Well after this post every one, at both sides of the abortion debate will be p….., I man teed off with me, The problem, as I see it, that the Anti-Abortion side by defining “life” to begin at conception,, all abortions are murder and one should submit to God’s authority, no compromise and the Pro Choice’ side , At least a good part of them, wants no restrictions what so ever, and leave the authority totally up to the pregnant woman. Wouldn’t life be simple if everything was so black and white. Let’s examine the factors which should be considered: When does human life begin, Birth defects, overpopulation, sex selection, social circumstances, rape, underground dangerous abortions, adoption rates, racial tensions, surplus of males over females, rejected children growing up in asocial environments. We all want healthy babies, who are wanted and loved growing up in a sustainable environment, with a decent standard of living, the best education to create worthwhile adult citizen, useful to society. What can we do? First of all leave religion out of this discussion, it won’t be helpful if people dig out texts from an interesting ancient historical book that is thoroughly outdated and does not fit in modern society. If you are not willing to do that, do not read any further. Next, let us scientifically determine when a baby becomes a viable human being, this in itself is controversial and can probably range from 7 to 22 weeks depending on ones opinion, but like any other differences of opinion, we solve by that by compromise. I am sure that we can find an answer that most of us can live with, not by vote but by using rational thinking. This time span must be sufficient so that the mother has plenty of time to make that decision. It must be her decision only. No family member, nor medical personnel, nor the government should make it for her, unless she is totally incapable and not able to recover from that (brain dead for example) We can set up alternatives is such cases. Then establish a level of incurable birth defects resulting in a useless life. This should be flexible and again a procedure established which prevents the “slippery slopes” of excesses. Yes it won’t be easy, and will change from time to time when medical knowledge advances. If there is a possibility of sex selection becoming a problem because of an over population of males, we can look at the possibility of making it illegal to disclose the sex of the baby until the allowed time period is closed. It will be “leaky” but it might help. All this can’t be rigid because there are always unforeseen circumstances and changes in society to be taken into account. These cases must be resolved by special appointed committees and perhaps court decisions. Many people resent government regulations, since they are often politically inspired but they are necessary and do tend to change under the pressure of public opinion. Some of you who have been following my website www.origin-of-religion.com have probably noticed that my opinion has changed somewhat in time because of the many inputs and opinions of many people. I am not afraid to change my opinion when I have more information to base it on. I call that maturing. Now I am ready to receive the wrath from both sides of the spectrum. I am ready to dive under my desk when the screen starts throwing rotten tomatoes at me. J
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
• a particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp. one held by a specified person or society
• the extent to which an action is right or wrong (Dictionary)
We have trouble debating morality because it has a different meaning for believers and non-believers. So since we view morality in a different context we can never have a logical argument about it. One word can have different meanings, to give an example The expression “this is a wild horse” means different things in different contexts. In one context it can mean “an untamed horse” in another “ a trained horse gone out of control”. With “morality” we have a similar problem. For the unbeliever the dictionary meaning, as stated above, is what they mean in a discussion. For the believer however, morality is firmly tied to God, God created morality thus there is no morality without God, so they are always correct in their mind when they state: ”atheist have no morality” and are as firm in that conclusion as they are in belief in God.
Morality thus defined, is always “good” there cannot be a bad morality so therefor “bad morality’ in their terms is “no morality” unarguably. This problem has been attempted to be solved by using “subjective“ or “objective” morality, which also creates a problem. Many papers have been written arguing about the meaning of those as well.
Moral objectivism may refer to:
Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true. or
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.
Believers will not accept that since again they are firmly convinced that morality is subject to God’s word. How do we get out of this conundrum? By simply not using the “loaded” word “morality”. We can call a “system of values and principles of conduct held by society” either “Laws” or “Rules”. Now there are good laws or rules and bad ones, so let us discuss whether “Benificial Laws” or “Beneficial Rules” can possibly written by man or do they have to be written by God. To me the answer is obvious.
More and more studies are being done on the claims of Extra Sensory Perception (ESP). We now are getting more information of why some people think that there is a sixth sense. Slowly we are finding out how our brain handles the input of our 5 senses and that the experience of a sixth sense is just an illusion we don’t have an explanation for yet. So far, the many pseudo scientist, who claim to have “proven” the existence of a sixth sense have not been able to bring definite proof to the table but are finding out that their proof isn’t airtight. Other scientist are slowly unraveling the mysteries of the Brain are coming closer to the conclusion that some of the unexplained phenomena are functions of our regular five senses.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne under the leadership of Piers Howards. conducted a number of studies which show that people can regularly detect changes without necessarily being able to identify what has changed. The paper “Detecting Unidentified Changes” was published January 13, 2014 in the on-line journal PLUS_ONE. This phenomena, called “change blindness” has been identified before but this is the first scientific study to verify its exact nature, It gives the person the impression that they know something “without knowing”, in other words knowing something but has no idea why or how he/she knows it. The persons who experienced this phenomena felt that is was similar to a sixth sense, by the fact that they sense information that did not have before and thus thought it to be a “magic” way of receiving that information. The study showed that the sensing ability is real but has nothing to do with a magic 6th sense and can be explained as a known process.
Believers of all religions cannot say “I don’t know” when asked questions such as “how did the universe come into existence”. They will “choke” on it. They have an answer for everything: “God”(or it’s equivalent). Unbelievers can readily admit that they “Don’t know” without having to resort to wild guesses that they cannot prove. There is a good chance, as the past has proved, that we eventually find the answers to unexplained phenomena. Real believers often hang on to their speculations even if abundant evidence showed these to be erroneous. The Flat Earth Society (IFRS) still exists.
Believers make the wrong assumption that it is a simple choice out of two, there is a God or there isn’t one and although the burden of proof is on the claimant, they turn this upside down by challenging the opposition to “prove” that God doesn’t exist. The wrong principle here is that it is not a choice between two principles, even some atheists and agnostics fall for that presumption, but it is a choice between one position “nothing” and other possibilities, to name a few: Magic, An always existing universe, God, A cosmic intelligence, Multi-universes, Quantum physic particles and so on and on, take your pick. It is NOT a simple comparing “apples to oranges” question. It is between “nothing” (one value that we absolutely know) and “anything else” having no idea what that is. “God” is only one possibility of an infinite number of choices. The honest true answer to what that other possibility is: “I don’t know”. By claiming to be an Unbeliever, because there is no possible empirical (verifiable by observation or experience rather than pure logic, see dictionary) evidence for anything supernatural, I do NOT indicate that I believe ”there is no God” or “may be there is one” because that would mean I have chosen one specific possibility of an infinite number of choices and I haven’t. I must admit that some Atheists and most Agnostics have made that mistaken choice so I don’t use these terms for my point of view. I believe “Unbeliever” or “Non-believer” to be a better choice. It is a subtle distinction but it is an important one to make. So once you ask me “how was the universe created” I can give you the real true answer “I don’t know” and one cannot then require that I “prove” that “anything” doesn’t exist. Judging by what happened in the past with science discoveries making religious positions obsolete (the Sun goes around the Earth, for example) I would think a better answer would be “I don’t know YET” rather than “GOD did it”. So, be honest and truthful when you answer such questions rather than speculate, and say “I don’t know”. I dare you!