Michael Egnor: The cowardice of science organizations on when life begins

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 23, 2019

Culture, Ethics, Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The scientific issues regarding the beginning and nature of human life were settled in the early 19th century:

… the science regarding the beginning of human life is settled and has been settled for 200 years. There is no debate on the science. There remain profound questions of ethics, law, and public policy regarding respect for him in life, which are valid issues for debate. There remain no questions regarding the science of the beginning of human life.
Where are the major scientific organizations on this issue? Why has not the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Medical Association stated clearly and publicly the basic scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization? The answer is obvious: many scientists in these organizations are willing to do what it takes to advance their ideology, and scientists who do understand and embrace the truth about the beginning of human life are generally too cowardly to press the issue. It’s an enormous scandal.
Michael Egnor, “What the Abortion Debate Tells Us About Integrity in Science” at Evolution News and Science Today

Maybe it relates to foolish ideas about the origin of life in general.

See also: The junk science of the abortion lobby Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults (Michael Egnor)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

The other side of the question is whether you believe you have the right to impose your will on another to the extent that you are entitled to force a woman to carry to term a child she does not want, especially in the (relatively rare) case that it is the product of rape, with all the physical and psychological stresses that entails. I still believe the right to life should attach to any detectable individual, however early it's state of development. But in my view any pro-lifer should read philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson's paper A Defense Of Abortion if they want to reach a rational and considered conclusion on the subject.Seversky_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

BB, you full well know the claim, it's my body. That the unborn child is male shows directly that this is wrong, if proof were needed. A similar point can be made regarding blood types etc. KFkairosfocus_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

"I just don’t believe that the rights of the zygote are comparable to the rights of the woman." BB, Based on what principle or philosophy? Since you agree this is comparing one human life to another. Why is one more valuable to you than the other? What scientific method have you applied to this position? What logic? Andrewasauber_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

KF
BB, that a female mother has a male child growing within — as you know or should know — directly implies a different human life, so the oh it’s a parasitical lump of flesh suggestion fails.
As I have never suggested that it is a parasitic lump of flesh, whether the zygote has two Z or an X and a Y is not relevant.
The evasions would be amusing, if they were not so sad and loaded with implications for the death of a million more of our unborn living posterity in the womb per week. You are managing to show us how dehumanisation leads to robbing of life, the first right.
There has been no evasion. I have acknowledged that all human life begins as a zygote. I just don't believe that the rights of the zygote are comparable to the rights of the woman. I am happy that the use of birth control is increasing and the abortion rates are decreasing. But I am not going to judge any woman who decides to have an abortion.Brother Brian_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

BB, that a female mother has a male child growing within -- as you know or should know -- directly implies a different human life, so the oh it's a parasitical lump of flesh suggestion fails. The zygote is the point where a new human life begins, period. The evasions would be amusing, if they were not so sad and loaded with implications for the death of a million more of our unborn living posterity in the womb per week. You are managing to show us how dehumanisation leads to robbing of life, the first right. KFkairosfocus_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

7 Reasons | Full Abortion Movie 2019 (HQ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB1vV2EgS5A&list=PLF7A795CE0A9857FE&index=24 180 – movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI&list=PLF7A795CE0A9857FE&index=3 Thank you for the links, BA77. Andrewasauber_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

KF
BB, by personalising, you are ducking the obvious fact; one BTW established long since by embryology and never overturned since. When egg and sperm cells fuse to form a zygote, a new human life begins. A bit more than half the time, the child is not even the same sex as his mother.
I have no idea why you think it is important that the fetus may be a different sex than the mother. Yes, once a zygote is formed, it has the potential to develop into a functioning human being. So what? Nature prevents this from happening on a daily basis. I see no moral problem with using the IUD or the pill to prevent this zygote from becoming implanted in the uterus. Any arguments against this are religious ones, and your religious beliefs are not binding on me or anyone else.
The real question, then, is not the humanity of the unborn child from his or her earliest stages of development but our view on the moral worth of a human being.
I don't agree. It is about a balancing of rights between the woman and the fetus. I am comfortable with the fact that we as a society value a woman's rights higher than those of the fetus.
Where, it is obvious that evolutionary materialistic scientism, atheism and fellow travellers have undermined morality in general and the respect due to mother, father and child from the outset of a new life.
That is not obvious. It is just your opinion.
But then, as reasoning is morally governed through undeniable duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including the avoidance of reckless harm or endangerment), fairness, justice etc, the general amorality of evolutionary materialism — which is self-refuting and thus self-falsifying — will undermine ability to reason soundly, justly and prudently also.
Again, your are voicing an opinion, not fact. My opinion is different than yours. And I sleep quite soundly at night as a result of my opinions.
The results of the dominance of this ideology and its fellow travellers are visible all around us: chaos and the corrupting taint of blood guilt from the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb.
Lower violence rates, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, greater acceptance and tolerance of others, ever decreasing abortion rates, improved health care, equal rights for women and minorities, increased emphasis on workplace safety, legalization of same sex marriage, less acceptance of spousal abuse and sexual assaults, improved environmental conditions in western countries, increased access to safe and reliable birth control, Access to safe drinking water and food, better access to accurate information on sex and health, etc. If this is chaos, I am all in favour of it.Brother Brian_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
It is my understanding that in the first few months the nervous system is not sufficiently develop to be self aware or to perceive pain.
So what? Being a human is a process in which the beginning is very important. And the beginning is where humans are the most vulnerable and should be protected by all. Once a woman gets pregnant it is no longer just her body. Hers is a shared body.ET_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Asauber as to: "it takes a little fortitude to break out" of the culture of death. You may appreciate this. It appears that many young people, contrary to the crusty ole dogmatic atheists that we deal with here on UD, are much more open, and they have not hardened their hearts against the unborn. And they will still listen to reason, and thus change their minds and hearts.
7 Reasons | Full Abortion Movie 2019 (HQ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB1vV2EgS5A&list=PLF7A795CE0A9857FE&index=24 180 - movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI&list=PLF7A795CE0A9857FE&index=3
bornagain77_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

