A little blog just deviating from my 'Relusion' and Existence of God series at the moment to bring up a question and answer what I think must be undeniably the case. It has been rattling me all day, because sadly there has been another miscarraige in the family just when it all looked like it was good to go and we started to get excited by the prospect of another.
To my question at hand then:
When is a human, human?
Emotion considerations aside, given examples like above, women having to give birth to stillborn or fetuses makes it all painstaking clear to philosophical arguments against the religious concensus that abortion and use of embroyonic stem cells that a baby has human value whilst in the womb, from conception. That is clear.
However, perhaps in the case of abortion, exceptions can be made for the obvious (life threatening to the mother) - but also if it is certain the baby cannot 'feel' pain, or does not experience anything, then maybe it can be justified.
This though, is a grey area that I won't go into today, but something to think about.
Reading Fr Peter's blog, it again made me think about Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion".
Stricly, he doesn't say God does not exist, but that it is very very, very unlikely.
This is in mind then with Dawkins being atheist, perhaps this explains why atheists pray and even believe in God? ... or as Dawkins likes to put it "believe in belief".
I've never heard anything so ridiculous from an educated man. "believe in belief" - what does that mean? Does he mean "believer"? It just makes no sense to me.
(You can read Fr Peter's blog here.)
To my question at hand then:
When is a human, human?
Emotion considerations aside, given examples like above, women having to give birth to stillborn or fetuses makes it all painstaking clear to philosophical arguments against the religious concensus that abortion and use of embroyonic stem cells that a baby has human value whilst in the womb, from conception. That is clear.
However, perhaps in the case of abortion, exceptions can be made for the obvious (life threatening to the mother) - but also if it is certain the baby cannot 'feel' pain, or does not experience anything, then maybe it can be justified.
This though, is a grey area that I won't go into today, but something to think about.
Reading Fr Peter's blog, it again made me think about Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion".
Stricly, he doesn't say God does not exist, but that it is very very, very unlikely.
This is in mind then with Dawkins being atheist, perhaps this explains why atheists pray and even believe in God? ... or as Dawkins likes to put it "believe in belief".
I've never heard anything so ridiculous from an educated man. "believe in belief" - what does that mean? Does he mean "believer"? It just makes no sense to me.
(You can read Fr Peter's blog here.)
Posts
3 comments:
You've given no context to Dawkins' quote there, can't really judge the validity of a quote when its just three words long.
@anon:
Dawkins, 2006, p.136 (and also see chapter 4, "Why there is almost certainly no God): "God, though technically not disprovable, is very very improbable indeed."
Furthermore, p.137-8: "The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving God does not exist. ... The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance."
He also states that 'come about by chance' is used by many as another way of saying it was intelligently designed. Darwinism, he argues shows how wrong this is. (also found on page 138 of the 2006 paperback edition)
And another thing, this blog was somewhat a bit personal considering the human life issue and the miscarraige, so I had not intended this blog to be particularly a scholarly article.
Nevertheless, you asked and I delivered.
By the way, you should try reading Dawkins, its a good read!
@ anon: If you are on about "believe in belief" quote, please turn your eye to page 395 of the book.
Atheist under a 'pious facade' he says believe in belief. In other words, they have a 'soft spot' for what he claims as 'irrational belief' - that is your supernatural, belief in God, etc.
This is in context with religion's ability to console, that God plays a consoling role in people's lives.
My point here is exactly this:
Why does he bother to call them Atheists in the first place? Yes they are frauds if they "believe in belief" (if you want to accept that term), but rather isn't a better term, a 'closet believer' (my term), that is someone who really does believe who chooses not to acknowledge it, in the same way homosexual men who haven't "come out".
I hope this answers any questions you had in doubt.
Post a Comment