? You, who, after admitting that the Bible and evolution don’t contradict, still grasp onto the soundly defeated young-earth creationism view, despite being unable to answer my evolution posts with anything more than “But what if this less than 1 in a hundred minority group of scientists who I saw at a conference are right? Wouldn’t it trump the evolution arguments?” [...] JB, or anybody else, if you want me to explain exactly why RATE must be wrong, I’ll be willing to send you an E-mail detailing all the math. Seems you're still quite unclear on just about everything I've ever said, sadly. First of all, my position on evolution, as I've explained, is that while I regard the YEC position to be both the most biblically sound and the most scientifically advantageous position, I do not condemn my brethren who disagree. Furthermore, I don't consider the issue to be of paramount importance. It's down on the list below nuances of eschatology and the Arminianism-Calvinism debate. In addition to that, I acknowledge my status as a non-expert on the issues, and that I may well be wrong. (If I'm wrong about the issue, really, what have I lost in the big picture, provided that Christianity is true? I may have been misled, but at least I refrained from spreading my wrongness much and attempted to conduct myself with an air of humility. And if atheism is true, well, then I'm delusional, but no more delusional for my creationism than for my overall worldview.) How often do you see me making posts detailing my position on the creation-evolution issue? How often do you see me mocking evolutionists, or engaging in large-scale criticism of what they have to say, presuming myself better informed? Quite, quite rarely. And therein lies one of the main differences between our mindsets, Tony. I, when confronted with an area wherein my expertise does not rest, will freely concede such, and I will refrain from speaking as an authority on the matter to any degree that exceeds the proportion to which I do have a grasp of the issues. You, on the other hand, when confronted with an area in which you would most definitely flunk, presume yourself fully capable of weighing the arguments as though you are yourself such an expert, and you have no problem with speaking arrogantly on a matter wherein you really don't even have the basics and have even said that you don't care about the basics but intend to speak authoritatively on the issue anyway. So rather than accuse me of hypocrisy, how about trying to digest my advice? You'd gain a lot of respect from me by doing so, and the time might actually come when I'd be more willing to discuss the issues with you, knowing that you've at least had the humility to learn first, lecture later. As for RATE issues, sure, send me that e-mail. I'll gladly read it. I'm not entirely convinced of your comprehension of the findings the team has claimed to have made, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the matter until I see what you have to say. And yes, Tony, I do maintain that if they are correct, then every piece of evidence you've cited in favor of your position is relegated to a status of mere scientific curiosity, but could no longer possibly lead to the conclusions you draw from it. That's a big if, and I wholeheartedly acknowledge that. All I've ever asked you to do is to say, "You know, you're right, if those people are correct, then my arguments don't hold much water. And since the issue is obviously so important to me, I'll be willing to take a look at properly evaluating what they have to say. Would you be willing to help me do so?" By the way, Tony, since you seem so obsessed with the creation-evolution debate, would you like to see about arranging one for you to have here after we finish with this abortion discussion? I'm sure there are quite a few specialists in the topic who wouldn't mind taking you on. Tony: You have no room to criticize me for reasoning that God doesn’t conform to human culture when you believe in creationism, well, just because. You're astounding. And I mean that in the sense that your ignorance rarely fails to astound me. Tony: Also, My “anti-biblical bias” is simply the logical position. I bet if you asked Darwin he would say that it’s reasonable to take the evidence for evolution skeptically. Even to the point of an anti-evolution bias. If he did, he'd be wrong. (Funny, though, how mercilessly mocked any with such a skeptical attitude are these days, if they aim it in that direction.) 'Twould be better for old Charlie to recommend treating the issue objectively and not letting personal distaste for his position cloud your judgment. He would also recommend looking at the relevant data. All of those things are precisely what I'm asking you to do before you regard yourself as competent to rant about the Bible and about how unfair you think the God whom it portrays is.