To put it bluntly, abortion supporters are chasing affirmations of their lifestyles by being an enthusiastic organs of the Culture of Death. I admit it takes a little fortitude to break out (which is what the OP is about), but staying in it is not going to do you any good. Andrewasauber_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

BB
It is my understanding that in the first few months the nervous system is not sufficiently develop to be self aware or to perceive pain.
If a human being is not self-aware (unconscious) and is not feeling pain (drugged), then it is ok to kill him or her?Silver Asiatic_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

BB
Well, I doubt very much she would be charged if she wasn’t shot. And I am pretty sure it is reasonable to expect not to be shot just because you have an argument with someone else.
You're resorting to sophistry. The reason she was charged was not, as you said, because she was shot. It was because she put her unborn child at risk.
Let’s look at it in a different way. Let’s assume that you and I get in an argument. As a result I pull a gun, that you didn’t know I had, and shoot you. The bullet passes through your body and kills the person standing behind you. Are you guilty of manslaughter?
It's good that you compare the death of the unborn child to the death of a person standing behind me. But other than that, it's a false equivalency. The mother has a responsibility to care for the child she is carrying. You think that this idea is "insanity" but currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspxSilver Asiatic_{June 28, 2019
June
06
Jun
28
28
2019
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

BB, by personalising, you are ducking the obvious fact; one BTW established long since by embryology and never overturned since. When egg and sperm cells fuse to form a zygote, a new human life begins. A bit more than half the time, the child is not even the same sex as his mother. The real question, then, is not the humanity of the unborn child from his or her earliest stages of development but our view on the moral worth of a human being. Where, it is obvious that evolutionary materialistic scientism, atheism and fellow travellers have undermined morality in general and the respect due to mother, father and child from the outset of a new life. But then, as reasoning is morally governed through undeniable duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including the avoidance of reckless harm or endangerment), fairness, justice etc, the general amorality of evolutionary materialism -- which is self-refuting and thus self-falsifying -- will undermine ability to reason soundly, justly and prudently also. The results of the dominance of this ideology and its fellow travellers are visible all around us: chaos and the corrupting taint of blood guilt from the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

SA
It is incorrect to say the got charged with manslaughter “because she got shot by someone else”
Well, I doubt very much she would be charged if she wasn’t shot. And I am pretty sure it is reasonable to expect not to be shot just because you have an argument with someone else. Let’s look at it in a different way. Let’s assume that you and I get in an argument. As a result I pull a gun, that you didn’t know I had, and shoot you. The bullet passes through your body and kills the person standing behind you. Are you guilty of manslaughter?Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

SA
You asked me to draw a line but you give a range of “a few months” and after that it is illegal? I don’t see you as being consistent. Why is it a problem for you after a number or “a few” months? Why not one month? What is the criteria, or why would you be opposed to abortion in any case?
I base it on my admittedly limited knowledge of embryonic development. It is my understanding that in the first few months the nervous system is not sufficiently develop to be self aware or to perceive pain. Of course I could be in error, which is why I said that I would leave that decision up to the people who are experts in embryonic development. Certainly not you, me, KF or BS77.Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

BB
My point was that it is ludicrous to charge a woman with manslaughter because she got shot by someone else.
Again, you're distorting what happened and that speaks to the unreasonableness of your view. You're calling it "insane". So why not just say what happened? It is incorrect to say the got charged with manslaughter "because she got shot by someone else". That is not the reason and you know it. So why twist what happened to exaggerate your point?Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

BB
Personally, I don’t think that abortions should be allowed after the first few months unless the woman’s life was at risk.
You asked me to draw a line but you give a range of "a few months" and after that it is illegal? I don't see you as being consistent. Why is it a problem for you after a number or "a few" months? Why not one month? What is the criteria, or why would you be opposed to abortion in any case?Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

SA
I would call that a non answer.
Taking circumstances into consideration is not a non-answer. Life isn’t black and white. Personally, I don’t think that abortions should be allowed after the first few months unless the woman’s life was at risk. But I could even envision some exceptions to this.Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

SA
I’m sorry I thought you meant that the insanity had to do with charging the woman who put her child at risk.
The woman who put her child at risk was the one who was carrying a gun.
If she is DWI for example, and there is a child in her car? She will be charged in a similar manner.
Who said anything about DWI? I was just talking about an at-fault accident. Following too close, illegal lane change, etc. Driving, by it’s nature, is one of the most dangerous things that any of us do. As such, shouldn’t a woman who partakes in this type of risky behaviour and suffers the loss of a pregnancy be charged? I don’t know the stats. But I would be willing to bet that more women suffer the loss of a fetus due to car accidents than due to arguments.
Your attempts at showing that there are gray areas,...
My point was that it is ludicrous to charge a woman with manslaughter because she got shot by someone else.Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

BB
SA Presumably you would get worked up if it occurs later in pregnancy, right? BB That would depend on the risk to the mother of continuing the pregnancy. However, even if the likely outcome was the woman’s death, if she wanted to continue the pregnancy I would support her decision.
I would call that a non answer. Or else you're saying "no". You presented "early in pregnancy" as a qualifier but when I asked about "later in pregnancy", you are ambiguous. I don't think you'd get worked up at all, right?Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

BB
So, you think it is reasonable to charge the woman who got shot with manslaughter (and be sentenced to up to 20 years) but not to charge the woman who pulled the trigger.
I'm sorry I thought you meant that the insanity had to do with charging the woman who put her child at risk. But you're concerned about the woman who pulled the trigger. If so, I'll agree. The other woman should have been charged.
What if she got in a car accident in which she was at fault and the fetus died?
If she is DWI for example, and there is a child in her car? She will be charged in a similar manner.
In your world, the appropriate thing to do would be to confine all pregnant women, against their will, until they gave birth.
Your attempts at showing that there are gray areas, followed by some moral outrage regarding things I never said, just tell me that your view is not reasonable. There should be no need to exaggerate the point as you've done.Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

SA
Presumably you would get worked up if it occurs later in pregnancy, right?
That would depend on the risk to the mother of continuing the pregnancy. However, even if the likely outcome was the woman’s death, if she wanted to continue the pregnancy I would support her decision.Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

SA
I didn’t find that insane at all, in fact, quite reasonable.
So, you think it is reasonable to charge the woman who got shot with manslaughter (and be sentenced to up to 20 years) but not to charge the woman who pulled the trigger. You and I obviously come from two different worlds. I prefer to live in my world. But even if we accept your premise, where do you draw the line? What if she got in a car accident in which she was at fault and the fetus died? Driving is known to carry risks. What if she miscarried while having sex? What if she was a pregnant police officer and miscarried while performing her job? What if the woman had several cats and had a spontaneous abortion due to a cat scratch? In your world, the appropriate thing to do would be to confine all pregnant women, against their will, until they gave birth. Again, I don’t like your world.Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

BB
To demonstrate how insane the absolutist version of the right to life movement can be, I refer you to a recent Alabama news item.
I didn't find that insane at all, in fact, quite reasonable. The law is just saying that a pregnant woman has a greater responsibility to avoid that which would put her child at risk of death. Engaging someone in a fight while carrying a child is a very dangerous activity.
"It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby,"
It's reckless behavior that put the life of the child at risk. A civilized society will protect children from such things.Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