Length Dance ARU, strangely enough, felt like complaining about my taunts to my opponents regarding length and content. I'll first reiterate my initial statement: JB: Here is my prediction: my opponents are, most likely, going to ignore the bulk of the material I've supplied in this critique, pretending it to be "irrelevant" without actually being capable of giving substantial reason why. As a result, their responses promise to be significantly shorter than either portion of this post. I challenge them, however, to prove me wrong by doing an outstanding job that dives into the detail even more deeply than I have in order to triumph. Technically speaking, I challenged my adversaries to be detailed, not necessarily lengthy. However, my contention was that if their responses were as brief as I feared they might be, they would be so by lacking sufficient depth. I honestly don't want a debate against foes who aren't going to do their part to deal with the material and make their case. That's one reason why I look forward to future debates with ARU on various subjects, after I've done more reading on this or that. He strikes me as the sort who's less prone to fall prey to that. Tony, on the other hand... Well, as it turns out, he did succeed in rising a bit above himself and actually stepping up to the plate for a change, both in length and depth. I was pleasantly surprised. As for Mary... I believe I've already expressed my views on her performance here. I am of the position that in a debate, opponents are at least partly obligated to reply to one another with the greatest level of detail possible, refuting each point, even if only tangentially relevant. This is one reason (but not the sole one) why my replies tend to be so long. In addition, the length of time allowed for response-writing in some of the earlier rounds was no less than massive. I was having fun, and so indulged myself additionally by adding greater depth to peripheral points. I've done so a bit less this time around, I think, because I'm more concerned about the time. Much of what I did last involved biblical or nepheshological issues, so I may well have botched those. Reading back over my initial statement, I believe I can understand why ARU interpreted it in the manner that he did. The order of the sentences does give a bit of an impression as to the challenge emphasizing length to a greater deal than I intended. I take responsibility for that degree. Hopefully, I have now explained myself sufficiently. That said, I feel the urge to respond to his statements specifically, or at least to reiterate them in order for the reader to examine them again. First, he quoted Ecclesiastes 6:11, which says in the NIV: The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?
Clever use. The first thing I'll note is that this reading is by no means universal. In the Modern KJV (the translation I typically use), we have instead: Since there are many things that increase vanity, how is man the better?
In my examination of the Hebrew text, the crucial turning point appears to be the rendering of dabarim, which may alternately mean "words" or "things". In the literary context, the latter translation appears to be preferable. At any rate, the context of the passage is also explicitly identified as an "under the sun" scenario (cf. Ecclesiastes 6:1,12), which in Ecclesiastes denotes the portions that pontificate on the meaning of life when lived without God in view. This is a primary reason for always exercising even greater caution when lifting verses from Ecclesiastes. Such as, for example, one of my favorites during elections: The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. (Ecclesiastes 10:2, NIV)
Two can play at the teasing game. ARU: Further evidence your end challenge is a spacious joke. Real conclusion: responding to what is admittedly predominantly a side show is therefore a waste of time you personally chose to engage in for subjective reasons and not a serious challenge to opponents to outdo you in length... when mere substance will do. I do hope you were joking. As I've noted, I was primarily challenging my opponents to outdo me in depth, with length being merely a side-effect of doing so. And yes, I did (and do) believe that the vast majority of the issues Tony raised constitute a sideshow for the debate. However, I'm more than happy to engage them. Perhaps I ought not, but I have a difficult time resisting the urge to let a point go unanswered, even when it is of little relevance. When the closing statement rolls around, though, I intend to only do a real summary of the important aspects of the debate. ARU: [*censored*]... just a little over seven pages. I clearly lose. I will say it took some concerted effort to digest some 65 plus pages (both rounds and comments) of JB going on and on about the same refutable point. I should get some kind of award for that. Let's take a closer look, shall we? Consider that typically, the responses are to both participants, so we'll add the length of your initial response to Kameron onto that seven pages, bringing us up to around eight pages. We may also note that frequently, when quoting the both of us, you used only partial quotations. When I regard length, often the vast majority of an opponent's entire piece is incorporated into my response--at the very least, everything to which I respond. If we were to replace your partial quotations with the full ones, assuredly length would increase by at least several pages. I'll estimate an increase of at least three to five pages, possibly more, bringing your entry's length up a great deal. Factor in the fact that there were many things in mine to which you didn't respond in depth (since you didn't have a need to, although I suspect there was much with which you disagreed), and we can up the length again, bringing yours possibly into the length range to which I challenged my opponents, or at least to within a few pages of that. So no, you don't lose. At least... not on those grounds.
It's the End of the Entry As We Know It (Everbody Sing Along!) I've rambled for so long that I'm very nearly out of words. I'm not entirely sure just how long this ended up being, but if you actually read the entire thing, you've earned my commendations, especially if you've done so in an honest manner. I'm not going to summarize my case this time. I don't intend to do a summary again until the closing statement, since that's what it's for. I'll just mention that I consider the arguments pertaining to personhood to be the most central aspect of this post. It seems as though that issue is the real point of contention now. I also had a lot of fun mocking my adversaries. But that's nothing too new. Especially since I know that most of them tend to either deserve it in the extreme, or else are simply capable of exchanging this sort of banter back and forth without bursting into tears. Hmkx !Ty hwhy
hnWbtW t[D wyPm That concludes what I have to say for now. So long, and thanks for all the fish. | 