BB
And any woman who chooses to have an abortion early in a pregnancy has my support. I simply can’t get myself worked up over it.
Presumably you would get worked up if it occurs later in pregnancy, right?Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Bob
I think the point is that different people have different views on when to call a foetus a person, i.e. when is “someone” actually someone.
I agree. For example, I don’t feel any guilt over a previous girlfriend using an IUD. Or with my wife who used the birth control pill before and after we got married. Even though neither necessarily prevent fertilization. And I don’t have any problem with women who choose to use the morning after pill. And any woman who chooses to have an abortion early in a pregnancy has my support. I simply can’t get myself worked up over it. Conversely, any one who chooses not to use birth control and chooses not to have an abortion also has my support. The people who don’t have my support are those who try to force their will on others. To demonstrate how insane the absolutist version of the right to life movement can be, I refer you to a recent Alabama news item. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/06/27/us/alabama-pregnant-woman-shot-in-stomach-manslaughter-indictment-trnd/index.htmlBrother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Bob
I’m not sure an evolutionary perspective is a big issue.
I see it as a huge issue that informs the debate. Why would it matter that much where we draw the line between human and non-human? Evolution says that there is no line really. It's arbitrary.
Humans are a “good” species, and that’s what we are interested in, so a person is any human.
Seriously, Bob. You're saying "humans are a good species" and there are other species that are not good? No, evolution just creates species. There is no good or bad. In evolution, humans are not 'persons'. They're just apes with slightly different developments. There is nothing special about what evolution produces. There is bacteria, plant life, birds, fish, humans, insects. All from the same source all with the same value. Your statement 'humans are a "good" species' … ??? Well, that is your justification for considering humans special in some way. But chickens are not a good species? We kill chickens all the time.
A big issues is when does one start to become human (which is relevant to the abortion debate), and I can’t see that any one clear dividing line is objectively better than any other, although it’s clear that the line has to be drawn somewhere and there are costs and benefits wherever it’s drawn.
I think you could see the problem with murdering people. So, if we draw the line at birth, you do not see the risk that we are actually murdering children who are in no way different than they are days before birth in the womb? I can fully appreciate that from an atheistic perspective, it doesn't make much difference. What are the consequences of killing children? There is no God to judge the sin. The parents felt the child would not be cared for, so it is best to kill it. How could that be "wrong"? We might decide later that we want to preserve the children, but nobody could be considered guilty for wanting to kill the child. It's part of evolution. There are no consequences in the atheistic view. If instead, God created the child and human life is sacred and loved in the eyes of the Creator, then we have a huge responsibility to care for that life and protect it, and there are huge consequences if we don't care and actually kill it. It's what theists would refer to as "The Judgement". That's when sins are put forward. So, I think people who believe in God are very careful about where lines are drawn, since we're making a judgement about what God created. When there's a belief that God doesn't exists, we put the line somewhere, debate about it, put it somewhere else. The kids who had to die because the line was wrong, it doesn't matter much. They're gone. They do not speak to us any more from eternity. There is nobody in heaven to lament their loss or to judge us for our callousness. It's just like an animal that dies, not a big deal. To me, that is the dehumanization that atheism causes, given in a very clear picture.Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

BO'H, 92:
different people have different views on when to call a foetus a person, i.e. when is “someone” actually someone.
Notice, how opinions (often manipulated by agendas using media and controlling education systems) are substituted for basic facts? The issue is that we deal with a distinct human life, known to begin at formation of the zygote -- over 1/2 the time not the same sex as his mother -- and the willful killing of a living human being. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Bo'H, 86:
A big issues is when does one start to become human
The answer is actually obvious, as there is a clear beginning to a distinct human life: when sperm cell and egg cell fuse to form a zygote. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

"when is “someone” actually someone."? - Bob O'H Well, according to Darwinian materialists, someone is never someone. So should the arbitrary line of when we can kill someone be drawn there and should it be legal to kill Darwinian materialists, such as say Bob O'Hara and BB, since they are not really persons?
"There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again. - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 “I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.” Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0 Eagleton on Baggini on free will Excerpt: "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ There Is No Such Thing as Conscious Thought Philosopher Peter Carruthers insists that conscious thought, judgment and volition are illusions. They arise from processes of which we are forever unaware By Steve Ayan on December 20, 2018 Excerpt: Peter Carruthers, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, College Park, is an expert on the philosophy of mind,,, ,,, in 2017, he published a paper with the astonishing title of “The Illusion of Conscious Thought.”,,, Carruthers explains,,,, "I believe that the whole idea of conscious thought is an error. I came to this conclusion by following out the implications of the two of the main theories of consciousness." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/there-is-no-such-thing-as-conscious-thought/ The Consciousness Deniers - Galen Strawson - March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, . Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett. Ned Block once remarked that Dennett’s attempt to fit consciousness or “qualia” into his theory of reality “has the relation to qualia that the US Air Force had to so many Vietnamese villages: he destroys qualia in order to save them.” One of the strangest things the Deniers say is that although it seems that there is conscious experience, there isn’t really any conscious experience: the seeming is, in fact, an illusion. The trouble with this is that any such illusion is already and necessarily an actual instance of the thing said to be an illusion. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994
Dr. Dennis Bonnette, at 37:51 minute mark of following video, in applying the law of identity to the philosophy of reductive materialism, shows that Richard Dawkins does not really exist as a real person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed). Thus, in a sweet twist of poetic justice, in the atheistic materialist denying that God really exists as a real person, the atheist ends up denying that the himself really exist as a real person.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
bornagain77_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply